That is Law Professor Ann Althouse, who comments on an article in The New York Times, "Centrist Women Tell of Disenchantment With G.O.P.".
Is having the government provide birth control medicine or devices a right? A right guaranteed by the US Constitution, or stated in the Declaration of Independence? This is a question I am trying to get one of my relatives to answer after an accusation was leveled that I wanted to deprive Ms Sandra Fluke of her "rights". (I don't even want to know if Ms Fluke is having sex, but I don't see it as my job to pay to facilitate it.)
I will say that the Democratic Party has played this very well so far.
[Insert pro forma condemnation of Rush Limbaugh's language]
[Insert pro forma comment about how Bill Maher, Keith Olberman, Matt Taibbi, etc. aren't held to the same standard]
[Insert pro forma comment about how the real issue, lost in the noise, is First Amendment Rights]
Regards — Cliff
12 comments:
We already publicly fund low-income with birth control and abortion in this state.
The question is can government force a religious institution fund it, contrary to its practice and teaching against birth control or be monetarily fine $2,000 a person?
In Massachusetts with our Insurance mandate, the idea was to get low-income people out of the 'uninsured pool' which is paid but the state, and be more responsible by giving everyone the opportunity to purchase and maintain health insurance.
Possibly the main idea of the HHS mandate, was to take the shift of family planning costs off the government and place it on the employer's insurance (even the self-insured).
Because we can't place the responsibility of family planning on women and men, who actually have sex.
The idea was for full-time low-income employees, instead of skipping out on their company's healthcare plan, they MUST purchase their employers plan.
I was reading a policy paper on the effects of Massachusetts Healthcare reform. It was rather depressing, most uninsured would simply go to local community health centers. Now they have to buy insurance and maintain an updated address, those most dependent on state charity can barely make these minimum requirements of seeing a primary care physician or even utilizing a pharmacy when they use to get 'free samples' at the health centers. We have segments of our population, so dependent on the state, they simply can't handle walking to a pharmacy for their prescriptions with one dollar co-pays or making an appointment when they are sick.
http://masshealthpolicyforum.brandeis.edu/forums/Documents/Issue%20Brief_ConnorCenter.pdf
“Specifically, some low-income women report that changes in the way they access contraceptive services since health reform have created new hurdles.56 Certain traditional
providers of reproductive health care, including family planning or community health centers, are not covered under private health plans.57 Since becoming insured, women receive prescriptions to take to a pharmacy as opposed to receiving contraceptive supplies directly from
their family planning clinic.58 Some newly insured women do not understand how to use a prescription, and their pharmacists do not understand Commonwealth Care plans.59 As a result, women must return to family planning clinics for assistance.60″
DWS, the DNC, and the MSM have done a magnificent job of keeping what is mostly a hyped up issue timed perfectly for Obama's campaign into the lede distractor. Fortunately, the Republican candidates have tried to stay on point, which is the economy and jobs. The Dems know that they will lose on those points...so need to get something more emotional.....and Ms. Fluke...a dyed in the wool activist...was and is the perfect ploy.
That reproductive aged women can't figure out how to employ birth control seems to be either a myth perpetrated by far left zealots, or a case of yellow journalism designed to promote the Democrat agenda. Society is not responsible for each of its members in order for them to live their lives....rather...it is responsible for enabling individuals to act and live responsibly.
If you ask most sensible women randomly on the street...you pick the city and state....if they are more concerned about getting and paying for BCPs or diaphragms, or whatever their flavor demands...or having employment..for themselves..their boyfriend or husband...and food on their table....I'm guessing that Ms. Flukes sad tale is sort of late night soap drama.....
I seriously doubt that there will be an American woman groundswell of support for The Holy One because he showed "sensitivity" to Fluke.....and places women's reproductive rights at the top of his list..or so he promises....(Ladies....from a politician...you can place that "priority" right alongside...I'll love you tomorrow morning and respect you tonight.....)
Struck by the contrast of the two comments above. The first, grounded in policy with citations. The second, breathy and wildly erratic.
Good thing GOPers don't listen to folks like Renee.
The GOP unfortunately does come across of as the party of 'no', rather seen alternatives.
It is striking how we have two differing classes when it comes to healthcare. Recently my husband's policy changed again, as the only option. It has been a few years since I went to the primary, so for my referrals I needed a physical.
There is no 'walk-in' service, as with my children's pediatrician. I have to make an appointment, when I got one within the week for my specialists later in the month. I also had to get blood work from a specific hospital/lab, and not on-site.
