As a freelancer who pays out of pocket for an individual plan at the cost of $550 dollars a month, I applaud this act being upheld. I can't afford the plan I have but I must carry a at least a half-way decent plan as I have a chronic health issue. I am so tired of carrying the burden of paying for charity care, on top of people who just walk out on their bills, when I responsibly scrape and save to pay my insurance every month.

I think goverment has the right to do anything that they want =) and we should have no choice in anything. at least thats what i figure we have done over more than just a decade let goverment do anything.. and they tell us what to do and when to do it and what not to do..

Solomon,

Yes I read your post. Sorry if my earlier response did not make that clear.

I agree with you in that we need to be more honest about distinguishing between a health problem versus a natural and necessary activity for the species to survive.

Also, I agree with your point about what people are allowed to do as opposed to what should be financed by the government. Nobody is telling people not to have fun, but merely that they should be responsible for the consequences of their own fun.

The great majority of the population does not have the patience to collect enough information, nor the intellect to process it. This is the reason that we get so much opinion from the entertainment industry. (Some might call it "news media"). So people just parrot their favorite comedian. Maybe Bill Maher or Rachel Madow or Rush Limgbaugh. It doesn't really matter.

Judging by your posts here, I would sat that you are a sensible guy. So sorry to tell you, but you'll never make it in the world of journalism. ;-)

Best regards,
H.

For heaven's sake... it's mind boggling how not a single comment that disagreed with me actually disagreed with MY comments. They built a straw man of some right wing talking points, and pretended I was saying those things.

If anyone comes back, I'm curious... did you read the post and you weren't capable of actually reading it without the words twisting into something else in your head? Some kind of weird inability to see something that doesn't neatly fit into the fake red/blue one dimensional paradigm?

Or perhaps was it that you merely skimmed and filled in the gaps with assumptions, or just read a tiny bit and assumed the rest?

Or something else?

I see that "listener" seems to have an issue with Obamacare but he should be looking forward to it if nothing else for the fact that it might make psychiatric treatment more affordable

Interesting....Your logic would lock in the 'fee for services' model that is a large part of what is wrong with the current healthcare delivery system. A better way to actually have an impact on future health care costs is to prevent the need for expensive treatments of sickness and injury. Same logic that sells a TON of oil filters. Pay me now or pay me later. You have a point that pregnancy is not a sickness but a natural state that most mature females are capable of. However, as rational humans it is acceptable to control our ability to procreate by means other than abstinence. My wife and son's four-day hospital stay in 1991 was $6,600. I hate to think what that number has grown.

What about dental check-ups? Would you cover those? How about eye and hearing exams? How about circumcision? How about circumcision of females? We are all better off if governments as well as churches leave the practice of medicine to doctors but I get that we think it appropriate to jump in and tell other people what to do all the time.

Pregnancy is not always healthy, and natural is not always best. Someone with certain medical conditions (e.g. diabetes, certain cancers, infections, STI's, addiction, high risk genetic backgrounds, etc...) put both themselves and their potential child in serious risk by getting pregnant at the wrong time in their life. A woman might want to postpone pregnancy until after a cancer has been resolved, for example. And some of us should never become pregnant for medical reasons. I have a friend who would either miscarry or have an ectopic pregnancy EVERY TIME. She desperately wanted to be a mother, and ultimately had to adopt (which was a very lucky outcome for her adopted children). I would say birth control IS preventative care in these situations. And I would say it should be freely available no matter where you work, because an employer's politics or religious beliefs can't predict these scenarios.

I Can’t See! I Can’t See! - Your Eyes Are Closed.

OK, the Republicans screwed up, again! But isn't the point that should be really important on this issue be that not one Republican has been able to put forth a solution that resolves this issue to the satisfaction of both sides. Nor by the way has one Democrat put forth a solution that will resolve the issue and not deny someone's freedoms are trampled upon. So the political leaders of our nation and our political parties with all their political advisors and lobbyists are so befuddled by this issue that they haven't been able to think the three minutes it takes to make the issue and the debate go away.

And we can't blame that it's an election year for this abysmal failure of intellect or disgusting display of ineptitude. Our elected leaders are the bumbling, self-centered, pandering incompetents that are required to create this asinine situation.

