Barbara Boxer

Insuring the Uninsurable

The debate over Obama's contraceptive mandate pits conscience against coercion.

|

Controversy rages over the Obama administration's proposed (and later modified) mandate that all employers—including Catholic hospitals and universities—include free contraception in their employee health insurance policies. Catholic officials object that since their church forbids contraception, the decree violates the First Amendment' s protection of religious freedom. Others have joined in the protest, prudently anticipating that this violation of freedom of conscience could spread to other matters and other faiths.

Those raising the objection have an unimpeachable case. The precedent apparently set in the more than two dozen states that already have similar mandates is irrelevant. What's immoral does not become moral simply by precedent. The principle that no one should be forced to finance that which he or she finds abhorrent is sound. In fact, it should be generally applied.

Changing the Subject

Defenders of the decree are quite good at changing the subject. Of course they are — what else have they got? To hear them, you'd think someone has proposed that contraception be outlawed. (Well, Rick Santorum does seem to favor that; but he's pretty much alone.) ObamaCare champions would have us believe the controversy is about "access" to certain products and services. All the decree does, they say, is provide insurance coverage for, and therefore access, to free contraception (along with other preventive services) for women who want it. But that just raises another question:

What has this got to do with insurance?

Access does not depend on coverage. We have access to many important things not covered by insurance. Weirdly, some say the decree actually affirms religious freedom. How so? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, and Patty Murray explained in the Wall Street Journal: "[T]he millions of American women who choose to use contraception should not be forced to follow religious doctrine, whether Catholic or non-Catholic."

In other words, lack of insurance coverage for contraception is equivalent to being forced not to use contraception. That is some strange argument, but it's what we've come to expect from members of the "world's greatest deliberative body."

Well?

So the question remains: What has this got to do with insurance?

"Access to birth control is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality, can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, and is linked to overall good health outcomes," Sens. Boxer, Shaheen, and Murray write.

Fine, but what's it got to do with insurance?

"[B]roadening access to birth control will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, a goal we all should share."

Fine, but what's it got to do with insurance?

"Proper family planning through birth control results in healthier mothers and children, which benefits all of us."

Fine, but what's it got to do with insurance?

"It saves us money too…."

Fine, but what's it got to do with insurance?

"It can cost $600 a year for prescription contraceptives." (That's a high-end estimate; there are lower cost options, including Planned Parenthood for low-income women.)

Fine, but what's it got to do with insurance?

"Some 99% of women in the U.S. who are or have been sexually active at some point in their lives have used birth control, including 98% of Catholic women, according to the Guttmacher Institute."

Fine, but what's it got to do with—oh never mind. I'll answer myself: It's got nothing to do with insurance.

Pooling Risk

Insurance arose as a way for individuals to pool their risk of some low-probability/high-cost misfortune befalling them. It shouldn't be necessary to point this out, but coming of child-bearing age and choosing to use contraception is not an insurable event. It's a volitional act. It may have good consequences for the person taking the action and society at large, but it is still a volitional act. It makes no sense to talk about insuring against the eventuality that a particular person will use contraception. Strictly speaking, contraception has nothing to do with insurance.

Unfortunately, we don't speak strictly about health insurance. One reason we don't is the tax code. Since World War II compensation for labor in the form of employment-based health insurance does not count as taxable income. (Money spent independently on health insurance does count.) The tax code thus creates perverse incentives to 1) depend on one's employer for medical insurance, 2) shift income from liquid cash to restricted insurance benefits, and 3) define uninsurable events as insurable. Would someone care to explain how well-baby care can be insurable?

So we have taxation to thank for yet another feature of the modern world: the corruption of language. In the medical realm insurance no long means insurance.

Instead it's a game by which we get other people to pay for stuff. Well, that's not quite accurate. It's actually a game in which we pretend that other people pay for stuff. Look, contraception, mammograms, colonoscopies, and well-baby care are not free. (See my "There's No Such Thing as a Free Mammogram.") They require labor and resources for which the owners wish—not unreasonably—to be compensated. Someone has to pay. If employers are compelled nominally to pay for the coverage, does anyone seriously doubt that employees will actually pay through lower cash wages? Employers are not charities. So even without a copayment, we all know deep down that we as workers pay for the coverage. (Which by the way is likely to be more expensive than the services would be in a freed market, since insurance companies will charge overhead and more for their trouble. Also subsidized demand raises prices.) Nevertheless, the truth is so obscured that people can pretend they're getting something for free.

So the government-generated system treats us like children, and alas most of us seem happy to be treated that way.

Obama's "Compromise"

Under pressure, the Obama administration was expected to announce a "compromise" under which exempt Catholic employers would not have to pay for contraception coverage. Instead, insurance companies would provide the coverage directly to employees. Since under Health and Human Services rules, this coverage must be free, the Obama administration is in effect directing insurers to eat the cost. But insurers are profit-making companies, not charities, so we may expect them to pass the cost to someone else. But to whom? There's only one possibility: nonexempt employers, which means in fact employees of nonexempt companies. So the grand compromise shifts the cost from a small minority of employees to the vast majority — all in the name of religious freedom. All workers in nonexempt companies and institutions will take a pay cut.

Sheldon Richman is editor of The Freeman, where this article originally appeared.

NEXT: Mitt Romney's Tea Party CPAC Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Capitalism works to:

      1. Disestablish people from the land and make hunting and gathering illegal with privation property laws favoring totalitarian agriculture.
      2. Once they’re starving, get them to work in your office or factory.
      3. Whitewash it with “free enterprise” rhetoric.

      1. The one thing I’m sure many of us wish is that your father had been sterile.

        1. The one thing I’m sure many of us wish is that your father had been sterile . . .

          . . . or that he’d been in the mood for anal that night, though the end result likely would have been the same.

          1. Never did see an American Indian Holocaust, and ensuing occupation of the Land, they didn’t like.

          2. So much win. +100.

          3. He should have just fixed the damn cable like she asked.

        2. and they can’t counter a simple refutation of totalitarian crapitalism

          1. When mommy bought you your studded butt plug and your computer, did she explain that she was able to acquire them because of capitalism? Are you now ashamed you use a computer? Don’t you think you should throw it away?

            1. the first artificial satellite

              not capitalist

              problem?

              1. Nyet. Sputnik is omelet I break 20,000,000 eggs for.

                1. 90,000,000 eggs. Stalin is a piker compared to the genocide of capitalist efficiency.

                  1. Those 19th Century capitalist, Rockefeller, Morgan, Chase, Custard . . . .

                  2. Re: White Imbecile,

                    90,000,000 eggs.

                    This is a goddamned lie. You certainly have not traveled much out of your mommy’s basement.

                    1. American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World
                      by David E. Stannard
                      Oxford University Press, 1992
                      http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/he/subj…..0195085570

                    2. American Holocaust
                      The Conquest of the New World
                      David E. Stannard
                      Oxford University Press, 1992
                      http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/…..0195085570

                    3. the 100 million deaths, White Imbecile? That guy?

                      “He estimates that 100 million native people were killed”

                      Yeah, I can “estimate” figures that I can pull out of my ass just like Davy there pulled his from his ass. It is still a lie.

                    4. Re: White Imbecile,

                      American Holocaust
                      The Conquest of the New World
                      David E. Stannard

                      This is what happens when you rely on a simple Google search, White Imbecile. 10 to 1 you didn’t even read that book. Stannard simply assumes that the 95% wipe out is correct and from there proceeds to estimate 145 million dead native Americans, without realizing that most Mexicans (just to begin with) are of native American ascent directly, as well as almost all Guatemalans, all Salvadoreans, many Hondurans, almost all Bolivians, most Peruvians, etc. etc. There is NO way that you can have those populations with “95%” of their ancestors being wiped out. Stannard simply happens to be an anti-Western ideologue, and you’re still an imbecile who would cry like a little wussy girl if having to fend for yourself in your beloved “original affluent society.”

                      Waa waa waa!

                    5. Yeah, except, of course, that the American Indians were wiped out by the European colonial powers, England and Spain; the US didn’t even exist at the time. Furthermore, almost all of them were killed by European diseases, not guns. And many of the European political structures and dynasties that were responsible for the “American holocaust” still exist in Europe. For the past two centuries, the US has been trying to clean up after the messes the Europeans created in the Americas and elsewhere.

              2. Neither were any before Telstar, so what?

              3. Sputnik was a propeganda investment made by the Soviets at the cost of the Soviet people. Arguably, the space race only happened because the Soviets needed to COMPETE with the Americans or risk having their top down economic ideals challenged and defeated by a free market society. And no, I dont think America in that era was a totally free market, but it in comparison to the Soviet Union, it was practically a libertarian utopia.

            2. oh my god, libertarians need to get off the internet!

              1. Commercial development of the internet was illegal for almost twenty years, OMG, get the fuck out of the way and STAY out of the way/

      2. looking for the bilover?===Datebi*cO’m=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

      3. Re: White Imbecile,

        1. Disestablish people from the land and make hunting and gathering illegal with privation property laws favoring totalitarian agriculture.

        You would cry like the little wussy girl you are either way, honey. Just at the sight of one of your broken fingernails, hunting for earthworms.

        Waa waa waa!

        1. again and again and again and again and again

          1. like a little wussy girl at the sight of crows leaving with your meager crumbs, White Imbecile.

      4. Exactly bassackwards, dummy. The whitewash is the lie told by socialists that a free lunch is forthcoming, any day now, just you wait, it won’t be long now…If people want prosperity, how are they gonna get it without lots of hard and smart work?

  1. So… conflicted…

    On the one hand, fuck the catholics.. on the other, fuck obamacare…

    I guess, at the end of the day, I really don’t give a shit.

    On that note… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wS5xOZ7Rq8

    1. On the one hand, fuck the catholics.. on the other, fuck obamacare…

      To me, this one’s a no-brainer: the Catholics don’t have the wherewithal to force their values on all of us, whereas Obama and his minions do. So I’m with the papists on this one.

  2. Universal Pollution is ok.

    Universal birth defects are ok.

    Universal asthma is ok.

    Universal health care for the victims of Koch oil fumes, not ok.

      1. The poor lad might be an idiot, but he’s certainly not white.

        1. That’s the joke. *Snicker*.

  3. “What’s this got to do with insurance?”

    Believe me Marv, it’s a comprehensive policy…

  4. So whats that called when someone is forced to provide services to another without compensation?

    1. Slavery.

      1. Where the elite get big-government Land enTITLEments that restrict the free movement of Non-state people.

        1. The best argument that capitalism blows that I’ve seen is that nobody has tried to make a TV sitcom about a developmentally retarded Gambol Liberation Front superhero in a turd-colored leotard calling himself ‘White Injun’. It’s such a fucking great idea.

    2. I think you’ve found the perfect PR angle for gutting the 13th Amendment: Express it in terms of “rights”: One group “A” is granted an entitlement to have their cotton picked by another group “B”, say 20% of each member of group B’s time. So group A then rotates 1/5 of the members of group B in one day at a time to pick cotton.

      It’s not slavery, it’s an individual mandate!

    3. I have the pleasure to announce that I have designed a talking Obama doll. Phrases include:
      “assume the position”
      ” will be required to or they will be penalized”
      “Millionares and billionares and need to pay their fair share so that the poorest among us can ”
      “It is the right of every American to obtain for free.”

      At anyrate, this fuckin doll is gonna need an extra long string for some of these…

      1. Oops something happened to the inset quotes. Whatever, im not fucking retyping it. At any rate you can probably guess what words are missing from the incomplete sentences, if not, simply replay the last few Obama campaign rallies, err State of the Union addresses to find out.

  5. Any rational profit-based insurer would prefer to provide “free” birth control over costly pregnancy OB/GYN services anytime.

    SoCons are getting spanked on this issue and John is a fool for denying such.

    1. You’re a stupid fuck, Shriek.

      1. And you’re a shitty actuarial. Which costs less? BC pills or pregnancy?

        1. What part of “Road to Serfdom” advocated forcing people to follow actuarial tables?

        2. If the purchaser of the insurance doesn’t want BC pills, then all the actuarial logic goes out the window.

        3. When you access the situation, and realize that you have nothing in common with this crowd, your arguments will always be trumped since they are essentially differences in moral prerogatives albeit yours are the wrong ones, at what point do you ignore the logical conclusion that you should quit bugging us?

        4. And you’re a shitty actuarial. Which costs less? BC pills or pregnancy?

          As someone who worked as a health insurance underwriter, I can assure you that it is cheaper for an insurance company to NOT cover BC pills that women who do not want to get pregnant would buy anyway.

