Mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds

[lao tzu]

*I believe Sam's equation ...

Apologies for speaking for Sam, who is quite obviously more than capable of speaking for himself without my help.

[Ansgar Seraph]

*I believe Sam's equation ...

Apologies for speaking for Sam, who is quite obviously more than capable of speaking for himself without my help.

No worries; you nailed it and saved me some time typing . . . time which is scant today because of beautiful weather and toddlers who are pleading (and eventually demanding) tractor rides.

Thanks, Jesse,

—Sam

[JimL]

Sam's equation is with enforced morality counter to one's personal beliefs.

The contraception issue, as well as many of these personal conscience issues, is questionable on other grounds. These are issues where the moral values of an employer, or a pharmacist for that matter, are given precedence over the moral values of a patient. Somebody's conscience is going to be violated. My boss's religious beliefs are not more important than my own, nor have I agreed to submit my religious beliefs to theirs as part of my terms of employment. Government support of such a policy amounts to restriction of my own personal freedom of religion.

If the conscience argument is ambiguous, the financial argument is innumerate. Contraception is less expensive than child birth. The financial burden of restricting contraception falls on those of us who disagree with the restriction. This math applies equally to abortion. By all means, those who are opposed to abortion should be allowed to say so. Saying that they are paying for a policy counter their conscience however, is simply incorrect. They are instead asking us to pay for their preferred procedure.

As ever, Jesse

I'm not sure where we are in disagreement. The state is not forcing anyone to violate their personal moral beliefs, whether it be abortion, contraception or blood transfusions for that matter, its simply mandating that the option be on the table so that individuals can decide for themselves.

[Ansgar Seraph]

I'm not sure where we are in disagreement. The state is not forcing anyone to violate their personal moral beliefs, whether it be abortion, contraception or blood transfusions for that matter, its simply mandating that the option be on the table so that individuals can decide for themselves.

The federal government is requiring quasi-religious institutions to participate in what's called "remote cooperation with evil." That is to say that the government is requiring these institutions to indirectly help provide contraceptive services — services that the religious orders running the institutions may perceive as immoral. In both the contraception issue and the sonogram issue, therefore, the government is imposing a moral decision upon potentially unwilling individuals (be they pregnant women or religious administrators).

. . . and that's not to say that such imposition is necessarily a bad thing. It might be in the best interests of the general welfare to override certain moral objections (as is the case with contraception, I'd argue); the important thing here would be consistency in argument.

—Sam

[JimL]

The federal government is requiring quasi-religious institutions to participate in what's called "remote cooperation with evil." That is to say that the government is requiring these institutions to indirectly help provide contraceptive services — services that the religious orders running the institutions may perceive as immoral. In both the contraception issue and the sonogram issue, therefore, the government is imposing a moral decision upon potentially unwilling individuals (be they pregnant women or religious administrators).

. . . and that's not to say that such imposition is necessarily a bad thing. It might be in the best interests of the general welfare to override certain moral objections (as is the case with contraception, I'd argue); the important thing here would be consistency in argument.

—Sam

And it is the quasi religious institutions choice to conduct business within a secular government and to accept government money wherin they are responsible to follow the rules of that government just like any other business. They can't have it both ways. Besides it is a false notion that the employer is paying for it, the employee is paying for it, it is the cost of hiring them in the first place.

[Ansgar Seraph]

And it is the quasi religious institutions choice to conduct business within a secular government and to accept government money wherin they are responsible to follow the rules of that government just like any other business. They can't have it both ways. Besides it is a false notion that the employer is paying for it, the employee is paying for it, it is the cost of hiring them in the first place.

Well, I certainly agree with all of that, save the idea that the employee is paying for insurance. The employer is the payee and health insurance is an employee incentive, not an employee payment. I personally don't find the remote cooperation with evil argument very compelling in the contraception debate but the point is only to make sure arguments in favor of one health care mandate are consistent with arguments against another health care mandate.

—Sam

[JimL]

Well, I certainly agree with all of that, save the idea that the employee is paying for insurance. The employer is the payee and health insurance is an employee incentive, not an employee payment. I personally don't find the remote cooperation with evil argument very compelling in the contraception debate but the point is only to make sure arguments in favor of one health care mandate are consistent with arguments against another health care mandate.

—Sam

Wouldn't you say that salary is an employee incentive as well, the employer merely handles the administrative process on behalf of the employee which I suppose is also an employee incentive.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Only in a very general sense, I think. An individual cannot, for instance, staff any ol' business with "volunteers" to avoid taxes. In the sense that I think is pertinent, "employee incentive" means compensation that is not obligatory. Higher salary would be an employee incentive but salary in and of itself probably wouldn't be classified as such.

For health insurance, the employer doesn't only handle the administrative process. I'm self-insured and there's not much for me to administrate. What makes health insurance a good employee incentive is that the group rate payed by the employer is significantly less per individual than the single individual rate. The employee might take a reduced salary in favor of health insurance because the cost of individual insurance is higher than the increased salary option.

In that sense, you could say that the employee is "paying" for insurance by taking a reduced salary but this seems to be stretching the idea too far and doesn't seem to be a necessary distinction, in any event. Unless the employee was paying for her own health care without being connected to the employer's group rate, the employer would still be complicit in remote cooperation.

—Sam

[JimL]

Only in a very general sense, I think. An individual cannot, for instance, staff any ol' business with "volunteers" to avoid taxes. In the sense that I think is pertinent, "employee incentive" means compensation that is not obligatory. Higher salary would be an employee incentive but salary in and of itself probably wouldn't be classified as such.