The experts on religious liberty were of no use in this endeavor either. No guidance from above evidently on how to settle this issue so that their religious freedoms are not compromised and the rights of those who wish to live their lives according to own pursuit of happiness. It's not that there isn't a solution to this conundrum, because there is. Are these experts so knowledgeable that they can't see past their own noses?

Surely the advocacy groups, on either side, have smart people that can step up and present the solution.

Hello! I am waiting. Is any one there?

And that my fellow American's is our problem. We don't demand that our officials, their friends, their advisors, or anyone step up and address the problem, and present a reasonable, thoughtful and insightful solution. In this case, you don't get what you pay for. You get what lets our politicians distract and divide the attention of the media and public. You get what you deserve.

If you don't want this stupidity any more, then you have to actually do something about it.

If you don't know the answer to the problem, you might consider starting by asking if someone has a proposal that both sides can accept (a solution this the public recognizes as fair and balanced. That the politicos will have to accept because they can't reasonably or rationally oppose it).

"This is a simple health issue. Birth control is not an "elective procedure"; it is preventive healthcare. Providing this option saves a great deal of money, and allows for a vast improvement in women's health. The people ranting about "Obamacare" have demonstrated no respect for the presidency, no respect for their fellow Americans, and no respect for the truth."

As I said in the post, saying that elective use of birth control is preventative healthcare is absurg. Pregnancy is not a disease. If people want to avoid pregnancy, they should have to pay for birth control, condoms, pills, whatever form they choose. But if the birth control in question is prescribed by a doctor for health reasons, nobody, not even churches, should be able to not cover it.

You clearly didn't read my post. I said that I hate the term "Obamacare" and refuse to use it. I would have been a supporter if they had not taken money that Medicare needed to stay solvent out, and had it not included the individual mandate.

It's clear that several of the commenters didn't read the whole post. Hard to respond when what you're saying isn't what I said. If you're going to make a comment disagreeing with a post, you should at least do the author a favor and respond to what they're actually saying, not the talking points of the people you demonize that you'd like to lump them with. Especially this ridiculous claim that what I'm saying is the same as not allowing the freedom to use birth control. The freedom to do something does not mean that someone than must pay for you to do so.

"Oh how constitutionally complicated is all this! Kleinsmith's article is excellent and I MOSTLY agree. EXCEPT--like most major issues these days, the two extremes govern the debate."

I don't disagree with the statement that the extremes dominate the debate here. That is very much true. This whole post was an attempt to provide a totally different angle, since I am against this, but for reasons neither side are using.

"But the government can tell a citizen to buy something which is the essence of Obamacare."

I disagree with the individual mandate as well, although I agree with many of the other reforms in the healthcare bill.

I hope you get pregnant. Other than that, contraception is used about 15% of the time for other medical reasons. All you need to do is listen to everyone who disagrees with this policy to say first,"this isn't about contraception" to absolutely know that it's almost totally about contraception. Contraception covers so much of female health care that your take on it is simply ignorant.

When Christians and WWJD Conflict

Catholic Bishops have decreed that they do not accept the Obama Administration’s accommodation on the employee health care issue. The bishops have “serious moral concerns”. One casually wonders if moral concerns should ever be anything except serious especially for bishops, but this is only a passing thought. Of more substantial concern is whether the bishops and other Christian groups are following a religious or faith-based path, or a political power-based path. If through some extraordinary confluence of events and personalities the bishops and others have for the first time in the entire history of their religion floundered into an error in judgment or morality, we should all be charitable and forgiving since they have never before been on the wrong side of a moral, ethical or Christian issue.

The bishops’ moral issue is fundamentally that they should not be compelled to pay for an action that they sincerely believe is contrary to their beliefs and violates their principles. And if they were being forced to personally act against their own conscience then I would wholeheartedly support their position both as a Christian, as an American, and as a thinking human being. But here is where the issue divides not just those who see a political issue that they hope to leverage to advance their careers, position and power, but it is an issue that separates Christians from Christians. No bishop or Christian is being asked to engage in any action that is a violation of their faith. They are in fact being asked to adhere to and follow the one of the core principles of their faith(s), do good unto others.

Because this is an issue that quickly evokes emotional responses and programmatic responses, it does not lend itself to efforts to critically contemplate and analyze either the facts or the moral issue that should be the question and not the one that is grabs everyone’s attention but is as deceptive as the devil’s promise.