          I mean, really, how many women get pregnant because they couldn’t get their insurer to spring for BC pills and they thought the pills were too costly?

          1. Wut? We grrrlz r all dumb bitchez who can’t do maff on our own. Babies are more expensive than birth control? Whatevs!

    2. What part of Friedman/Hayek advocated for mandating employers provide inexpensive incidentals?

      1. None, of course. But the whole system is fucked up due to Medicare/caid. 51% of the US has their health care paid for by government. BC pills are a gnat on the ass of that $700 billion beast.

        1. BC pills are a gnat on the ass of that $700 billion beast.

          Then you should have no problem covering the cost for the women you purport to “love,” right?

    3. Why does anyone expect insurance to cover eithe conraion or pregnancy.

      Both can be planned and budgeted for and paid for out of pocket.

      More evidence thaty people don’t want insurance, they want someone else to pay their doctors bills.

      1. Correction:

        Why does anyone expect insurance to cover either contraception or pregnancy?

        I’ve made typos before but I,ve never missed that many letters.

        1. It’s Friday, do what I do, blame it on the acid.

        2. A regular uncomplicated pregnancy can be budgeted for. But, complications of pregnancy can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Preemies, the same.

          So, unless you’re fairly wealthy, this is exactly the sort of thing where insurance makes sense to cover — huge unanticipatable but rare expenses you don’t have the cash reserves to pay for out of pocket.

          1. Great. I assume you’re an insurer willing to buy the actual risk, right? You can’t possibly be some thug with his hand out trying to sound like an actuary, can you?

    4. Re: Shrike,

      Any rational profit-based insurer would prefer to provide “free” birth control over costly pregnancy OB/GYN services anytime.

      Not if the woman wants to get pregnant.

      Ohhhh, you didn’t think of that, did you? Aww, sweetheart!

    5. Who gives a shit. If thats the case, then why do we need a goddamn law? Also, there is a first ammendment issue here. Now me, personally, I dont give a flying shit through a spinning fan about the goddamn church, but they have a right to religious freedom so compelling them to do things that violates their religious beliefs, no matter how retarded they may be is still wrong. And simply making the insurance companies pay for it is equally wrong, because money is fungible. The costs will be passed on to the organization providing the care and furthermore, the religious organization will no longer be able to select a plan that does not offer this service.

      Here is an idea, if you cant afford birth control and you dont want to get pregnant, JUST STOP FUCKING.

      1. “I dont give a flying shit through a spinning fan about the goddamn church, but they have a right to religious freedom so compelling them to do things that violates their religious beliefs”

        They can do whatever they want with their own money and their own people. But that’s not what we are talking about here. These “Catholic” facilities are health care facilities that actually care for, and are staffed by, many non-Catholics; they receive tax exemptions and are reimbursed by different health plans. It would be an outrage to allow these institutions to impose their religious views and lifestyle choices on others with other people’s money. If the Catholic church doesn’t want to comply with medical standards or federal employment laws, then they should get out of these businesses altogether.

        1. 1: the non-Catholics in question are aware that they are working for/patronizing an institution that is run according to Catholic ideals.

          2: the fact that the Catholic institution is not paying for something that goes against their ideals is not the same as controlling their employees lives. Their employees are perfectly free to obtain BC out of pocket.

          1. “the non-Catholics in question are aware that they are working for/patronizing an institution that is run according to Catholic ideals”

            They may not have a choice, since the Catholic hospital may have a natural monopoly. Furthermore, private businesses can’t compete on equal footing with the Catholic institution since it receives special privileges and tax exemptions.

            And if that is so, why couldn’t I run an atheist hospital that refuses to hire Catholics? I mean, atheists consider Catholic reproductive policies to be immoral, and their lack of birth control and consequent unwanted pregnancie imposes high costs on the rest of us; I don’t want to have to pay for those immoral choices either.

            So, either liberty for everybody, or everybody needs to live under the same restrictions. But I am strongly against giving preferential treatment to Catholic institutions, and that is exactly what you want.

            1. I’m not sure where Catholic hospitals have a monopoly, but if they do, it’s probably in an area that is too sparsely populated to afford a variety of options. If that were the case, it might be impossible to avoid one hospital or another having a monopoly.

              Secondly, I did not call for “preferential treatment” for Catholic institutions. I don’t think the insurance mandate should exist at all, let alone the mandate for BC coverage. I don’t want special treatment for Catholic institutions in this regard; I want freedom of choice/freedom of conscience across the board.

              Third: you are limiting the discussion to hospitals and thus obscuring that we are talking about a wider variety of institutions and businesses (schools, social welfare organizations, radio and TV stations, bookstores, newspapers/magazines, and so on) that may be affected.

        2. What R said…

    6. On what planet is this about cost? Some people don’t want to offer as compensation for services rendered something they regard as evil. Vegetarians wouldn’t want to give people meat as payment. PETA wouldn’t want to give fur. Catholics don’t want to give contraception.

      It’s like twenty bucks a month. Worst case scenario, the government should just grant a waiver that lets the organization pay all employees $20 extra bucks a month in cash, for them to spend as they see fit. If women choose not to spend that on contraception, well, their budget, their choice.

      1. Waivers are only for donors to Obamas reelection campaign.

      2. Cynical, you’ve got it all wrong! This is about womyn’s reproductive rights! Reproductive rights have nothing to do with responsibility!

      3. I’m a broke ass college student & manage to pay my $9 a month for birth control. It’s not like the generic stuff is filled with medical waste, geez. I don’t understand the need to take pills that cost upwards of $100 a month!

  6. I’ve had enough of this topic. But someone please save me from this BS. AHH!

    1. Communism and Capitalism work the same way: to concentrate wealth and power to the elite.

      1. Communism and Capitalism fail the same way: too concentrated wealth and power to the elite.

        1. http://img513.imageshack.us/im…..parent.jpg

          Is that why you’re angry, Injun?

      2. Are you suggesting a THIRD way that succeeds where capitalism and communism fail? I’ve never heard that idea before. I’m intrigued, Do please continue.

        1. Don’t encourage it.

          1. I noticed it going down the line not up it. If it changes course though, watch out!

    2. Do what I do: never read Gawker.

  7. I am a Catholic, and I think that our leadership got what they deserved on this one. The latest thing in the church now is “social justice”, which basically means more government involvement in everything. But when you give the government more power, there is the risk that someone will use that power for something you don’t like. During the health care debate, the church was against free abortions, but was just fine with the government forcing people to pay for someone else’s health care – for the sake of “social justice.” Well, guess what? This is what you get. I’m sure nobody in the church is going to get this point, though.

    1. You mean the monster I’ve cobbled together will refuse to obey my every command?

    2. I said something similar to this to my very Catholic Mother and she had to agree. They were enablers of this legislation that bit them in the ass.

      Of course it doesn’t change the fact that this is bullshit, not because it is war on religion but because nobody should be forced to do this.

    3. Thanks, I think that’s an important observation. In fact, much of what conservatives call “socialist Europe” is, in fact, Christian Europe and the Catholic church’s idea of “social justice” and social engineering.

      Having said that, I don’t have a problem with the Catholic church doing whatever it wants to with its own money, and doing to its priests and members whatever it wants to. But the health care facilities we are talking about here have non-Catholic staff and non-Catholic patients, and take insurance and tax funding from non-Catholics. That’s why they should not be able to use these facilities to impose Catholic religious beliefs on others.

      In fact, I think Obama can do what he wants, I don’t see an exemption for Catholic hospitals surviving a legal challenge. As long as health care was voluntary, the Catholic church could choose to provide a limited plan. But now that it has become mandatory, there is no basis for an exemption.

      1. This is not so much about BC as it is about promoting promiscuous attitudes; for the young kids this is about molesting them with sexual/prurient subject matter.

  8. Good article Mr. Richman.

  9. So the insurers won’t increase premiums for religious employers, but instead will increase premiums for the non-religious employers?

    Can someone with greater economic expertise explain this to me? Why won’t the insurers increase premiums on religious employers?

    1. They will, nothing has changed. Previously the mandate was that employers had to offer an insurance policy for $x that covered whatever, and also included a rider that covered free contraception for $y at no extra cost to the employee. The “compromise” (wink-wink) is that insurers have to offer the offer the employees contraception at no cost to the employees. The reality is that the insurers will simply end up charging employers $x + $y for the “revised” policy, and the employer is still paying for contraceptives for its employees. Nothing has changed from the original mandate–everyone just has to pretend it has.

        1. Indeed I am, though I rarely comment there–usually too many comments to wade through and I hate repeating what someone else has already said.

          1. Yup, same. Well, good to know the hobo hunting and ValuRite tradition is alive and well in other corners of the interwebs.

  10. My car insurance doesn’t cover oil changes. They are really expensive, and you have to do them. But Geico is still refusing to pay for some reason. Let’s require all auto insurance to provide free oil changes. We’ll save a bundle! Who’s with me?

    1. And if you said your insurance ought o pay to buy you another car they’d say you’re crazy but it’s perfectly OK to expect insurance to pay for pregnancies.

      By the way, I’m fine with paying for complications due to pregnancy. That’s unexpected.

      But if you’re fucking there’s a chance of pregnancy. So have the money to either pay for it or prevent it.

      1. By the way, I’m fine with paying for complications due to pregnancy. That’s unexpected.

        Oh, please. What do you think would happen if insurers tried to not cover uncomplicated pregnancies, but did cover complicated pregnancies? What incentive would you give doctors and their patients? Think through all the perverse outcomes that might cause.

        That’s why, because insurers must cover complications of pregnancies, logically they must also cover * less * complicated pregnancies (because EVERY pregnancy can be deemed to be complicated in some way).

        1. As someone who claims to have worked as a health insurance underwriter you don’t know much about insurance. Kreel wrote “paying for COMPLICATIONS due to pregnancy”, not for complicated pregnancies. The pregnancy is predictable. The complications are not. Just like in Stevo’s car insurance example.

          In any case, what you seem to be suggesting is that insurance companies should be forced to pay for everything so they won’t be defrauded by some doctors and patients into paying for some things. Is that not blindingly stupid?

    2. That’s only because the right-wing extremists in Congress wants your engine to grind to a screeching halt for lack of regular oil changes, which ought to be a human right. Myself, I’m sick of these creeps being in the pay of Big Rebuild.

    3. Fuck that, free cars for everyone!

  11. I only have basic cable because Time/Warner refused to black out the signals for CNN, Fox, MSNBC and MTV, but does Maddow always sound this stupid?

    http://www.politico.com/news/s…..z1m1CxQgll

    In the video, Maddow said, “This is about providing health insurance, and the Republican Party is waging war on contraception at this point.”

    What a strange way to conceptualize the argument for someone who claims to be pro-choice.

    But that wasn’t the most retarded part of this story. Responding to Cal Thomas’s rather pedestrian insult, ‘”I’m really glad, Genevieve, that you played the original Maddow clip, because I think she is the best argument in favor of her parents using contraception. I would be all for that. And all the rest of the crowd at MSNBC, too, for that matter.”

    She has this conversation.

    “Mr. Fox News person speaking there ? I’m sorry that you feel that way about me, that you wish I had never been born,” she said. “Personally, I’m glad that you were born. Otherwise, how would Republicans get the special Fox News bat signal that it’s time to be outraged now about what used to be Republicans’ own policy idea?”

    When Maddow introduced her next guest, Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman greeted the MSNBC host with, “Thank you, and I’m awfully glad you were born, Rachel.”

    Maddow responded, “Thank you. I sort of feel that should become a generic greeting in America now: ‘Nice to see you, I’m glad you were born.’

    Does she exude that mix of cancerous banality, pettiness and sanctimony every night?

    1. What else is MSNBC for?

      1. Making sure Obama gets re-elected?

    2. Does she exude that mix of cancerous banality, pettiness and sanctimony every night?

      You forgot to mention the perp smirk.

    3. I wish I could have been born. Thanks, Rachel!

  12. Stryd woed oor die Obama-administrasie se voorgestel (en later gewysig) mandaat dat alle werkgewers-Katolieke hospitale en universiteite sluit in gratis voorbehoedmiddels in hul werknemers se gesondheid versekeringspolisse. Katolieke amptenare voorwerp wat sedert hul kerk verbied voorbehoeding, die besluit in stryd met die Eerste Wysiging se beskerming van godsdiensvryheid. Ander het wat in die protes aangesluit het, verstandig vooruit op dat hierdie skending van vryheid van gewete kan uitbrei na ander sake en ander gelowe.

