NY Times poll shows there's no "war on women", not even close

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do you have any familiarity with the Church's position on this issue? The church doesn't forbid its employees from using contraception for casual sex. The church just refuses to pay for it, because the church believes it's immoral. The 1st amendment clearly gives the Church that right, doesn't it?

Based on what you are saying, the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway, unless they use a company that does not cover birth control at all. The price the employer is quoted is affected by everyone insured by the insurance provider, not just one particular employer. Obama was wrong to require Catholic organizations to directly fund the contraception. By shifting it to the insurance company, it is not specifically covered by the church.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Based on what you are saying, the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway, unless they use a company that does not cover birth control at all. The price the employer is quoted is affected by everyone insured by the insurance provider, not just one particular employer. Obama was wrong to require Catholic organizations to directly fund the contraception. By shifting it to the insurance company, it is not specifically covered by the church.

"the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway"

If it's used as medicine (which is rare), they pay for it. The vast majority of women on birth control are not using it for medicinal purposes, but for "recreation", I don't know what else to call it.

"The price the employer is quoted is affected by everyone insured by the insurance provider, not just one particular employer"

Absolutely, 100% not true. I do this for a living. In quoting premiums for the vast majority of our customers (employers), we look at how much money that employer costs us in the form of benefits. If the church was one of our customers, and now they're forced to offer more benefits than before, that means my health insurance company will have higher benefits paid than before, which means the church must pay a higher premium. In order for my profit margin (as the insurance company) to stay the same, I have to raise my rates for the Church.

Zimmy, trust me on this. The premium you pay for any insurance policy is the expected value of what the insurance company will pay out in benefits, plus expenses (rent on the building, etc) plus a small profit load. In this case, when you increase coverage, that necessarily means that the insurance company will pay more dollars out in the form of benefits, which necessarily means they increase the premium.

Think of your auto policy. Let's say you only have liability coverage, not physical damage. If you call your agent (or company) and tell them you want to add physical damage coverage to your vehicle, you don't fully expect to pay more? You have to pay more.

"By shifting it to the insurance company, it is not specifically covered by the church"

I do not know what planet you, or Obama, live on. Zimmy, from where do you think businesses get their money? From revenue, from the customer. When a business has an increase in expenses, that is almost always passed on the customer. In this case, when an insurance policy is modified to increase coverage, it is always associated with an increase in costs. Always...

If what you and Obama said was true, that would mean you could get something for nothing. The real world doesn't work that way Zimmy. When the feds take money from businesses (through tax hikes, raising the minimum wage, whatever), the businesses pass that expense on to the customer.

Zimmy, neither you nor Obama can claim that taking money from business somehow "spares" the customers of that business from paying more. It may sound great in a press conference. But it's completely ridiculous, and I bet you know that.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway"

If it's used as medicine (which is rare), they pay for it. The vast majority of women on birth control are not using it for medicinal purposes, but for "recreation", I don't know what else to call it.



Zimmy, trust me on this. .

Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine, if you know it. Otherwise, you are just speculating.

Did you work specifically in health insurance?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine, if you know it. Otherwise, you are just speculating.

Did you work specifically in health insurance?

"Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine"

Common sense, i don't have #'s. I see that you didn't provide #'s to say that more Republicans get divorced, so it's OK when you speculate I guess.

"Did you work specifically in health insurance?"

I did, and do. But even if I didn't, I'd know that the liberal "myth" that taking $$ from businesses is easier on people than taking $$ from people, is a crock. And I bet you know it, too.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine"

Common sense, i don't have #'s.
"Did you work specifically in health insurance?"

I did, and do. But even if I didn't, I'd know that the liberal "myth" that taking $$ from businesses is easier on people than taking $$ from people, is a crock. And I bet you know it, too.

Common sense Enough said

The Republican vs. Democrat divorce rate is from actual census bureau data. I haven't recently come across the original data, you could find it on their website. Here is a link that has a related simplified graph. It seems to show the same data, but doesn't give the specific numbers the census bureau did.
Chart of the Day: Red States, Blue States, and Morality Vox Nova

As far as the taking money from business "myth," your view is way too simplistic for a complex issue. Same with the insurance. You think the rates are entirely determined by a particular group? The underwriters make the decision based on the costs of insuring all of the customers, figure out probabilities and costs associated with the probabilities, then calculate the cost per customer. Yes, there are different levels of coverage. But... the rate charged to Notre Dame U as an employer is affected by the entire population insured by the insurer, including the percent who use birth control, viagra, eat cheese steaks and fries 4 days a week, etc.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Common sense Enough said

The Republican vs. Democrat divorce rate is from actual census bureau data. I haven't recently come across the original data, you could find it on their website. Here is a link that has a related simplified graph. It seems to show the same data, but doesn't give the specific numbers the census bureau did.
Chart of the Day: Red States, Blue States, and Morality Vox Nova

As far as the taking money from business "myth," your view is way too simplistic for a complex issue. Same with the insurance. You think the rates are entirely determined by a particular group? The underwriters make the decision based on the costs of insuring all of the customers, figure out probabilities and costs associated with the probabilities, then calculate the cost per customer. Yes, there are different levels of coverage. But... the rate charged to Notre Dame U as an employer is affected by the entire population insured by the insurer, including the percent who use birth control, viagra, eat cheese steaks and fries 4 days a week, etc.

Zimmy, are you serious?

Just because the divorce rate is higher in "red" states than "blue" states, doesn't mean that conservatives divorce more than liberals. Here is why...not everyone in a red state is conservative, not everyone in a blue state is liberal. The average divorce rate for a state doesn't tell you how that divorce rate breaks down by conservative versus liberal.

And if common sense isn't a valid argument, I'll hold yuo to that, and ask you to provide support for every opinion you have.

Zimmy, do you really doubt that most women who use contraception, are using it solely to avoid getting pregnant? Do you really think a majority of these women have a legitimate medical issue requiring contraception?

In any event, that doesn't matter. Because if a woman has a legitimate medical need, the church pays for the contraception. So the only women who can't get the contraception are the ones who don't need it as "medicine". So what's the argument in favor of forcing the church to fund the voluntary, recreational activities of its employees? If I want to climb Mt Everest, is my emlpoyer obligated to hire a sherpa guide for me? If I want to buy a motorcycle, is my employer obligated to pay for the helmet?