It didn't take much effort, but as an individual, I must take the initiative for my health. For others it's the Emergency Room, and I do worry these pharmaceutical 'minute clinics' can actually hinder proper preventative care and how can they refer.
What if you need more then a Nurse Practitioner, how do they refer you to the proper medical treatment if it is more then a sinus infection???
In dental practice, in accommodation for individuals, they now have walk-in service. Probably lost too much time, energy, and money with people unable to make or keep appointments.
Jack's opinion that my opinion is airy are wildly erratic aside, I only saw one quotation....and that had almost nothing to do with the Federal level of policy, rather spoke only to the MA level, which, in spite of the left's continuing effort, is NOT the template for Obamacare. So, I am entitled to my opinion based on much reading on the whole subject. Of course, Jack is entitled to his condemnation of my right to my opinion...and its validity.
BTW....as predicted...the costs associated with the MA health care mandates is spiraling upward and it is debatable in MOST circles that there is any gain in either efficiency or access.
Finally, I reject the assertion that the Republicans are the party of "No." When you have a Senate run by Democrats that has failed to pass a budget in over 1000 days, who have obstructed every effort to begin to gain control over national costs, and a House minority that insists on staging meaningless press conferences and "hearings", I would posit that it is the Democrats who are "No."
Finally, the convolutions in accessing medical care relayed by Renee are quite minor when compared to what is coming when the ACA is fully implemented. Referrals will be based on demonstrated need as assessed by a reviewer who will consider the nature of the illness, age, etc., etc., etc. Courses of treatment will be prescribed by a national standard which will in effect be little more than a massive decision-logic chart in which if you have disease A and are age B you get treatment Z.
The above is not MY airy are erratic view but rather an amalgam of a number of learned folks who have taken the time and trouble to figure out "what is in the ACA" now that "we've passed it."
The debate is over really, so discussions such as this are frankly academic and of little practical value as the law is already passed and will be followed as more is discovered in its coverage.
The issue of "women's health care" as presented by the Democrats and the media...particularly in the context of the Fluke farce....is a put on bit of drama to sell even greater amounts of Nanny State control.
Nealcroz,
I think if Obama's plan will fail, it will be due to the number of doctors refusing to participate. The government can't focre physcians to accept his healthcare. Or can it? Doctors choose which insurance companies who they deal with.
Will we see 'cash only' practices?
I do wonder what penalties they could force doctors, or make it a requirement for an active medical license.
Renee, IMHO the term "fail" is relative. In absolute terms, it won't "fail" as it is law and law by definition can't fail. Now, whether it is a success in terms of its original marketing promises remains to be seen. I think it will increase costs, dumb down care, result in significant parsing of available care on the lines of demographic rationing, and will ultimately be a bigger social failure than the vaunted British NHS....which incidentally, they are grudgingly privatizing...go figure.
I would assume that if a doctor wants to be paid for his services under Obamacare, he will have to place by the rules painfully spelled out in the ACA (which I admittedly have not read....but then...in a lifetime...I've never been able to conquer "War and Peace."). To date, I am not certain that anyone has been able to read and appreciate the full scope of the ACA...and if they have...they certainly have my respect for their sheer guts.
I think that there are real differences in a state mandated health program and one that is demanded by the Federal government. Certainly, if you don't like the MA plan, you can move. If you detest Obamacare...you can only detest it...or go without health care.
In the end, it is really not so much about health care for the masses per se, but what the role and authority of government can be in regulating individual freedoms.
Certainly whatever ACA conjures, it will be no worse than the VA system.
Neal can see death panels!
Breathy hyperbole fertilizes the weeds in the discussion. The right to share an opinion most assuredly has one of the lowest bars set by our Founders.
This is not a "Left" or "Right" problem. Both sides plague us. It comes from no consequences for being far fetched.
So Jack, can I assume that you include yourself as eligible for one of the lowest bars?
If it were MY breathy hyperbole in re "death panels" I suppose I might own the "consequences" but in fact, the label is not mine...but that of many, many folks...many in the medical profession who....apparently.....and sadly....don't share your more......high minded viewpoint about what the ACA will do.
As for the VA system, it is a sterling example of what awaits America under the ACA.
At any given moment, Neal. Yes. I can be breathy, even wildly erratic. Usually when I am talking.
The ACA will work itself out over the next 20 years. Just before we get to Single Payer.
Jack, I resemble your remark.....breathy and erratic is my persona.....but then...I am older than Cliff.....and cantankerous.....don't I get old age credit?
Post a Comment