    Die verhoging van die beswaar het ‘n onkreukbare geval. Die presedent wat glo in die meer as twee dosyn state wat reeds soortgelyke mandate het, is irrelevant. Wat is immoreel nie net morele word deur presedent. Die beginsel dat niemand moet gedwing word om te finansier wat hy of sy gruwelike is gesond. Om die waarheid te s?, moet dit in die algemeen toegepas word.

    Die verandering van die onderwerp

    Verdedigers van die besluit is baie goed by die onderwerp te verander. Natuurlik is dit – wat anders het hulle het? Na hulle nie luister nie, sal jy dink iemand het voorgestel dat voorbehoeding verbied word. (Wel, Rick Santorum lyk om genadig te wees, maar hy is pretty much alleen) ObamaCare kampioene, wil h? dat ons glo dat die omstredenheid oor “toegang” tot sekere produkte en dienste. Al die besluit nie, s? hulle, is dekking vir, en dus toegang tot gratis voorbehoedmiddels (saam met ander voorkomende dienste in) vir vroue wat dit wil. Maar dit bring net nog ‘n vraag:

    Wat het dit te doen met die versekering?

    Toegang is nie afhanklik op die dekking. Ons het toegang tot baie belangrike dinge wat nie deur versekering gedek word nie. Uitgesoekte, s? die besluit is eintlik bevestig godsdiensvryheid. Hoe so? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, en Patty Murray in die Wall Street Journal verduidelik: “[T] Hy miljoene Amerikaanse vroue wat kies om voorbehoeding te gebruik moet nie gedwing word om godsdienstige leer om te volg, of Katolieke of nie-Katolieke”

    Met ander woorde, ‘n gebrek aan dekking vir voorbehoeding is gelykstaande aan gedwing om voorbehoedmiddels te gebruik nie. Dit is ‘n paar vreemde argument, maar dit is wat ons het gekom om te verwag van die lede van die “w?reld se grootste beraadslagende liggaam.”

    Wel?

    So die vraag bly: Wat het dit te doen met die versekering?

    “Toegang tot geboortebeperking is direk gekoppel aan die dalings in moeder-en kindersterftes, kan die risiko van ovariale kanker verminder, en is gekoppel aan algehele goeie gesondheid uitkomste,”. Sens Boxer, Shaheen, en Murray skryf.

    Fine, maar wat dit het te doen met die versekering?

    “[B] roadening toegang tot geboortebeperking sal help om die aantal onbeplande swangerskappe en aborsies, ‘n doel wat ons almal moet deel.”

    Fine, maar wat dit het te doen met die versekering?

    “Behoorlike gesinsbeplanning deur middel van die resultate van die geboorte beheer in gesonder moeders en kinders, wat tot voordeel van almal van ons.”

    Fine, maar wat dit het te doen met die versekering?

    “Dit spaar ons geld te …”

    Fine, maar wat dit het te doen met die versekering?

    “Dit kos $ 600 per jaar vir die skryf van voorbehoedmiddels.” (Dit is ‘n ho?-end skatting, is daar ‘n laer koste, insluitend ‘n Beplande Ouerskap vir lae-inkomste-vroue)

    Fine, maar wat dit het te doen met die versekering?

    “Sowat 99% van vroue in die VSA wat seksueel aktief is op ‘n sekere punt in hulle lewens gebruik geboortebeperking, insluitend 98% van die Katolieke vroue, volgens aan die Guttmacher Instituut.”

    Fine, maar wat dit het te doen met-oh never mind. Ek sal antwoord my: Dit het niks te doen met die versekering.

    Pooling Risiko

    Versekering het ontstaan ??as ‘n manier vir individue om hul risiko van ‘n paar low-probability/high-cost ongeluk befalling hulle. Dit moet nie nodig wees om dit uit te wys, maar die koms van die kind-draende ouderdom en die keuse om voorbehoedmiddels te gebruik is nie ‘n versekerbare gebeurtenis. Dit is ‘n wils kragtig daad. Dit kan ‘n goeie gevolge vir die persoon wat die werking en die samelewing in die algemeen, maar dit is nog steeds ‘n wils kragtig daad. Dit maak geen sin om te praat oor die versekering teen die moontlikheid dat ‘n bepaalde persoon voorbehoeding gebruik. Streng gesproke, voorbehoedmiddels het niks te doen met die versekering.

    Ongelukkig het ons nie streng praat oor gesondheid versekering. Een rede waarom ons dit nie doen nie, is die belasting-kode. Sedert die Tweede W?reldoorlog vergoeding vir arbeid in die vorm van werk-gebaseerde gesondheid versekering tel nie as belasbare inkomste. (Geld spandeer onafhanklik op die gesondheid versekering tel nie.) Die belasting kode dus skep perverse aansporing tot 1) hang af van ‘n mens se werkgewer vir mediese versekering, 2) skof inkomste van vloeibare kontant beperkte versekering voordele, en 3) definieer onversekerbaar gebeure as versekerbare. Sal iemand omgee om te verduidelik hoe goed-baba sorg versekerbare kan wees?

    Dus het ons belasting te bedank vir nog ‘n kenmerk van die moderne w?reld: die korrupsie van die taal. In die mediese ryk versekering geen lang manier versekering.

    In plaas daarvan is ‘n spel wat ons kry om ander mense te betaal vir dinge. Wel, dit is nie heeltemal akkuraat nie. Dit is eintlik ‘n speletjie wat ons voorgee dat ander mense betaal vir die dinge. Kyk, voorbehoeding, mammogramme, colonoscopies, en goed-baba sorg is nie vry nie. (Sien my “Daar is nie so iets soos ‘n gratis mammogram.”) Wat hulle nodig het arbeid en hulpbronne wat vir die eienaars wil-nie onredelik-om-te vergoed word. Iemand moet betaal. Indien werkgewers nominaal verplig is om te betaal vir die dekking, iemand nie ernstig twyfel dat werknemers sal betaal deur laer kontantlone? Werkgewers is nie liefdadigheid. So, selfs sonder ‘n copayment, ons almal weet diep dat ons as werkers betaal vir die dekking. (Wat deur die pad is waarskynlik duurder wees as die dienste in ‘n vrygestelde mark sou wees, aangesien versekeringsmaatskappye oorhoofse en meer vir hulle onheil nie. Ook gesubsidieerde vraag verhoog pryse sal vra.) Tog, is so die waarheid verberg wat mense kan asof hulle iets gratis kry.

    So het die regering stelsel behandel ons soos kinders, en helaas die meeste van ons lyk bly om behandel te word dat die pad.

    Obama se “kompromie”

    Onder druk, is die Obama-administrasie verwag om ‘n “kompromie” wat vrygestel Katolieke werkgewers sal nie te betaal vir voorbehoeding dekking aan te kondig. Versekeringsmaatskappye In plaas daarvan, sou die dekking verskaf aan werknemers. Aangesien onder Health and Human Services re?ls, sal hierdie dekking moet vry wees, die Obama-administrasie is in effek die regie van versekeraars om die koste om te eet. Maar versekeraars-winsgewende maatskappye, liefdadigheid, so ons kan verwag dat hulle die koste aan iemand anders om te slaag. Maar aan wie? Daar is net een moontlikheid: nonexempt werkgewers, wat beteken in werklikheid werknemers van nonexempt maatskappye. So die groot kompromie verskuif die koste van ‘n klein minderheid van die werknemers by die oorgrote meerderheid – alles in die naam van vryheid van godsdiens. Alle werkers in nonexempt maatskappye en instellings sal ‘n salaris sny.

  13. Shp?rthen polemika p?r administrat?n e Obam?s ka propozuar (dhe modifikohet m? von?) mandatin q? t? gjith? pun?dh?n?sit t? p?rfshir? spitalet katolike dhe universitete shtesa p?rfshijn? kontraceptiv? falas n? politikat e sh?ndetit t? tyre punonj?s t? sigurimit. Zyrtar?t katolike objekt se q? kisha e tyre e ndalon kontracepsion, dekreti shkel Amendamentit t? Par? ‘s mbrojtjen e liris? fetare. T? tjer?t jan? bashkuar n? protest?, duke parashikuar me kujdes se kjo shkelje e liris? s? nd?rgjegjes mund t? p?rhapet n? ??shtje t? tjera dhe feve t? tjera.

    Ata duke ngritur kund?rshtimin kan? nj? rast i past?r. Precedent vendosur me sa duket n? m? shum? se dy dhjet?ra shtete q? tashm? kan? mandate t? ngjashme ?sht? e par?nd?sishme. ?far? ?sht? imorale nuk b?het thjesht moral me precedent. Parimi se askush nuk duhet t? jet? e detyruar t? financoj? at? q? ai ose ajo gjen p?shtir? ?sht? i sh?ndosh?. N? fakt, ajo duhet t? aplikohet n? p?rgjith?si.

    Ndryshimi Titulli

    Mbrojt?sit e dekretit jan? mjaft t? mira n? ndryshimin e subjektit. Sigurisht ata jan? – ?far? tjet?r kan? ata pat?n? P?r t? d?gjuar ato, ju do t? mendoni se dikush ka propozuar q? kontraceptiv?t t? jasht?ligjshme. (Pra, Rick Santorum duket p?r t? favorizuar se;. Por ai ?sht? pretty much vet?m) kampion? ObamaCare do t? na besojn? polemik? ka t? b?j? me “qasje” n? disa produkte dhe sh?rbime. T? gjitha dekreti b?n, thon? ata, ?sht? t? siguroj? mbulimin e sigurimit p?r t?, dhe p?r k?t? arsye t? hyr?, p?r t? kontraceptiv?ve falas (s? bashku me sh?rbimet e tjera parandaluese) p?r grat? q? duan at?. Por, q? vet?m ngre nj? pyetje tjet?r:

    ?far? ka kjo t? b?j? me sigurimin?

    Qasja nuk varet nga mbulimi. Ne kemi qasje n? shum? gj?ra t? r?nd?sishme q? nuk mbulohen nga sigurimi. M?nyr? t? ?uditshme, disa thon? se dekreti t? v?rtet? pohon lirin? fetare. Si k?shtu? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen dhe Patty Murray shpjeguar n? Wall Street Journal: “. [T] ai miliona grave amerikane q? zgjedhin t? p?rdorin kontraceptiv? nuk duhet t? detyrohen t? ndjekin doktrin?n fetare, qofshin katolike apo jo-katolike”

    Me fjal? t? tjera, mungesa e mbulimit t? sigurimit p?r kontraceptive ?sht? e barabart? p?r t? qen? t? detyruar t? mos p?rdorin kontraceptiv?. Kjo ?sht? nj? argument i ?uditsh?m, por kjo ?sht? ajo q? ne kemi ardhur p?r t? presin nga an?tar?t e “Trupi m? i madh diskutues bot?.”

    E pra?

    Pra, mbetet pyetja: ?far? ka kjo t? b?j? me sigurimin?

    “Qasja n? kontrollin e lindjes ?sht? e lidhur direkt me r?nie n? vdekshm?ris? s? n?nave dhe foshnjave, mund t? zvog?loj? rrezikun e kancerit ovarian, dhe ?sht? e lidhur me rezultatet e p?rgjithshme t? mir? sh?ndet?sore”, Sens. Boxer, Shaheen, dhe Murray shkruaj.

    Fine, por at? q? ajo mori t? b?j? me sigurimin?

    “[B] roadening akses p?r kontrollin e lindjes do t? ndihmoj? n? uljen e numrit t? shtatz?nive t? pad?shiruara dhe aborteve, nj? objektiv q? ne t? gjith? duhet t? ndajn?”.

    Fine, por at? q? ajo mori t? b?j? me sigurimin?

    “Planifikimi i duhur familjar me rezultatet e kontrollit t? lindjes n? n?nat e t? sh?ndetshme dhe t? f?mij?ve, t? cilat p?rfitimet t? gjith? ne.”

    Fine, por at? q? ajo mori t? b?j? me sigurimin?

    “Ai na shp?ton para shum? ….”

    Fine, por at? q? ajo mori t? b?j? me sigurimin?

    “Ajo mund t? kushtoj? 600 $ n? vit p?r kontraceptiv?ve recet?.” (Kjo ?sht? nj? fund t? lart? vler?sim;. Ka mund?si me kosto t? ul?t, duke p?rfshir? edhe prind planifikuar p?r t? ardhura t? ul?ta gra)

    Fine, por at? q? ajo mori t? b?j? me sigurimin?

