Arkady
President
I'm trying to get a handle on why, exactly, various people object to healthcare insurance being required to cover contraception. Is this just an objection to ALL government mandates about healthcare insurance? Or is it really just an objection to taking away the option for a religiously-affiliated organization to select an insurance package that doesn't cover a particular thing that the religion objects to?
If it's the latter, would you apply that mandate even-handedly to any religious objection? For example, Jehova's Witnesses object to blood transfusions. Would you permit organizations affiliated with them to opt for insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions? Scientologists object to pretty much all standard forms of psychiatric care. Would you permit their affiliates to to opt for insurance that doesn't cover such care? Lots of religions object to a man "spilling his seed." Would you permit their affiliates to opt for insurance that doesn't cover male fertility testing (which requires testing of sperm)? Jainists aren't permitted to harm any animal. Would you permit Jainism-affiliated organizations to opt for health insurance that didn't cover any drugs, procedures, or devices that were tested on animals? Some religions are devoutly pacifist. Would their affiliates be permitted to refuse coverage for wounds veterans received fighting for our country, if the religion claimed that was an article of their faith?
Practically anything I can think of that insurance might cover could be objected to by one established religion or another. Christian Scientists object to nearly all forms of serious medical intervention, for example. You'd also be able to rule out insurance that covers non-emergency treatment on pretty much any given day of the week, on the grounds that it's the holy day of one religion or another. And you could rule out insurance that covers pretty much any given type of hospital food, since various religions have so many different dietary rules. There are even religions that have rules against people from certain castes, or women, becoming doctors, so you could have insurance that won't cover treatment by those people.
So, if you're a proponent of leaving Catholic-affiliated organizations the option of selecting insurers that don't cover contraception, are you planning to apply that same principle across-the-board to all the various things religions could object to?
For me, that sounds like a recipe for abuse and fraud. Since we don't want the government getting into the business of checking the authenticity of religious faith, and since anyone can invent a religion any time he wants with any rules he wants for it, you'd just be creating an incentive for fake religions that organizations could affiliate themselves with in order to cut their health insurance costs.
"Sorry, my organization is affiliated with a religions that believes that AIDS is a divinely-ordained disease that mankind must not interfere with, so we won't be paying for any of those expensive HIV treatments."
"We consider it an abomination to place any hardware into the human body, so you'll have to pay for your pacemaker and your hip replacement out of pocket."
"We think doctors must first be blessed by the Grand Pontiff before God will permit them to heal people, so our insurance will only cover charges from doctors who have the Holy Seal (which can be obtained at the low cost of $100,000, paid by cashier's check made out to Grand Pontiff, Inc.)."
It also seems unworkable in a situation where there is a rule against insurers denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions. Let's say I'm working for a Jehova's Witness-affiliated organization when I find out I've got a medical condition that is going to require a lot of surgeries and then an expensive lifelong regime of blood-based treatments (which my Witness-compliant insurer won't cover). If that looks like it's going to be a big enough expense, then my incentive would be to change employers and, if needed, buy private insurance. When I do so, I'll drop out of the insurance pool for the Witness-affiliated organization, saving them a ton of money. By letting some religious-affiliated organizations shed the expense of their sick workers, such a rule would create an even greater incentive for fraudulent religious claims, and would put organizations affiliated with some religions at a competitive advantage against organizations affiliated with other religions. A university affiliated with a religion with the right dogmas to make its insurance coverage dirt cheap (and functionally worthless), could charge students significantly less for education than a university affiliated with a more enlightened faith that permits modern medical care -- and, meanwhile, the reactionary university's employees and students would have the safety net of knowing that if they ever did get sick, they could buy real insurance coverage and still be covered for those pre-existing conditions, so there's no loss for them.
