Return to Article: Faith-based health insurance plan generates controversy
-
7217
Just because it's very important to you that insurance pays for your birth control, acupuncture, christian science fees, alternative medicine, etc., does not mean that we all want to pay for every pet health care option that you may want. Birth control benefits are important to you and acupuncture is important to me. I like that fact that I get to pick the benefits and premiums that I want and you get to pick the benefits and premiums you want.
I want more than one choice of benefits and more than one choice of premiums.
-
7168
Mon ami -
My point is that once one insurer excludes a category of services - in this discussion, significant areas of reproductive health care - they all do the same. Next it will be ALL reproductive health care, and they'll all do that. Then it will be cancer or something else. Pretty soon you have benefits that are hardly worth the paper they're written on, but you can bet - ! - you'll pay more.
-
7163
I still think everyone is missing the point.
When you go to a restaraunt, you're given a menu. You don't order everything on the menu, you pick and choose what you want. The cost of the food doesn't change because you got the chicken instead of the steak, someone else will want it.
It's the same with your health insurance. You don't use everything in the policy, just the parts that work for you. In order to keep costs down for everyone, they have to include things that *someone* will need (so where's the eye and dental). Excluding reproductive services (except birth) won't necessarily keep costs down for other services, it just eliminates necessary (to some) services.
When something becomes mandatory in either sense (either for or against), then the only people that aren't hurt are those it won't affect in the first place (except that it will affect them somehow, someday in a way they won't expect).
Choice is just that. We already have insurance agencies telling us what they will and won't pay even though the doctors tell us we need the service. What's next?
-
7144
Most of the federal employee Blue Cross plans cover Christrian Scientist practitioner fees and the feds subsidize the federal Blues plans. Some federal health plans don't pay Christian Scientist practitioner fees and the feds subsidize those plans too.
Let an employee choose which plan they want.. if they want a plan to cover viagra, birth control, christian scientist practitioner fees, alternative faith spiritual healers, etc., they should be free to elect the plan of their choice. Having choice does not mean that each and every employee should be forced to purchase a plan that provides the same exact coverage -- one size does not fit all.
-
7141
Skeptical -
It's not just about abortion. It's also about a refusal to cover other types of reproductive health care, and about a general cutting back of benefits. If one does it, pretty soon they all jump on the bandwagon. How would you like your gallstone surgery not to be convered because I believe that God gave you those gallstones for a reason? This isn't as farfetched as it sounds - a lot of people used to think it was wrong to get false teeth because God meant for you to lose those teeth, and in replacing them you were thwarting God's will. There is also the question of equal coverage for equivalent conditions - see my last item. A significant number of plans cover things like Viagra but not contraceptives. Lack of which one is more likely to lead to disability and death? Furthermore, some plans cover items related to assisted reproduction, which is harmful to society and to the natural world. If they waste other people's money to create problems, then they can spend some to solve problems, too.
-
7130
I'm a conservative, evangelical just to get my biases out of the way. (Curious that most don't admit their biases in these responses...)
As one poster noted, the Bill of Rights states that the government will not establish a national religion, not that those in the federal government's choice of religion cannot - or even should not - govern their actions, morality, choices, or ever be mentioned as a reason for same. It is NOT a freedom FROM religion despite what those activist judges are trying to legislate from the bench. However, the issue that is being argued here is what the government can fund, right?
The government supports EVERY recognized church through tax breaks (and it doesn't take that much to get recognized). It supports all sorts of scientific (according to the power media recently this seems to be interpreted to be the opposite of religion) through research grants. Listen to Lesko and the government will support every half-baked scheme or plan with federal dollars. So why all the biting criticism of allowing someone to have a choice of insurance plans that includes one/some that don't fund one particular set of medical procedures that many find repulsive?
It seems that the underlying problem is whether you believe the "object" growing in a uterus is a baby, or a lump of tissue relatively the equivalent of any unwanted growth. I believe it's a baby. I choose not to use an insurance company that funds murder - either prenatal or euthanistic. It's that simple. If the choices I have provide that I welcome the assistance in premiums. If those of you with the opposing view succeed, then my costs will continue to be a bit higher as I continue to have to find it elsewhere on my own. Why is it so important to you to keep my insurance costs higher on this issue alone? I don't want to take away your ability to destroy life - you will deal with that in whatever way that you decide is right - so why do you get incensed with my/our wanting a benefits choice that supports our beliefs?