    “Disa 99% e grave n? SHBA q? jan? ose kan? qen? seksualisht aktiv n? nj? pik? n? jet?n e tyre e kan? p?rdorur kontrollin e lindjeve, duke p?rfshir? 98 p?r qind e grave katolike, sipas Institutit Guttmacher”.

    Fine, por at? q? ajo mori t? b?j? me-oh kurr? mendje. Un? do t? p?rgjigjem vet?: Ajo ka asgj? t? b?j? me sigurimin.

    Rreziku bashkimit

    Sigurimi u ngrit si nj? m?nyr? p?r individ?t n? pishin? rrezikun e disa befalling fatkeq?sis? low-probability/high-cost ato. Ajo nuk duhet t? jet? e nevojshme t? theksoj k?t?, por ardhja e f?mij?ve duke mosh? dhe duke zgjedhur p?r t? p?rdorur kontraceptiv? nuk ?sht? nj? ngjarje insurable. ?sht? nj? akt i vullnetsh?m. Ajo mund t? ket? pasoja t? mira p?r personin q? merr veprime dhe shoq?rin? n? p?rgjith?si, por ajo ?sht? ende nj? akt i vullnetsh?m. Nuk ka kuptim t? flitet p?r sigurimin kund?r eventualitet q? nj? person t? ve?ant? do t? p?rdor? kontraceptiv?. Rrept?sisht t? folurit, kontraceptiv?t ka asgj? t? b?j? me sigurimin.

    P?r fat t? keq, ne nuk e flasin n? m?nyr? rigoroze p?r sigurim sh?ndet?sor. Nj? arsye q? ne nuk b?jm? ?sht? kodi fiskal. Q? prej Luft?s s? Dyt? Bot?rore kompensimit p?r pun?n n? form?n e pun?simit bazuar n? sigurime sh?ndet?sore nuk llogariten si t? ardhura t? tatueshme. (Parat? e shpenzuara t? pavarur p?r sigurim sh?ndet?sor b?n akuz?.) Kodi fiskal n? k?t? m?nyr? krijon stimuj t? ?oroditura me 1) varet nga pun?dh?n?si dikujt p?r sigurim mjek?sor, 2) t? ardhurat ndryshim nga t? holla t? l?ngshme p?r p?rfitime t? kufizuara t? sigurimit, dhe 3) t? p?rcaktoj? ngjarjet uninsurable si insurable. A do dikush t? kujdeset p?r t? shpjeguar se si t? mir?-f?mija kujdes mund t? jet? insurable?

    Pra, ne kemi taksimit t? t? fal?nderoj p?r t? ende tipar tjet?r t? bot?s moderne: korrupsion e gjuh?s. N? sigurim mjek?sor Realm nuk e sigurimeve gjat? mjete.

    N? vend t? k?saj kjo ?sht? nj? loj? me t? cil?n ne kemi marr? njer?z t? tjer? p?r t? paguar p?r stuff. E pra, q? nuk ?sht? mjaft i sakt?. ?sht? n? fakt nj? loj? n? t? cil?n ne pretendojm? q? njer?zit e tjer? paguajn? p?r stuff. Ja, kontracepsioni, mammograms, colonoscopies, dhe i foshnj?s kujdes nuk jan? t? lir?. (Shih tim “Nuk ka gj? t? till? si nj? mammogram Lir?”). Ata k?rkojn? pun? dhe burime p?r t? cilat pronar?t d?shirojn? jo-paarsyeshme-t? kompensohen. Dikush ka p?r t? paguar. N? qoft? se pun?dh?n?sit jan? t? detyruar fillimisht p?r t? paguar p?r mbulimin, ka njeri seriozisht dyshoj q? t? pun?suarit t? v?rtet? do t? paguajn? n?p?rmjet pagave t? ul?ta t? holla? Pun?dh?n?sit nuk jan? bamir?se. Pra, edhe pa nj? copayment, ne t? gjith? e dim? t? thell? posht? se ne si pun?tor? paguaj? p?r mbulimin. (Cili nga rruga ka gjasa t? jet? m? e shtrenjt? se sh?rbimet do t? jet? n? nj? treg t? lir?, pasi kompanit? e sigurimeve do t? ngarkuar lart dhe m? shum? p?r fatkeq?sin? e tyre. Gjithashtu k?rkesa subvencionuar ngre ?mimet.) Megjithat?, e v?rteta ?sht? err?suar n? m?nyr? q? njer?zit mund pretendojn? ata jan? marr? di?ka p?r t? lira.

    Pra, qeveria gjeneruar sistem na trajton si f?mij?, dhe mjerisht shumica prej nesh duket i lumtur q? do t? trajtohen n? k?t? m?nyr?.

    “Kompromisi” i Obam?s

    N?n presionin, administrata Obama pritet t? njoftoj? nj? “kompromis”, sipas t? cilave pun?dh?n?sit p?rjashtuara katolike nuk do t? duhet t? paguaj? p?r mbulimin e kontracepcionit. N? vend t? k?saj, kompanit? e sigurimeve do t? siguroj? mbulimin e drejtp?rdrejt? p?r t? pun?suar. Q? n?n Sh?ndet?sis? dhe Sh?rbimeve Njer?zore rregullave, ky mbulim duhet t? jet? falas, administrata Obama ?sht? n? fuqi drejtimin siguruesit p?r t? ngr?n? koston. Por siguruesit jan? fitimprur?se kompani, jo bamir?se, k?shtu q? ne mund t? presim q? ata t? kalojn? koston e dikujt tjet?r. Por p?r k?? Ka vet?m nj? mund?si: pun?dh?n?sit nonexempt, q? do t? thot? n? fakt punonj?sve t? kompanive nonexempt. Pra, kompromisi i madh nd?rrime koston nga nj? pakic? t? vog?l t? t? pun?suarve n? shumic?n d?rrmuese – t? gjitha n? em?r t? liris? fetare. T? gjith? pun?tor?t n? kompanit? nonexempt dhe institucionet do t? marr? nj? prerje t? paguajn

  14. Obama administrazioa Controversy baino gehiago dihardu proposatzen ari da (eta, geroago, aldaketa) agintaldia enplegatzaileek-katoliko guztiak barne ospitale eta unibertsitate-artean, besteak beste, antisorgailuak free beren enplegatuen osasun-aseguruak. Funtzionarioek katolikoa objektu beren eliza debekatzen antisorgailuak geroztik, dekretu Modificaci?n Lehenengo ‘s erlijio-askatasunaren babesa urratzen. Beste batzuk protesta batean sartu zen, zuhurra kontzientzi askatasunaren urraketa izan daitezkeen beste gai eta beste faiths zabaldu aurreratuz.

    Objection igotzen kasu bat unimpeachable. Aurrekaririk itxuraz bi dozena baino gehiago estatu jada antzeko aginduak ezartzen da garrantzirik. Zer da immoral ez moral, besterik gabe, aurrekari bihurtu da. Printzipioa ez dela behartu behar den zuen aurkitzen abhorrent finantzatzeko soinua da. Izan ere, oro har aplikatu behar.

    Gaia aldatzea

    Dekretuaren Defentsak nahiko ona gaia aldatzeko. Dira, noski, zer gehiago dute lortu? Haiek entzuteko, uste duzun norbait proposatu du antisorgailuak da ilegalizada. (Beno, Rick Santorum ez dirudi hori erraztea da. Baina pretty much bakarrik da zuen) ObamaCare Txapeldun “access” produktu eta zerbitzu jakin batzuei buruzko eztabaida dela uste gurekin izango litzateke. Dekretuaren guztia ez, esaten dutenez, aseguruak estaldura ematen da, eta, beraz, sartzeko, free antisorgailuak (prebentzio beste zerbitzu batzuekin batera) nahi duten emakumeak. Baina galdera beste nabarmentzean:

    Zer lortu aseguru egin?

    Sartzeko ez da estaldura mendekoak dira. Ugari eta garrantzitsuak ez da gauza aseguru estalita sarbidea ditugu. Weirdly, batzuk diotenez, dekretua benetan erlijio askatasuna baieztatzen. Nola beraz? Barbara Sens. Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, eta Patty Murray Wall Street Journal azaldu du: “[T] zuen American emakumeek antisorgailuak erabiltzeko aukeratzen duten milioika behartuta erlijio doktrina jarraitu behar ez den, ala katoliko edo ez-katolikoak”

    Bestela esanda, aseguru antisorgailuak estaldura eza dela medio ez antisorgailuak erabili baliokidea da. Hori argumentu arraro batzuk, baina zer etorri kideek espero dugu “munduko deliberative gorputza handiena da.”

    Beno?

    Beraz, galdera izaten jarraitzen du: Zer lortu aseguru egin?

    “Jaiotza-kontrola sarbidea amen eta haurren heriotza-tasa atzera zuzenean lotuta dago, ovarian minbizi-arriskua murriztu daiteke, eta osasuna oro har, emaitza onak lotuta,”: Boxer Sens., Shaheen, eta Murray idazteko.

    Ondo, baina zer ari den aseguru lortu da?

    “[B], jaiotza-kontrola sarbidea roadening ustekabeko haurdunaldiak eta abortuak kopurua murriztea, helburu bat, behar guztiak gara partekatzen lagunduko du.”

    Ondo, baina zer ari den aseguru lortu da?

    “Jaiotza-kontrola, amak eta seme-alabek osasuntsuago onuragarria da, hain zuzen guztiok emaitzak bidez familia planifikazio egokian.”

    Ondo, baina zer ari den aseguru lortu da?

    “Gu dirua aurrezten da handiegia ….

    Ondo, baina zer ari den aseguru lortu da?

    “$ Urtean 600 bat kostatu daiteke Contraceptivas preskripzioa.” (High-end estimazio bat da;. Kostu txikiagokoa aukerak, gurasoen Aurreikusitako diru-sarrera gutxiko emakumeak barne daude)

    Ondo, baina zer ari den aseguru lortu da?

    “% 99 AEBetan emakume edo sexu aktiboa izan da, beren bizitzako uneren batean erabili dituzte jaiotza-kontrola, katolikoa emakumeen% 98 barne, Institutuko Guttmacher arabera.”

    Ondo, baina zer ari den, inoiz ez dio axola-oh egin lortu du. Neure buruari erantzuten dut: handia, erosoa lortu ezer aseguru egin.

    Elkarrekin Arriskuen

    Aseguru, igerilekua partikularrek beren batzuk ezbeharren low-probability/high-cost befalling arriskua modu bat sortu zen. Hau aipatzea ez da beharrezkoa izango behar ditu, baina ez da seme-alaba-bearing adina eta datozen antisorgailuak erabiltzea aukeratuz aseguragarrien gertaera bat. Volitional ekintza bat da. Pertsona, ekintza eta gizarteari handietako hartuta ondorio onak izan ditzake, baina oraindik ekintza bat volitional. Ez du zentzurik, to the eventuality Pertsona partikular bat dela antisorgailuak erabiliko du aurka insuring buruz hitz egin. Zorrotz hitz egiten, antisorgailuak ezer aseguru egin du.

    Zoritxarrez, ez dugu hitz zorrozki osasun asegurua buruz. Arrazoia ez egiten dugu, zerga-kodea da. World War II kalte-ordainak enplegu-oinarritutako osasun asegurua formularioa lan geroztik, ez du diru-sarreren zerga-oinarri gisa zenbatzen. (Dirua gastatu independentean osasun asegurua ez Aldaketa.) Zerga-kodea, horrela sortzen gaizto pizgarriak 1) bat enpresariak mendekoak dira aseguru mediko, 2) ordezkapen diru-sarrera eskudirutan likido restricted aseguru-prestazioak, eta 3) uninsurable Ekitaldi define aseguragarrien bezala. Luke ondo-haurra zainketa nola aseguragarrien izan daiteke, norbait zaintzen azaltzeko?

    Hizkuntza ustelkeria: Beraz, zerga eskerrak, mundu modernoaren oraindik beste ezaugarri bat dugu. Erresuman ez da bide luzea aseguru aseguru medikoa.