It just seems so much simpler and more reasonable, to me, to apply one set of rules across the board, whatever they might be, for all organizations, blind to their religious dogmas. Religious-affiliated organizations would still be free to spend their energy convincing their employees to VOLUNTARILY comply with their dogmas, rather than coercing them by refusing basic medical coverage.
If it's the latter, would you apply that mandate even-handedly to any religious objection? For example, Jehova's Witnesses object to blood transfusions. Would you permit organizations affiliated with them to opt for insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions? Scientologists object to pretty much all standard forms of psychiatric care. Would you permit their affiliates to to opt for insurance that doesn't cover such care? Lots of religions object to a man "spilling his seed." Would you permit their affiliates to opt for insurance that doesn't cover male fertility testing (which requires testing of sperm)? Jainists aren't permitted to harm any animal. Would you permit Jainism-affiliated organizations to opt for health insurance that didn't cover any drugs, procedures, or devices that were tested on animals? Some religions are devoutly pacifist. Would their affiliates be permitted to refuse coverage for wounds veterans received fighting for our country, if the religion claimed that was an article of their faith?
Practically anything I can think of that insurance might cover could be objected to by one established religion or another. Christian Scientists object to nearly all forms of serious medical intervention, for example. You'd also be able to rule out insurance that covers non-emergency treatment on pretty much any given day of the week, on the grounds that it's the holy day of one religion or another. And you could rule out insurance that covers pretty much any given type of hospital food, since various religions have so many different dietary rules. There are even religions that have rules against people from certain castes, or women, becoming doctors, so you could have insurance that won't cover treatment by those people.
So, if you're a proponent of leaving Catholic-affiliated organizations the option of selecting insurers that don't cover contraception, are you planning to apply that same principle across-the-board to all the various things religions could object to?
For me, that sounds like a recipe for abuse and fraud. Since we don't want the government getting into the business of checking the authenticity of religious faith, and since anyone can invent a religion any time he wants with any rules he wants for it, you'd just be creating an incentive for fake religions that organizations could affiliate themselves with in order to cut their health insurance costs.
"Sorry, my organization is affiliated with a religions that believes that AIDS is a divinely-ordained disease that mankind must not interfere with, so we won't be paying for any of those expensive HIV treatments."
"We consider it an abomination to place any hardware into the human body, so you'll have to pay for your pacemaker and your hip replacement out of pocket."
"We think doctors must first be blessed by the Grand Pontiff before God will permit them to heal people, so our insurance will only cover charges from doctors who have the Holy Seal (which can be obtained at the low cost of $100,000, paid by cashier's check made out to Grand Pontiff, Inc.)."
It also seems unworkable in a situation where there is a rule against insurers denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions. Let's say I'm working for a Jehova's Witness-affiliated organization when I find out I've got a medical condition that is going to require a lot of surgeries and then an expensive lifelong regime of blood-based treatments (which my Witness-compliant insurer won't cover). If that looks like it's going to be a big enough expense, then my incentive would be to change employers and, if needed, buy private insurance. When I do so, I'll drop out of the insurance pool for the Witness-affiliated organization, saving them a ton of money. By letting some religious-affiliated organizations shed the expense of their sick workers, such a rule would create an even greater incentive for fraudulent religious claims, and would put organizations affiliated with some religions at a competitive advantage against organizations affiliated with other religions. A university affiliated with a religion with the right dogmas to make its insurance coverage dirt cheap (and functionally worthless), could charge students significantly less for education than a university affiliated with a more enlightened faith that permits modern medical care -- and, meanwhile, the reactionary university's employees and students would have the safety net of knowing that if they ever did get sick, they could buy real insurance coverage and still be covered for those pre-existing conditions, so there's no loss for them.
It just seems so much simpler and more reasonable, to me, to apply one set of rules across the board, whatever they might be, for all organizations, blind to their religious dogmas. Religious-affiliated organizations would still be free to spend their energy convincing their employees to VOLUNTARILY comply with their dogmas, rather than coercing them by refusing basic medical coverage.