I am sure that many of the people on both sides of this issue will recognize the ‘WWJD’ acronym (or some equivalent variant applicable to other religious groups). In the context of this issue the WWJD question offers an interesting perspective that I am sure will not result in a singular and definitive answer acceptable to all combatants in the debate. But that fact is more telling and more relevant to the issue than the issue itself. Think of it. Members of the same faith group, even Catholics, do not see the issue or the answer in the same way. They do not reach the same answer to the WWJD question, even though they are all working from the same playbook. So is the admonition that Mark provides one of the teachings that we are not attending to, that a house divided cannot stand.

The remaining text is from now4yourconsideration at blogspot

Pregnancy-related deaths are approximately 1 in 5000. We obligate Medicaid and insurance companies to pay for pre-natal vitamins, breast mammography and colonoscopy wit zero copay, why is this not different?

This is a simple health issue. Birth control is not an "elective procedure"; it is preventive healthcare. Providing this option saves a great deal of money, and allows for a vast improvement in women's health. The people ranting about "Obamacare" have demonstrated no respect for the presidency, no respect for their fellow Americans, and no respect for the truth.

Nancy Pelosi said at Christmas 2009 that government health care was a Christmas gift to the nation.
Imagine a friend gives you a Christmas gift which is a $10,000 wristwatch which is ugly and garish and which you don't want or need but you graciously offer your thanks anyway.
The friend says no problem, I used your credit card and by the way...I own a watch store.

That is Obamacare...yes, Obamacare in a nutshell.
It is not for us who they can care less about........ it is for them.

"First of all, no. Let's call it President Obama's health care reform, and give the president's office respect"

The President said he is OK with the term Obamacare because he does "care".
Steve...we now have permission from The One" to speak critically of our leadership which apparently you need until the moment Mitt Romney becomes President.

Oh how constitutionally complicated is all this! Kleinsmith's article is excellent and I MOSTLY agree. EXCEPT--like most major issues these days, the two extremes govern the debate. We're between the devil and the deep blue sea on this and I leave it to you to decide which is the devil: a Catholic Church that, when it HAD power, allowed for NO dissent, NO equality of rights and claims what their heirarchy decrees is directly from God. And we have a women's movement that at its extreme used to say things like "abortion should be no more troubling than brushing your teeth." They never say things like that anymore of course, nor does the Church show its iron fist beliefs. But those beliefs are THERE in both sides of this argument.

The Church not only wants an end to abortion but to all but THEIR version of birth control--and they'll never quit fighting for that. The radical women want total and utter sexual freedom enjoyed by men (sex without much consequence) and anything less is not acceptable.

Just before I got up at 5AM here in Florida, I listened to the local worldwide Catholic station and someone describing in detail how its pro-life activists have shut down abortion clinics all over America. All that's left of their "enemy" to provide women with the abortion option granted to them BY LAW AND SUPREME COURT RULINGS IS Planned Parenthood and they're working hard to deny women that option.

Listening to it I suddenly understood the firestorm that was created last week when that pink ribbon anti-cancer organization ended its 700,000 annual contribution to Planned Parenthood. That battle was over in just a few days, raised millions for Planned Parenthood led by huge contribution by Mayor Bloomberg. Heads rolled. Women threatened to bring down the pink ribbon organization dedicated to women's health issues. Listening to that broadcast I suddenly understood the radicalism of some women on this issue. Don't agree with them, but I got what drives them.

So I conclude--Kleinsman is writing with rationality BUT the two opposing forces are not rational because each sees the other for what it is, their ultimate implacable enemy who wants the "other" utterly vanquished.

Both feel, "if we give an inch they'll take a mile"--and each WOULD destroy the other if they could!! Obama will/must come up with a compromise that tells both of them--YOU CAN'T HAVE WHAT YOU REALLY WANT - EVER!!! Not in a democratic and diverse country, so give it up and settle for less--be a GOOD CITIZEN not just an ideologue.

And centrists MUST applaud that kind of muddymiddle compromise--or we won't survive.

Listener writes: "But the government can tell a citizen to buy something which is the essence of Obamacare."