    Horren ordez,, stuff ordaintzeko beste pertsona lortu dugu jokoa da. Beno, hori ez da oso zehatza. Actually joko bat da, non beste pertsona stuff ordaintzeko asmoa dugu. Look, antisorgailuak, mammograms, colonoscopies, eta ondo-haurra zainketa ez dira doakoak. (Ikusi nire “Ez da, Free Mammogram gisa Halako Thing da.”), Lan eta jabeek nahi-ez unreasonably-konpentsatu dira baliabideak behar dira. Norbaitek ditu ordaindu. Enpresarien nominaldi dira behartuta bada estaldura ordaintzeko, ez Edozeinek larriki zalantzan jartzen duten langile cash txikiagoa soldata bidez benetan ordaindu? Enpresariak ez dira ongintza. Beraz, baita copayment gabe, denok dakigu sakona behera langile gisa dugun estaldura ordainduko. (Zein da bidea da, ziurrenik garestiagoa zerbitzu baino Freed merkatu bat izango litzateke, aseguru konpainiak gardenkien eta gehiago baitira beren arazoak. Era berean, diruz lagundutako eskaria altxatzen prezioak kobratzen.) Hala ere, egia da, beraz, ilundu pertsona dezakezu itxurak doan zerbait ari dira.

    Beraz, gobernu-sisteman sortutako tratatzen gurekin seme-alabak bezala, eta Alas gurekin gehien badirudi pozik horrela tratatu behar.

    Obamaren “Konpromisoa”

    Presiopean, Obama administrazioa espero zen, “konpromisoa” diren salbuetsita katolikoa enpresaburuek ez luke antisorgailuak estaldura ordaintzeko iragarriko. Horren ordez, aseguru konpainiak estaldura emango zuzenean langileei. Osasuna eta Giza Zerbitzuak arauak azpian geroztik, estaldura hori doakoa izan behar du, administrazioa Obama efektua aseguradoras zuzendu kostua jan da. Baina irabazi-egiteko aseguru enpresak, eta ez-ongintza dira, beraz, espero kostua gainditu behar ditu, beste norbaitek dezakegu. Baina nori? Nonexempt enpresaburuek, enpresa nonexempt Izan ere, langile horrek esan nahi du: aukera bat besterik ez da. Beraz, konpromiso grand gutxiengo txiki bat langile gehienak kostua turnos – all erlijio askatasunaren izenean. Langile guztiak, enpresa eta erakunde nonexempt pay cut bat hartuko du.

  15. Sorgeix controv?rsia sobre el govern d’Obama ha proposat (i posteriorment modificada) el mandat que tots els ocupadors-incloent-hi els hospitals i les universitats cat?liques d’incloure l’anticoncepci? gratu?ta en les seves p?lisses d’asseguran?a de salut per a empleats. Funcionaris cat?lics fi que, des de la seva esgl?sia prohibeix als anticonceptius, el decret viola la protecci? de la Primera Esmena ‘s de la llibertat religiosa. Altres s’han unit en la protesta, amb prud?ncia preveient que aquesta violaci? de la llibertat de consci?ncia podria estendre a altres assumptes i altres religions.

    Els aixecar l’objecci? t? un cas impecable. El precedent creat pel que sembla, en els m?s de dues dotzenes d’estats que ja compten amb mandats similars ?s irrellevant. El que ?s immoral no es converteixi simplement moral, pels precedents. El principi que ning? ha de ser for?at a finan?ar el que ell o ella considera abominable ?s el so. De fet, s’hauria d’aplicar en general.

    Canvi del tema

    Els defensors del decret son molt bons per canviar de tema. Per descomptat que s?n – qu? m?s tenen? Per escoltar-los, un pensaria que alg? ha proposat que l’anticoncepci? es fora de la llei. (B?, Rick Santorum, no semblen estar a favor que,. Per? ?s m?s o menys sol) campions ObamaCare ens volen fer creure que la controv?rsia ?s sobre “acc?s” a certs productes i serveis. Tot el decret ho fa, diuen, ?s proporcionar cobertura d’asseguran?a i, per tant l’acc?s a m?todes anticonceptius gratu?ts (juntament amb altres serveis de prevenci?) per a les dones que ho desitgin. Per? aix? planteja una altra pregunta:

    Qu? t? aix? a veure amb l’asseguran?a?

    L’acc?s no dep?n de l’cobertura. Tenim acc?s a moltes coses importants que no estan coberts per l’asseguran?a. Estranyament, alguns diuen que el decret de fet afirma la llibertat religiosa. Com ?s aix?? Els senadors Barbara Boxer, Shaheen Jeanne, i Patty Murray s’explica en el Wall Street Journal: “. [L] a milions de dones nord-americans que opten per utilitzar un m?tode anticonceptiu no ha de ser for?at a seguir la doctrina religiosa, ja sigui cat?lic o no cat?lic”

    ?s a dir, la manca de cobertura d’asseguran?a per a l’anticoncepci? ?s equivalent a qu? es va veure obligat a no utilitzar m?todes anticonceptius. Aix? ?s un argument estrany, per? ?s el que hem arribat a esperar dels membres de l ‘”major ?rgan deliberatiu del m?n”.

    I doncs?

    Per tant el dubte continua sent: Qu? t? aix? a veure amb l’asseguran?a?

    “L’acc?s al control de la natalitat est? vinculada a la disminuci? de la mortalitat materna i infantil, poden reduir el risc de c?ncer d’ovari, i est? vinculada als resultats globals de bona salut”, els senadors Boxer, Shaheen, i Murray escriure.

    B?, per? qu? t? a veure amb l’asseguran?a?

    “[B] roadening l’acc?s als anticonceptius contribuir? a reduir el nombre d’embarassos no desitjats i avortaments, una fita que tots hem de compartir.”

    B?, per? qu? t? a veure amb l’asseguran?a?

    ?Planificaci? familiar adequada a trav?s de resultats de control de natalitat en mares i nens sans, el que beneficia a tots.”

    B?, per? qu? t? a veure amb l’asseguran?a?

    ?Ens estalvia diners tamb? ….”

    B?, per? qu? t? a veure amb l’asseguran?a?

    “Es pot arribar a costar 600 $ a l’any per a la prescripci? d’anticonceptius.” (Aix? ?s una estimaci? d’alta gamma,. Hi ha opcions de menys cost, incloent Planned Parenthood per a dones de baixos ingressos)

    B?, per? qu? t? a veure amb l’asseguran?a?

    “Aproximadament el 99% de les dones en els EUA que estan o han estat sexualment actives en algun moment de les seves vides han fet servir m?todes anticonceptius, incl?s el 98% de les dones cat?liques, segons l’Institut Guttmacher.”

    B?, per? qu? t? a veure amb, oh no importa. Me’n vaig a contestar: No t? res veure amb les assegurances.

    Agrupaci? de Risc

    Segur va sorgir com una manera perqu? les persones a la piscina del seu risc d’alguna desgr?cia caient sobre de low-probability/high-cost ells. No hauria de ser necessari assenyalar-lo, per? la majoria d’edat de procrear i la decisi? d’utilitzar un m?tode anticonceptiu no ?s un esdeveniment assegurable. ?s un acte volitiu. Pot tenir bones conseq??ncies per a la persona que pren l’acci? i la societat en general, per? encara ?s un acte volitiu. No t? sentit parlar de assegurar-se contra l’eventualitat que una persona en particular d’utilitzar un m?tode anticonceptiu. Estrictament parlant, l’anticoncepci? no t? res a veure amb les assegurances.

    Per desgr?cia, no parlem estrictament de asseguran?a de salut. Una de les raons que no ?s el codi tributari. Des la Segona Guerra Mundial la compensaci? de m? d ‘obra en forma de asseguran?a de salut basat en l’ocupaci? no compte com a ingr?s gravable. (Diners que es gasta de forma independent sobre l’asseguran?a de salut no compta.) El codi d’impostos el que cregui incentius perversos a 1) depenen d’un ocupador d’una asseguran?a m?dica, 2) els ingressos canvi de diners en efectiu als beneficis de l’asseguran?a restringides, i 3) definir els esdeveniments no assegurables com assegurable. Podria alg? explicar com cuidar del nen sa pot ser assegurable?

    Aix? que hem de donar les gr?cies als impostos d’una altra caracter?stica del m?n modern: la corrupci? del llenguatge. En l’?mbit m?dic asseguran?a de cap tipus de asseguran?a mig de llarg.

    En el seu lloc, ?s un joc, en qu? puguem arribar a altres persones per pagar coses. B?, aix? no ?s del tot exacte. En realitat ?s un joc en el qual es pret?n que altres persones paguen per aix?. Mira, l’anticoncepci?, mamografies, colonosc?pies, i la cura del nen sa no s?n lliures. (Vegeu el meu “No hi ha tal cosa com una mamografia gratis”). Es requereix m? d’obra i els recursos perqu? els propietaris desitgen-no sense ra?-de ser indemnitzades. Alg? ha de pagar. Si els empresaris estan obligats a pagar nominalment per a la cobertura, alg? seriosos dubtes que els empleats realment es paga a trav?s dels salaris en efectiu m?s baixos? Els ocupadors no s?n organitzacions de caritat. Aix? que fins i tot sense un copagament, tots sabem en el fons que nosaltres, com els treballadors paguen per la cobertura. (Que per cert ?s probable que sigui m?s car que els serveis serien en un mercat alliberat, ja que les companyies d’assegurances de despeses generals, i m?s pels seus problemes. Tamb? la demanda de subsidis eleva els preus.) No obstant aix?, la veritat est? tan enfosquit que la gent pugui pretendre que van a obtenir alguna cosa gratis.

    Aix? que el sistema de govern generat per ens tracta com els nens, i per desgr?cia la majoria de nosaltres sembla feli? de ser tractat d’aquesta manera.

    Obama “comprom?s”

    Sota pressi?, el govern d’Obama s’espera que anunci? un “comprom?s” en virtut del qual els empresaris exempts cat?lics no haurien de pagar per la cobertura de l’anticoncepci?. En canvi, les companyies d’assegurances que proporcionen l’cobertura directament als empleats. At?s que d’acord amb les normes de Salut i Serveis Humans, esta cobertura ha de ser lliure, el govern d’Obama est? en vigor la direcci? de companyies d’assegurances per menjar el cost. Per? les asseguradores s?n empreses amb fins de lucre, i no institucions de benefic?ncia, pel que podem esperar que passin el cost a una altra persona. Per? a qui? Nom?s hi ha una possibilitat: els ocupadors no exempts, el que significa de fet empleats de les empreses no exemptes. Aix? que el gran comprom?s trasllada el cost d’una petita minoria dels empleats a la gran majoria – tot en nom de la llibertat religiosa. Tots els treballadors de les empreses i les institucions no exemptes tindran una retallada salarial.

  16. Kontroverze bjesni vi?e od Obamine administracije je predlo?ila (a kasnije i promjene) mandat da su svi poslodavci, uklju?uju?i katoli?kih bolnica i sveu?ili?ta-a uklju?uju besplatnu kontracepciju u svojim zaposlenicima zdravstveno osiguranje politike. Katoli?ki du?nosnici objekt koji, jer je njihova crkva zabranjuje kontracepciju, uredba kr?i Prvi amandman je za?tita vjerskih sloboda. Drugi su se pridru?ili u prosvjedu, mudro znaju?i da to kr?enje slobode savjesti mo?e ?iriti na druge stvari i drugih vjera.

    Oni podizanja prigovora imaju neoborivih slu?aj. Presedan navodno postavljena u vi?e od dva desetak dr?ava koje ve? imaju sli?ne mandate je neva?no. ?to je nemoralno ne postane moralna jednostavno presedan. Na?elo da nitko ne bi trebao biti prisiljeni financirati ono ?to on ili ona smatra odvratnim je zvuk. U stvari, to bi trebao biti op?enito primijeniti.

    Promjena Naslov

    Branitelji dekretom su prili?no dobro na mijenjanje temu. Naravno, oni su – ?to drugo ?to su dobili? Da biste ih mogli ?uti, vi mislite da bi netko predlo?io da se kontracepcija ka?njava. (Pa, Rick Santorum ?ini se da je korist;. Ali on je ljepu?an velik dio sam) ObamaCare prvaci bi nam vjeruju polemika oko “pristup” odre?enih proizvoda i usluga. Sve Uredba se, ka?u, osigurati pokri?e za osiguranje, a time i pristup, slobodan kontracepcije (zajedno s ostalim preventivnih usluga) za ?ene koje to ?ele. No, to samo postavlja drugo pitanje:

    ?to je to dobio za napraviti sa osiguranjem?