-
7123
TO CHOICE -
I am not that far from your own feelings regarding abortion, etc. but I still do not feel it's proper for the federal government to subsidize health insurance plans that will inherently be pro-life which I believe is directly related to one's religious beliefs in the majority of cases. CHOICE? Yes - You have a choice - get your insurance privately and not subsidized by my tax dollars.
-
7117
Let's do a survey and see how many plans that limit or exclude reproductive coverage for women apply the same policy to men. Interesting how the same plan will cover Viagra but not contraceptives. As someone said years ago about the advent of condom ads on TV - when MEN are losing their lives, it's a whole different ball game.
-
7113
First off I oppose abortion, euthanasia, and fetal stem cell research. I am pro-life. I have no problem with having a CHOICE of a health insurance company not covering abortion, contraception, sterilization and artificial insemination. If you want these things, PICK ANOTHER COMPANY. That's choice.
I believe in and use a Chiropractor. There are many, many choices in FEHB that either do not include chiropractic services or include them with a payment so ridiculously low ($9.00) it is insulting to the provider. I CHOOSE another company that does cover chiropractic.
This is not establishing a government religion, which by the way is what the constitution says. This is simply giving federal employees another choice in FEHB.
-
7111
Choice, interesting concept in the abstract.....
Survivor, freedom of choice
-
7108
To "here's the thing" - You have cut to the chase! Thank you for getting past the whose wrong or right thing. Your last sentence sums it up: The issue is using government funding to subsidize religious ideology.
-
7103
Here's the thing ... just because your insurance covers the cost of birth control doesn't mean that you have to purchase and use birth control. You have a clear choice to use it or not use it.
The issue here is whether or not it is correct for the government to subsidize the premiums to an insurance carrier that limits medical coverage based on religious beliefs. Furthermore, how do you choose which ones to subsidize? There are many different religions practiced in the USA. Hey, what if my religious belief says that you shouldn't allow for blood transfusions and there is no health care plan that refuses to cover that. Not fair!! I want a healthcare plan that adheres to the tenets of my religion, etc.
As a private consumer, you have the right to go out and buy insurance from anyone you want. You have the right to eat only in restaurants owned by people that do not approve of premarital sex, or patronize businesses owned only by people that disapprove of vasectomies etc.
What the article addresses is the requirements for health care providers that are included in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program. The federal government is subsidizing the premiums of this program. The issue is using government funding to subsidize religious ideology.
-
7090
"How can a choice that includes abortion be wrong and a choice that excludes it not be? I can't be the only one out there that doesn't understand the difference in choices"
Sure, I understand and I agree. What's the big deal? If you want to have the choice of providing coverage for birth control don't elect this plan, if you don't care to have birth control, feel free to elect this plan. It's all about individual choice -- no one is forcing an employee to elect a health plan that includes or excludes birth control. Give employees the choice -- that's pro-choice. Some of the plans include dental and/or vision, some don't -- again, it's all about choice.
Pro Choice Fed
-
7089
Should the federal government pay a portion of the premiums for this faith-based insurance? Do they? I don't think so. Separation of Church and State. Anyone remember that?
"This is, in effect, a kind of backdoor way to try to limit this [coverage] down the road, to try to get family planning services out of the program," Martinez said. "You shouldn't be designing government health programs based on religious doctrine." I couldn't have said it better. This is the way this administration will go.
-
7078
"It's a good step, choice. What's wrong with choice?" he said. "Why can't there be choice. It's not mandatory."
But isn't that what all the pro-choice people are always saying? How can a choice that includes abortion be wrong and a choice that excludes it not be? I can't be the only one out there that doesn't understand the difference in choices.
-
7077
This is yet another chip at the wall separating church and state. The government should not be involved with religious health care programs. Also, I wonder if this religious health care program covers prescriptions for Viagra!
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.