For health insurance, the employer doesn't only handle the administrative process. I'm self-insured and there's not much for me to administrate. What makes health insurance a good employee incentive is that the group rate payed by the employer is significantly less per individual than the single individual rate. The employee might take a reduced salary in favor of health insurance because the cost of individual insurance is higher than the increased salary option.

In that sense, you could say that the employee is "paying" for insurance by taking a reduced salary but this seems to be stretching the idea too far and doesn't seem to be a necessary distinction, in any event. Unless the employee was paying for her own health care without being connected to the employer's group rate, the employer would still be complicit in remote cooperation.

—Sam

This seems to me to be a bit of a semantic argument. I don't think that it matters that the employer is able to offer the insurance to his employee at a lesser cost to that employee, as in such a case they are both benefiting since the employer can then hire the employee for less pay then he might otherwise have demanded. But I don't think that the amount of pay that one is willing to work for is any less an "incentive" than any other benefits that might be offered in order to procure his services. The cost of the insurance comes out of the employees pay, out of his pocket, not out of the employers pocket, even if indirectly, so I don't see any moral dilemma as far as the employer is concerned. They don't pay for it, they don't provide it, and only the employee makes the choice as to its use, according to his own morality.

[Ansgar Seraph]

This seems to me to be a bit of a semantic argument. I don't think that it matters that the employer is able to offer the insurance to his employee at a lesser cost to that employee, as in such a case they are both benefiting since the employer can then hire the employee for less pay then he might otherwise have demanded. But I don't think that the amount of pay that one is willing to work for is any less an "incentive" than any other benefits that might be offered in order to procure his services. The cost of the insurance comes out of the employees pay, out of his pocket, not out of the employers pocket, even if indirectly, so I don't see any moral dilemma as far as the employer is concerned. They don't pay for it, they don't provide it, and only the employee makes the choice as to its use, according to his own morality.

If the cost comes solely out of the employee's pocket, one would expect the cost of health care to be equal (or very nearly equal) to the reduction in salary. This isn't the case, however. If an employer were to directly pay the employee the company's costs of insuring that individual, there would be a deficit between the increased pay and the cost of of insurance . . . sometimes a large deficit.* It would be fair to say that both employer and employee "pay in" to employer-based health insurance but it's not false to say that employers are paying for health insurance. They are participants and there's a spectrum: some employers try to cut deals to expend the minimum amount necessary to insure their employees and some dig into their own profits to provide excellent coverage.

A much more relevant avenue of discussion regarding this matter, I believe, is the question "Does an individual have a right to impose moral restrictions on another adult?" If a Catholic university that receives federal funding believes contraception to be immoral, does that university have the right to impose its moral belief, either by doctrinal or material means, on individuals who do not agree with the university's position? Do Jehovah's Witness employers have the right to veto coverage of procedures involving blood transfusions? I don't want to take this too far into the weeds on Jesse's thread but I'd say that's where the foundational discussion regarding contraception lies.

—Sam

*And, as we'll see when health exchanges come on-line, there's no requirement for employers to maintain a 1:1 ratio between cost of coverage and salary. If the government subsidizes $15,000 of a $20,000 group-pool rate, the employer would be able to provide her employees the $20,000 pay raise and send them to the exchanges. She also could (and many employers will very likely do this) provide raises of only $10,000 — meaning that employees will retain health coverage and get a $5,000 raise, whilst the employer keeps the extra $10,000/individual difference and applies it to company profits. Has the employer cheated her employees out of an extra $10,000 in salary pay in this case?

[Jaecp]

Plus, as I understand it, these catholic owned institutions provided the contraception before the new health care bill was passed didn't they? It just required a nominal copay.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Depends on the institution. Georgetown did but Notre Dame didn't, for example.

[lao tzu]

I'm not sure where we are in disagreement. The state is not forcing anyone to violate their personal moral beliefs, whether it be abortion, contraception or blood transfusions for that matter, its simply mandating that the option be on the table so that individuals can decide for themselves.

Institutions like Georgetown argue that being forced to provide the option is a violation of their moral beliefs. The finesse by the Obama administration was to instead ask the insurance companies themselves to provide the option in every policy they sell, with the added argument that this was something with which they'd readily agree, as it would result in lower costs.

[Pilgrim]

The transvaginal ultrasound isn't a health thing, is it? It's been passed to force a woman to look at the image of the child. That, is a good idea in my mind. However, on principle, I can't support a government mandated medical requirement such as this. Just as I think the government is wrong for mandating that a religious institution pay for a procedure or circumstance that violates it's moral code.

Having said that, what most religious institutions forget its hat contraception is for more than sex. Many women take some form of the pill to alleviate other, serious, medical problems, that have nothing to do with having sex. Also, these same institutions have no problem paying for vasectomies. That seems a bit inconstant. At least on the surface.

[Darth Executor]

The transvaginal ultrasound isn't a health thing, is it? It's been passed to force a woman to look at the image of the child. That, is a good idea in my mind. However, on principle, I can't support a government mandated medical requirement such as this. Just as I think the government is wrong for mandating that a religious institution pay for a procedure or circumstance that violates it's moral code.

It would not be necessary if states were simply allowed to outright ban the mass murder of unborn children that the Demoncrat party and their abyssal adherents are fighting for tooth and nail.