    Pristup ne ovisi o pokrivenosti. Mi imamo pristup mnogim va?nim stvarima koje ne pokriva osiguranje. ?udno, neki ka?u da je dekret zapravo afirmira vjersku slobodu. Kako to? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, a Patty Murray je obja?njeno u Wall Street Journalu “. [T] je milijune ameri?kih ?ena koji odlu?e koristiti kontracepciju ne bi trebao biti prisiljeni slijediti vjerske doktrine, da li katolik ili ne-katolik”

    Drugim rije?ima, nedostatak osiguranja za kontracepciju je ekvivalent da budu prisiljene da ne koriste kontracepciju. To je neki ?udan argument, ali to je ono ?to smo do?li da o?ekujete od ?lanova “svijet najve?eg deliberativne tijela.”

    Pa?

    Dakle, ostaje pitanje: ?to je to dobio za napraviti sa osiguranjem?

    “Pristup kontracepcije je izravno povezan s opadanjem smrtnosti rodilja i novoro?en?adi, mo?e smanjiti rizik od raka jajnika, te je povezan s ukupnim dobrih zdravstvenih ishoda,” Sens. Boxer, Shaheen, a Murray pisati.

    Dobro, ali ?to je to dobio za napraviti sa osiguranjem?

    “[B] roadening pristup kontracepcije pomo?i ?e smanjiti broj ne?eljenih trudno?a i poba?aja, cilj mi svi bi trebali dijeliti.”

    Dobro, ali ?to je to dobio za napraviti sa osiguranjem?

    “Pravilno planiranje obitelji kroz kontrolu ra?anja rezultate u zdraviji majki i djece, ?to pogoduje svima nama.”

    Dobro, ali ?to je to dobio za napraviti sa osiguranjem?

    “To nam ?tedi novac previ?e ….”

    Dobro, ali ?to je to dobio za napraviti sa osiguranjem?

    “To mogu ko?tati 600 dolara godi?nje za recept kontraceptiva.” (To je high-end procjena;. Postoje ni?e cijene opcije, uklju?uju?i Planirano roditeljstvo za ?ene s ni?im primanjima)

    Dobro, ali ?to je to dobio za napraviti sa osiguranjem?

    “Neki 99% ?ena u SAD-u koji su ili su bili seksualno aktivni u nekom trenutku u njihovom ?ivotu imati koristi kontracepcijske pilule, uklju?uju?i 98% katoli?kih ?ena prema Guttmacher instituta.”

    Dobro, ali ?to je dobio za napraviti sa-oh nikada ne smeta. Ja ?u sam odgovoriti: Ima veze s osiguranjem.

    Udru?ivanje rizika

    Osiguranje je nastao kao na?in za individualce kako bi ujediniti svoj rizik od nekih low-probability/high-cost nesre?om befalling ih. To ne bi trebalo biti potrebno istaknuti ovaj vanjska strana, ali dolazak fertilne dobi i odabirom koristiti kontracepciju nije osigurljiv doga?aj. To je voljni ?in. On svibanj imati dobre posljedice za osobu koja je poduzela mjeru i dru?tvo u cjelini, ali je jo? uvijek voljni ?in. To nema smisla govoriti o osiguranju protiv eventuality da odre?ena osoba ?e koristiti kontracepciju. Strogo govore?i, kontracepcija nema veze s osiguranjem.

    Na?alost, mi ne govorimo isklju?ivo o zdravstvenom osiguranju. Jedan od razloga mi ne je porezni broj. Od Drugog svjetskog rata naknade za rad u obliku zapo?ljavanja temelji na zdravstveno osiguranje ne ra?unati kao oporezivi dohodak. (Novac je proveo neovisno o zdravstvenom osiguranju ne ra?una.) Porezni broj tako stvara izopa?enih poticaje 1) ovisi o ne?ijem poslodavca za zdravstveno osiguranje, 2) shift prihod od teku?eg novca ograni?enim osiguranja, i 3) definirati uninsurable doga?aje kao osigurljiv. Bi netko brinuti da objasni kako dobro Njega beba mo?e biti osigurljiv?

    Dakle, moramo oporezivanje zahvaliti za jo? jednu odliku moderne svijetu: korupcije jezika. U medicinske realiteta osiguranja nema dugo zna?i osiguranja.

    Umjesto toga je igra kojom smo dobili drugi ljudi platiti za stvari. Pa, to nije sasvim to?no. To je zapravo igra u kojoj smo se pretvarati da drugi ljudi pla?aju za stvari. Gle, kontracepcija, Mamografija, colonoscopies, i dobro dijete skrb nisu slobodni. (Vidi moj “ne postoji takva stvar kao mamografiju Free”). Oni zahtijevaju rad i sredstva za koje vlasnici ?ele-ne-nerazumno koju treba nadoknaditi. Netko mora platiti. Ako su poslodavci prisiljeni platiti nominalno za pokri?e, se bilo tko ozbiljno sumnjam da zaposlenici ?e zapravo platiti kroz ni?e pla?e novca? Poslodavci nisu dobrotvorne organizacije. Dakle, ?ak i bez copayment, svi znamo duboko u sebi da smo kao radnici platiti za pokrivanje. (Koji usput je vjerojatno da ?e biti skuplji od usluge ?e biti u oslobo?eni?ke tr?i?tu, jer osiguravaju?a dru?tva ?e naplatiti nadzemne i vi?e za svoje nevolje. Tako?er subvencionirani potra?nje di?e cijene.) Ipak, istina je tako zamra?eno da ljudi mogu pretvarati da ste dobivanje ne?to besplatno.

    Dakle, Vlada generirani sustav nas tretira kao djeca, a na?alost ve?ina nas ?ini sretnim da budu tretirani na taj na?in.

    Obamina “kompromis”

    Pod pritiskom, Obamina administracija je O?ekuje se da ?e objaviti “kompromis” pod kojima oslobo?ene katoli?ki poslodavci ne?e morati platiti za kontracepcije pokrivenosti. Umjesto toga, osiguravaju?a dru?tva ?e osigurati pokrivenost izravno zaposlenih. Budu?i da pod zdravstva i socijalnih slu?bi pravila, to vrijeme mora biti besplatno, Obamina administracija je na snazi ??re?ije osiguravatelja jesti tro?kove. No, osiguravatelji su profitnih tvrtki, a ne dobrotvorna dru?tva, tako da mo?emo o?ekivati ??da ?e pro?i tro?kove netko drugi. Ali koga? Postoji samo jedna mogu?nost: nonexempt poslodavci, ?to zna?i zapravo zaposlenika nonexempt tvrtki. Tako veliki kompromis pomi?e cijenu od male manjine zaposlenika u velikoj ve?ini – sve u ime vjerske slobode. Svi radnici u nonexempt tvrtki i institucija ?e se rezati pla?e.

  17. Kontrovers raser over Obama-administrationen har foresl?et (og senere ?ndret), mandat, som alle arbejdsgivere, herunder katolske hospitaler og universiteter, inkluderer gratis pr?vention i deres medarbejderes sundhed forsikringspolicer. Katolske embedsm?nd objekt, der siden deres kirke forbyder pr?vention, det dekret, overtr?der First Amendment ‘s beskyttelse af religionsfrihed. Andre er g?et i protest, forsigtigt forudse, at denne kr?nkelse af trosfriheden kan sprede sig til andre forhold og andre trosretninger.

    De h?ve indsigelse har en uangribelig sag. Den pr?cedens tilsyneladende indstillet i mere end to dusin stater, der allerede har lignende mandater, er irrelevant. Hvad er umoralsk ikke bliver moralsk blot ved pr?cedens. Princippet om, at ingen b?r v?re tvunget til at finansiere det, han eller hun finder afskyeligt er forsvarlig. Faktisk b?r den anvendes generelt.

    ?ndring af Emne

    Defenders i dekretet er ganske gode til at ?ndre emnet. Selvf?lgelig er de – hvad ellers har de f?et? Hvis du vil h?re dem, ville du tror, ??nogen har foresl?et, at pr?vention forbydes. (N?, er Rick Santorum synes at favorisere dette;. Men han er stort set alene) Obamacare mestre vil have os til at tro striden handler om “adgang” til visse produkter og tjenester. Alle dekretet ikke, siger de, er s?rger for forsikringsd?kning, og dermed adgang til gratis pr?vention (sammen med andre forebyggende tjenester) for kvinder, der ?nsker det. Men der bare rejser et andet sp?rgsm?l:

    Hvad har dette at g?re med forsikring?

    Adgang afh?nger ikke d?kning. Vi har adgang til mange vigtige ting, der ikke er omfattet af en forsikring. Anderledes, nogle siger at dekretet faktisk bekr?fter religi?s frihed. Hvordan det? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, og Patty Murray forklarede i Wall Street Journal: “. [T] han millioner af amerikanske kvinder, der v?lger at bruge pr?vention ikke b?r tvinges til at f?lge religi?se doktrin, hvad enten katolsk eller ikke-katolske”

    Med andre ord er mangel p? d?kning for kontraception svarende til tvinges ikke at bruge antikonception. Det er nogle m?rkelige argument, men det er hvad vi har kommet til at forvente fra medlemmer af “verdens st?rste r?dgivende organ.”

    N??

    S? sp?rgsm?let er: Hvad har dette at g?re med forsikring?

    “Adgang til pr?vention er direkte knyttet til en nedgang i barsels-og sp?db?rnsd?deligheden, kan reducere risikoen for kr?ft i ?ggestokkene, og er forbundet med generelt gode resultater p? sundhedsomr?det,” Sens Boxer, Shaheen, og Murray skriver.

    Fint, men hvad er det n?dt til at g?re med forsikring?

    “[B] roadening adgang til pr?vention vil mindske antallet af utilsigtede graviditeter og aborter, et m?l vi alle b?r dele.”

    Fint, men hvad er det n?dt til at g?re med forsikring?

    “Korrekt familieplanl?gning gennem pr?vention resulterer i sundere m?dre og b?rn, som gavner os alle.”

    Fint, men hvad er det n?dt til at g?re med forsikring?

    “Det sparer os penge for ….”

    Fint, men hvad er det n?dt til at g?re med forsikring?

    “Det kan koste 600 dollars om ?ret for receptpligtige piller.” (Det er en high-end sk?n;. Der er billigere muligheder, herunder Planned Parenthood for lavindkomst-kvinder)

    Fint, men hvad er det n?dt til at g?re med forsikring?

    “Nogle 99% af kvinder i USA, som er eller har v?ret seksuelt aktiv p? et tidspunkt i deres liv har brugt pr?vention, herunder 98% af katolske kvinder, i henhold til Guttmacher Institute.”

    Fint, men hvad er det n?dt til at g?re med-?h pyt. Jeg vil svare mig selv: Det har intet at g?re med forsikring.

    Pooling Risiko

    Forsikring opstod som en m?de for den enkelte at pulje deres risiko for at nogle low-probability/high-cost ulykke befalling dem. Det burde ikke v?re n?dvendigt at p?pege dette, men kommer af den f?dedygtige alder og v?lge at bruge pr?vention er ikke en forsikres begivenhed. Det er en viljesbestemt handling. Det kan have gode konsekvenser for den person, tager handling og samfundet som helhed, men det er stadig en viljesbestemt handling. Det giver ingen mening at tale om forsikring mod eventualitet, at en bestemt person vil bruge pr?vention. Strengt taget, pr?vention har intet at g?re med forsikring.

    Desv?rre kan vi ikke tale strengt om sygesikring. En af grundene til vi ikke er den skat kode. Siden Anden Verdenskrig kompensation for arbejdskraft i form af besk?ftigelses-baserede sygesikring t?ller ikke som skattepligtig indkomst. (Penge, der bruges uafh?ngigt af hinanden p? sygesikring g?r t?ller.) Den skat, koden skaber dermed uhensigtsm?ssige incitamenter til at 1) afh?nger af en arbejdsgiver for sygesikring, 2) skift indt?gter fra kontanter til begr?nsede forsikringsydelser, og 3) definerer forsikres begivenheder forsikres. Ville nogen lyst til at forklare, hvordan godt babypleje kan forsikres?

    S? vi m? beskatning til at takke for endnu et tr?k ved den moderne verden: ?del?ggelse af sproget. I den medicinske verden forsikringen ikke l?ngere betyder forsikring.