--First of all, no. Let's call it President Obama's health care reform, and give the president's office respect -- the same respect that the right-wing kept howling Mr. Bush II wasn't getting.
One can argue that "the essence of" the plan is, in fact, to prevent the big insurance companies from denying care for so-called "pre-existing conditions." (Good thing, that -- at the rate the insurance companies are attempting to deny claims, merely in order to maximize their own profits, they'd soon be calling birth a "pre-existing condition."

--Secondly: Funny, we accept such government requirements in other contexts. You don't know that? What about the government requirement that every driver have auto insurance? I don't see any of you squawking about that. When you do start squawking about that, I'll take these arguments more seriously.

If the reason to deny birth control isn't religious (or just misogynistic) then there's no justification whatsoever, because it saves money in comparison to all the other alternatives. (It also saves the woman's health, if anybody cares about that.)

Bill of Rights, Item No. 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people".

Do you recall that in "Fiddler On The Roof", Rabbi was asked if there was a proper blessing for the czar. He responded: "May God bless and keep the czar -- far away from us".

I am old enough to remember just what was going on when abortion and birth control was difficult or impossible to obtain. You had young women bleeding to death from abortionists who were untrained or self-abortions using knitting needles. The women frequently bled to death or had to be rushed to a hospital. If they survived, they frequently could never have children. I really don't want to go back to these times. People need safe abortion availability both the women and their partners. Sometimes it is just the wrong time to get pregnant. That's why abortion became an issue and we got Roe vs Wade. No one forces you to have an abortion. But there have always been the needs of people and we don't want to go back to back-street abortions. As for the Religious institutions, the leaders may oppose it, but their constituents need it and will use it, regardless of what the religious leaders may say. Does a person who needs one, have to quit their job, thereby losing their health insurance, so they can obtain this needed procedure. Accidents happen - slip-ups in birth control, condoms tear, women are too young, or already have enough children and can't support any more at this time. Perhaps in the future, We need proper health insurance for all - even the so-called healthy young people might need it - and not just for abortion. Skiing accidents or some other serious costly health issue. That's why we all must carry health insurance - just like car insurance.

"I don't think that the government should be able to tell an employer that they have to cover elective procedures or treatments".
But the government can tell a citizen to buy something which is the essence of Obamacare.

This is not really about women's health, religion or health insurance but the creeping authority of the growing federal bureaucracy in the lives of private citizens. If Obamacare and a host of other federal regulations are solidly in place does anyone think that it will stop there as we hit 20 trillion in debt?
Just like was said a century ago, the lights are going out all of Europe and we should take a hard look at those statist economies before they do.

i so agree with the man who wrote this

Absolute Wrongs seem to vary from person to person.

Political Physics: Force = Madness X Absurdity

The religious hard-liners have foisted another misguided political decision into America’s national health care policy. Their right to free-speech allows them to present their opinion, their right to petition the government is in full force unabated and unthreatened by any attempted action of the government, and their right to exercise their religious beliefs are not only unchallenged but as fully protected as ever. So in this religiously dangerous political environment, a large portion of Christian religious groups and organizations are up in arms about the governments assault on their beliefs. Their claim: that the Obama administration is trying to force them to go against their beliefs.

At the center of this perceived attack on personal conscience is the forced obligation to provide employees with access to birth-control under their health care insurance. But as a Christian I am disturbed by the same level of disregard that these faith-based groups and organizations are remonstrating about regarding their responsibility to treating their fellow men and women with respect, compassion and charity. I am troubled that in defense of their freedoms, which aren’t being abridged or threatened that they are causally tossing aside the rights and freedoms of others. This is not only an unchristian act, but also a debasement of our American freedoms, principles and values.

If I understand their line of argument, they contend that they are being forced to pay for health care and medical procedures that they are opposed to on the basis of their religious beliefs. This does sound like a totally improper and immoral invasion upon their faith. But claiming it; doesn’t make it true, or valid, or appropriately judged. The physics of their position depends upon the axioms that that claims are dependent upon.
Are they being forced to pay for a health care benefit that they do not accept as a morally correct act? Are they being forced to violate their right of conscience in any action? Does their religious belief require or direct them to oppose and resist the government imposed obligation regarding health care? If the axioms of their position are neither self-evident nor necessarily consistent with their beliefs then the derivative conclusion of their faith-based actions are invalidated.

For the rest of the text see now4yourconsideration writing on blogspot