    I stedet er det et spil, som vi f?r andre mennesker til at betale for ting. N?, det er ikke helt korrekt. Det er faktisk et spil, hvor vi foregiver, at andre folk betale for ting. Se, pr?vention, mammografi, colonoscopies, og godt babypleje er ikke gratis. (Se min “Der er ikke s?dan noget som en gratis mammografi.”) De kr?ver arbejdskraft og ressourcer, for hvilke ejerne ?nsker-ikke urimeligt, at blive kompenseret. Nogen skal betale. Hvis arbejdsgiverne er tvunget til nominelt til at betale for d?kningen, ikke nogen, der seri?st tvivler p?, at medarbejderne rent faktisk vil betale via lavere kontant l?n? Arbejdsgiverne er ikke velg?renhed. S? selv uden en copayment, vi alle ved, inderst inde, at vi som arbejdstagere at betale for d?kningen. (Som i ?vrigt forventes at blive dyrere end de ydelser, ville v?re i en befriede marked, fordi forsikringsselskaberne vil opkr?ve overhead og mere for deres ulejlighed. Ogs? st?ttet eftersp?rgslen h?ver priserne.) Ikke desto mindre er sandheden, s? tilsl?ret, at folk kan foregive, de f?r noget gratis.

    S? regeringen genererede systemet behandler os som b?rn, og desv?rre de fleste af os synes glad for at blive behandlet p? samme m?de.

    Obamas “Compromise”

    Under pres, blev Obama-regeringen ventes at annoncere et “kompromis”, hvorunder fritager katolske arbejdsgivere vil ikke betale for pr?vention d?kning. I stedet ville forsikringsselskaber give den d?kning, direkte til de ansatte. Da der under Sundhed og Human Services regler, skal denne d?kning v?re fri, Obama-regeringen er i kraft dirigere forsikringsselskaberne at spise omkostningerne. Men forsikringsselskaber er overskudsgivende selskaber, ikke velg?rende organisationer, s? vi kan forvente dem at passere omkostningerne til en anden. Men til hvem? Der er kun ?n mulighed: nonexempt arbejdsgivere, hvilket betyder i realiteten er l?nmodtagere i nonexempt virksomheder. S? store kompromis, flytter udgifterne fra et lille mindretal af medarbejdere til det store flertal – alle i navnet p? religionsfrihed. Alle arbejdstagere i nonexempt virksomheder og institutioner vil tage en l?nnedgang.

  18. De controverse woedt over de regering-Obama heeft voorgesteld (en later gewijzigd) mandaat dat alle werkgevers, waaronder katholieke ziekenhuizen en gratis anticonceptie in de gezondheid van de werknemers verzekeringen universiteiten-op te nemen. Katholieke ambtenaren object dat sinds hun kerk verbiedt anticonceptie, het decreet het Eerste Amendement ‘s bescherming van de vrijheid van godsdienst schendt. Anderen hebben zich in het protest, voorzichtig te anticiperen op dat deze schending van de vrijheid van geweten zou kunnen verspreiden naar andere zaken en andere geloven.

    Die verhoging van het bezwaar heeft een onbetwistbare zaak. Het precedent blijkbaar in de meer dan twee dozijn landen die al hebben soortgelijke mandaten is niet relevant. Wat is immoreel wordt niet moreel gewoon door precedent. Het beginsel dat niemand mag worden gedwongen om de financiering van dat wat hij of zij weerzinwekkend vindt is geluid. In feite zouden het algemeen worden toegepast.

    Het veranderen van de Subject

    Verdedigers van het decreet zijn vrij goed op het veranderen van het onderwerp. Natuurlijk zijn ze – wat er nog meer hebben ze nog meer? Om ze te horen, zou je denken dat iemand heeft voorgesteld dat de anticonceptie worden verboden. (Nou ja, Rick Santorum lijkt om die te bevorderen;. Maar hij is vrijwel alleen) ObamaCare kampioenen ons willen doen geloven de controverse is over de “toegang” tot bepaalde producten en diensten. Al het decreet niet, zeggen ze, is voorzien in de verzekering voor, en daarom de toegang tot gratis anticonceptie (samen met andere preventieve diensten) voor vrouwen die dat willen. Maar dat roept alleen maar een andere vraag:

    Wat heeft dit te maken met verzekeringen?

    Access is niet afhankelijk van de dekking. Wij hebben toegang tot veel belangrijke dingen die niet door de verzekering gedekt. Griezelig, sommigen zeggen het decreet in feite de vrijheid van godsdienst bevestigt. Hoe dat zo? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, en Patty Murray uitgelegd in de Wall Street Journal: “. [T] hij miljoenen van de Amerikaanse vrouwen die ervoor kiezen om anticonceptie te gebruiken mag niet worden gedwongen om religieuze doctrine te volgen, katholiek of niet-katholieke”

    Met andere woorden, het ontbreken van de verzekering van anticonceptie gelijk aan gedwongen niet anticonceptie. Dat is een vreemde redenering, maar het is wat we gaan verwachten van de leden van de “grootste ter wereld overlegorgaan.”

    Nou?

    Dus de vraag blijft: Wat heeft dit te maken met verzekeringen?

    “Toegang tot geboortebeperking is direct gekoppeld aan afname van moeder-en kindersterfte, kan het risico op eierstokkanker te verlagen, en is gekoppeld aan de algehele goede gezondheid,” Sens Boxer, Shaheen, en Murray schrijven.

    Fijn, maar wat het heeft te maken met de verzekering?

    “[B] roadening toegang tot geboortebeperking zal bijdragen tot het verminderen van het aantal ongewenste zwangerschappen en abortussen, een doel dat we allemaal zouden moeten delen.”

    Fijn, maar wat het heeft te maken met de verzekering?

    “Een goede gezinsplanning door middel van geboortebeperking leidt tot gezondere moeders en kinderen, die ons allemaal ten goede komt.”

    Fijn, maar wat het heeft te maken met de verzekering?

    “Het bespaart ons ook geld ….”

    Fijn, maar wat het heeft te maken met de verzekering?

    “Het kost 600 dollar per jaar voor receptplichtige anticonceptiva.” (Dat is een high-end kostenraming;. Zijn er lagere kosten opties, waaronder Planned Parenthood voor een laag inkomen vrouwen)

    Fijn, maar wat het heeft te maken met de verzekering?

    “Sommige 99% van de vrouwen in de VS die zijn of zijn geweest seksueel actief op een bepaald punt in hun leven hebben gebruikt anticonceptie, waaronder 98% van de katholieke vrouwen, volgens het Guttmacher Instituut.”

    Fijn, maar wat het heeft te maken met-oh never mind. Ik zal antwoord ik: Het heeft niets te maken met verzekeringen.

    Pooling Risk

    Insurance is ontstaan ??als een manier voor individuen te bundelen hun risico op een aantal low-probability/high-cost ongeluk voorvallen bij hen. Het moet niet nodig zijn om dit wijzen, maar komen in de vruchtbare leeftijd en het kiezen van anticonceptie te gebruiken is geen verzekerbaar gebeurtenis. Het is een bewuste daad. Het kan goede gevolgen hebben voor de persoon die de actie en de samenleving als geheel, maar het is nog steeds een bewuste daad. Het heeft geen zin om te praten over het verzekeren tegen de eventualiteit dat een bepaalde persoon zal anticonceptie te gebruiken. Strikt genomen, anticonceptie heeft niets te maken met de verzekering.

    Helaas kunnen wij niet strikt te spreken over de zorgverzekering. Een reden waarom we dat niet doen is de belastingwetgeving. Sinds de Tweede Wereldoorlog vergoeding voor arbeid in de vorm van werkgelegenheid op basis van de ziektekostenverzekering telt niet als belastbaar inkomen. (Geld besteed zelfstandig over de ziektekostenverzekering wel tellen.) De tax codes dus perverse prikkels geeft om 1) hangt af van je werkgever voor medische verzekering, 2) verschuiving inkomsten uit liquide geld om beperkte verzekeringsuitkeringen, en 3) onverzekerbaar gebeurtenissen defini?ren als verzekerbaar. Zou iemand die zorg om uit te leggen hoe goed-baby zorg kan verzekerbaar zijn?

    Dus moeten we belasting te danken aan nog een ander kenmerk van de moderne wereld: de corruptie van de taal. In de medische wereld verzekering geen lange middelen verzekering.

    In plaats daarvan is een spel waarmee we andere mensen te betalen voor spullen. Nou, dat is niet helemaal juist. Het is eigenlijk een spel waarin we doen alsof andere mensen betalen voor spullen. Kijk, anticonceptie, mammografie, coloscopie?n, en goed babyverzorging zijn niet gratis. (Zie mijn “Er is niet zoiets als een gratis mammogram.”) Ze vereisen arbeid en middelen waarvoor de eigenaars niet wenst-onredelijk-worden gecompenseerd. Iemand moet betalen. Als werkgevers nominaal gedwongen om te betalen voor de dekking, is er iemand die serieus twijfelen dat daadwerkelijk medewerkers te betalen door middel van lagere contante loon? Werkgevers zijn niet goede doelen. Dus ook zonder een copayment, we weten allemaal diep van binnen dat we als werknemers betalen voor de dekking. (Welke door de manier waarop is waarschijnlijk duurder dan de diensten zou zijn in een vrijgemaakte markt, aangezien verzekeringsmaatschappijen zullen overhead en meer vragen voor hun problemen. Ook gesubsidieerde vraag doet de prijzen.) Toch is de waarheid zo verduisterd, dat mensen kunnen doen alsof ze iets gratis krijgen.

    Dus de regering-generated-systeem behandelt ons als kinderen, en helaas de meesten van ons lijken blij dat op deze manier behandeld.

    Obama’s “compromissen”

    Onder druk werd de regering-Obama naar verwachting een ‘compromis’ op grond waarvan vrijstelling katholieke werkgevers zouden niet moeten betalen voor anticonceptie dekking aan te kondigen. In plaats daarvan zouden verzekeraars direct bieden de dekking voor de werknemers. Omdat in Health and Human Services regels, deze dekking moet vrij zijn, de regering van Obama is in feite het leiden verzekeraars om de kosten te eten. Maar verzekeraars zijn vennootschappen met winstoogmerk, niet goede doelen, dus we kunnen verwachten dat ze de kosten door te geven aan iemand anders. Maar aan wie? Er is maar een mogelijkheid: nonexempt werkgevers, wat betekent dat in feite medewerkers van nonexempt bedrijven. Dus de grote compromis verschuift de kosten van een kleine minderheid van werknemers in de overgrote meerderheid – allemaal in de naam van de godsdienstvrijheid. Alle werknemers in nonexempt bedrijven en instellingen zullen nemen met minder loon.

  19. Controversy rages over the Obama Administration’s Proposed (and later modified)-Including employer’s mandate That all Catholic hospitals and universities include free-Contraception In Their employee health insurance policies. Catholic officials object since That Their church forbids Contraception, the decree violates the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. Others have joined in the protest, prudently That Anticipating this violation of freedom of conscience Could spread to other matters and other faiths.

    Those raising the objection have an unimpeachable case. The precedent set in the apparently more than two boxes That Already states have similar mandates is irrelevant. What’s Immoral does not become moral simply by precedent. The principle That no one should be forced to finance That All which he or she finds abhorrent is sound. In fact, it Should Be Applied gene rally.

    Changing the Subject

    Defenders of the decree are quite good at changing the subject. Of Course They Are – They have got what else? To hear them, you’d think someone has Proposed That Contraception be outlawed. (Well, Rick Santorum That does SEEM to favor, but he’s pretty much alone.) Obamacare champions would have us believe the controversy is about “access” to ‘certain products and services. All the decree does, they say, is providence insurance coverage for, and access powerful Therefore, to free Contraception (alongwith other preventive services) for women who want it. But That just raises another question:

    What has this got to do with insurance?

    Access does not depend on coverage. We have access to many important things not covered by insurance. Weirdly, some say the decree actually affirms religious freedom. How so? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, and Patty Murray Explained in the Wall Street Journal: “[T] he millions of American women who choose to use Contraception Should not be forced to follow religious doctrine, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.”

    In other words, lack of insurance coverage for Contraception is not equivalent to being forced to use Contraception. That is some strange argument, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from members of the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”

    Well?

    So the question remains as: What has this got to do with insurance?

    “Access to birth control is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality, can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, and is linked to overall good health outcomes,” Sens. Boxer, Shaheen, and Murray write.

    Fine, but what’s it got to do with insurance?

    “[B] road lation access to birth control will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, Should a goal we all share.”

    Fine, but what’s it got to do with insurance?

    “Proper family planning through birth control results in healthier mothers and children, All which benefits all of us.”

    Fine, but what’s it got to do with insurance?

    “It saves us money too ….”

    Fine, but what’s it got to do with insurance?

    “It can cost $ 600 a year for prescription contraceptives.” (That’s a high-end estimate, there are lower cost options, Including Planned Parenthood for low-income women.)

    Fine, but what’s it got to do with insurance?

    “Some 99% of women in the U.S. who are sexually active or have leg at some point in Their Lives have overused birth control, Including 98% of Catholic women, According To the Guttmacher Institute.”

    Fine, but what’s it got to do with-oh nevermind. I’ll answer myself: It’s got nothing to do with insurance.

    Risk Pooling

    Insurance for Individuals Arose as a way to pool risk, or some low-probability/high-cost Their misfortune befalling them. It Should not be Necessary to point this out, but coming of child-bearing age and choosing to use Contraception is not an insurable event. It’s a volitional act. It may have good Consequences for the person taking the action and society at large, but it is still a volitional act. It makes no sense to talk about insuring against the eventuality That a Particular person will use Contraception. Strictly speaking, Contraception has nothing to do with insurance.

    Unfortunately, we do not speak strictly about health insurance. One reason we do is the tax code. Since World War II compensation for labor in the form of employment-based health insurance does not count as Taxable Income. (Money spent Independently on health insurance does count.) The tax code Galanthus Creates perverse incentives to 1) depend on one’s employer for medical insurance, 2) shift income from liquidating cash to restricted insurance benefits, and 3) define uninsurable events as insurable. Would someone care to explain how well-baby care can be insurable?

    So we have taxation to thank for yet another feature of the modern world: the corruption of language. In the medical realm lung Means insurance no insurance.

    INSTEAD it’s a game by All which we get other people to pay for stuff. Well, that’s not quite accurate. It’s actually a game in Which We Pretend That other people pay for stuff. Look, Contraception, mammograms, colonoscopies, and well-baby care are not free. (See my “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Mammogram.”) They labor requirement and resources for All which the owners wish-not-to be possessed unreasonably compensated. Someone has to pay. If employer’s nominally are compelled to pay for the coverage, does anyone seriously doubt That employees will actually pay through lower cash wages? Employers are not charities. So even without a copayment, we all know deep down That we as workers pay for the coverage. (Which by the way is likely to be more expensive than the services would be freed in a market, since insurance companies will charge more for overhead and Their trouble. Also subsidized demand raises prices.) Nevertheless, the truth is so Obscured That people can pretend they’re getting something for free.

    So the government-generated system treats us like children, and alas most of us happy to be Treated SEEM that way.

    Obama’s “Compromise”

    Under pressure, the Obama administration was expected to announce a “compromise” All which exempt under Catholic Employers would not have to pay for Contraception coverage. INSTEAD, insurance companies would providence the coverage directly to employees. Since under Health and Human Services rules, this coverage must be free, the Obama administration is in effect directing Insurers to eat the cost. But Insurers are profit-making companies, not charities, so we may expect them to pass the cost to someone else. But to Whom? There’s only one Possibility: nonexempt employer’s, Which Means in fact nonexempt employees or companies. So the grand compromise shifts the cost from a small minority of employees to determine the Majority – all in the name of religious freedom. All nonexempt workers in companies and Institutions will take a pay cut.

  20. Poleemikat rages ?le Obama administratsiooni poolt v?lja pakutud (ja hiljem muudetud)-Sh t??andja volitused, k?ik katoliku haiglate ja ?likoolide hulka vaba kontratseptsioon oma t??taja tervise kindlustuslepingud. Katoliku ametnikud objekt sest, et nende kirik keelab Kontratseptsioon, dekreet rikub esimese muudatuse kaitse alla usuvabaduse. Teised on liitunud protest, kaalutletult See prognoosimine seda rikkumist s?dametunnistuse vabadus v?ib levida muude k?simustega ja muud usundid.

    Need t?stmine vastuv?ide on vaieldamatute puhul. Pretsedent kehtestatud ilmselt rohkem kui 2 lahtrid See Juba riigid on sarnased volitused, on asjakohatu. Mis on ebamoraalne ei saanud moraalset lihtsalt pretsedenti. P?him?tet, et kedagi ei tohiks sundida rahastama et k?ik, mis ta leiab, j?lk on heli. Tegelikult tuleks kohaldada geeni ralli.

    Muutmine Teema

    Kaitsjad dekreedi on ?sna hea muutmise teemal. Muidugi on nad – nad on saanud, mida veel? Kuulda neid, siis arvaks, et keegi on teinud ettepaneku kontratseptsioonivormi keelatud. (Noh, Rick Santorum See ei tundu, et soodustada, kuid ta on p?ris palju ?ksi.) Obamacare Meistrite oleks meile uskuda Vaidlus k?ib “juurdep??su” “teatud tooteid ja teenuseid. K?ik dekreedis ei, nad ?tlevad, on Providence kindlustuskaitse ja tutvuda v?imas Seega vaba kontratseptsioon (alongwith teisi ennetavaid teenuseid) naistele, kes tahavad. Aga see ainult t?statab veel ?he k?simuse:

    Mis on selle pistmist kindlustus?

    Access ei s?ltu levialas. Meil on ligip??s paljud olulised asjad ei ole kindlustatud. Kummaliselt, m?ned ?tlevad, et dekreet tegelikult kinnitab usuvabaduse. Kuidas nii? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen ja Patty Murray selgitas Wall Street Journal: “[T] ta miljoneid ameerika naistele, kes otsustavad kasutada Kontratseptsioon ei tohi sundida j?rgima religioosne doktriin, kas katoliku v?i mitte-katoliku.”

    Teisis?nu puudub kindlustuskaitse kontratseptsioon ei ole v?rdv??rne sunnitud kasutama Kontratseptsioon. See on mingi kummaline argument, kuid see, mida oleme harjunud liikmed “maailma suurim n?uandev organ.”

    Noh?

    Seega j??b k?simus: mis on selle pistmist kindlustus?

    “Access to rasestumisvastaseid on otseselt seotud langusest emade ja imikute suremust, v?ib v?hendada munasarjav?hi riski, ning on seotud ?ldise hea tervise tulemusi,” Sens Boxer, Shaheen ja Murray kirjutada.

    Fine, kuid milline on see pistmist kindlustus?

    “[B] maantee m??ruse juurdep??su rasestumisvastaseid aitab v?hendada soovimatuid rasedusi ja aborte, peaks meie k?igi ?hine eesm?rk.”

    Fine, kuid milline on see pistmist kindlustus?

    “?igesti pereplaneerimise l?bi rasestumisvastaseid tulemusi tervislikumaks emad ja lapsed, k?ik mis on kasulik meile k?igile.”

    Fine, kuid milline on see pistmist kindlustus?

    “See s??stab meile raha ka ….”

    Fine, kuid milline on see pistmist kindlustus?

    “See v?ib maksta 600 $ aastas retseptita rasestumisvastaseid vahendeid.” (See on high-end hinnangul on odavamad v?imalusi, sealhulgas pereplaneerimise madala sissetulekuga naised.)

    Fine, kuid milline on see pistmist kindlustus?

    “M?ned 99% naistest USAs, kes on seksuaalselt aktiivsed v?i on jalg mingil hetkel oma elus on liiga palju rasestumisvastaseid, sh 98% katoliku naiste s?nul Guttmacheri Instituut.”

    Fine, kuid milline on see pistmist-oh nevermind. Ma vastan ise: See ju midagi pistmist kindlustus.

    Riskide jagamise

    Kindlustus Isikud tekkis v?imalus koguda risk v?i m?ni low-probability/high-cost Nende eba?nne kukub neid. See ei peaks olema vajalik r?hutada seda v?lja, aga tulevad fertiilses eas ja valides rasestumisvastast vahendit kasutada ei ole kindlustusjuhtumit. See on tahteakt. See v?ib olla hea tagaj?rjed isikule meetme v?tmist ja ?hiskonnas laiemalt, kuid see on siiski tahteakt. Pole m?tet r??kida kindlustamist juhuks, et konkreetne isik kasutab Kontratseptsioon. Rangelt v?ttes Kontratseptsioon on midagi pistmist kindlustus.

    Kahjuks ei oska t?pselt umbes tervisekindlustus. ?ks p?hjus, miks me teeme, on maksu-koodi. P?rast Teist maailmas?da h?vitist t?? vormis t??h?ive-p?hine tervisekindlustus ei arvestata maksustatava tulu hulka. (Raha kulutatud iseseisvalt ravikindlustus ei count.) Maks kood Galanthus Loob soovimatuid stiimuleid 1) s?ltuvad 1 t??andja jaoks tervisekindlustus 2) vahetustega tulu likvideerimisest raha Piiratud kindlustush?vitised ning 3) m??rata kindlustatav s?ndmuste kindlustushuvi. Kas keegi hooli, et selgitada, kuidas h?sti lapsehooldusalastes v?ib olla kindlustatava?

    Nii et meil on maksustamise t?nada veel ?ks funktsioon t?nap?eva maailmas: korruptsiooni keeles. Meditsiini valdkonda kopsu T?hendab kindlustus puudub kindlustus.

    Selle asemel on m?ngu K?ik, mis me saame teistele inimestele maksma kraam. Noh, see pole p?ris t?pne. See on tegelikult m?ng, kus teeskleme, et teised inimesed maksma kraam. Vaata, kontratseptsioon, mammograafia, colonoscopies ja h?sti lapsehooldusalastes ei ole vabad. (Vt minu “seal ei ole sellist asja nagu tasuta mammogrammi.”) Nad t??j?u n?ue ja ressursse K?ik mis omanike soovi-ei-olla omas p?hjendamatult kompenseerida. Keegi peab maksma. Kui t??andja teada algsuurus on sunnitud maksma levialas, kas keegi t?siselt kahtlen, et t??tajad tegelikult maksab l?bi madalama raha palk? T??andjad ei ole heategevusorganisatsioonid. Nii et isegi ilma copayment, me k?ik teame sisimas, et me t??tajad maksma levialas. (Mis muide on t?en?oliselt kallim kui teenuseid oleks vabastatud turul, sest kindlustusfirmad eest rohkem ?ldkulud ja nende probleeme. Ka subsideeritud n?udlus t?stab hindu.) Siiski, t?de on nii varju, et inimesed saaksid teeselda, nad saavad midagi tasuta.

    Nii et valitsuse poolt loodud s?steem kohtleb meid nagu lapsi, ja paraku enamik meist hea meel, et ravida tunduda, et viis.

    Obama “kompromissi”

    Surve all, Obama administratsioon pidi kuulutama “kompromissi” K?ik, mis vabastavad all katoliku T??andjad ei pea maksma Kontratseptsioon levialas. Selle asemel, kindlustusettev?tted peaksid Providence ulatus otse t??tajatele. Kuna vastavalt tervishoiu-ja reeglid, see ulatus peab olema vaba, Obama administratsioon on tegelikult suunab Kindlustajad s??a kulusid. Aga Kindlustajad pakuvad kasumit taotlevad ?ri?hingud, mitte heategevus, nii me loodame, et nad l?bivad kulude keegi teine. Aga kellele? On ainult ?ks v?imalus: nonexempt t??andja, mis t?hendab tegelikult nonexempt t??tajad v?i ettev?tted. Nii suur kompromiss nihutab hind alates v?ikesel osal t??tajatel m??ratleda enamus – k?ik selle nimel, usuvabadus. K?ik nonexempt ettev?tete t??tajate ja institutsioonide v?tab maksa l?igatud.

  21. Pagtalunan rages sa ibabaw ng Obama Administration ay Ipinanukalang (at mamaya binago)-Kabilang ang utos ng employer na iyon ang lahat ng mga Katoliko na ospital at unibersidad ay may kasamang libreng-pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis sa kanilang mga empleyado patakaran sa health insurance. Katoliko opisyal ng bagay dahil iyon ang kanilang iglesia forbids pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis, ang atas na ang lumalabag sa proteksyon ng Unang susog ng relihiyon kalayaan. Iba na sumali sa pagtutol, prudently Na ng Anticipating ito paglabag sa kalayaan ng budhi maka-kumalat sa iba pang mga bagay at iba pang mga faiths.

    Mga pagtataas ng pagtutol magkaroon ng isang hindi mapag-aalinlanganan kaso. Ang alinsunuran itakda sa ang tila higit sa dalawang kahon na estado ay may katulad na utos ay kaugnay. Ano ang masama ay hindi maging moral sa pamamagitan lamang ng alinsunuran. Ang prinsipyo Na walang dapat na sapilitang sa gastusan na ang lahat ng kung saan siya hahanap kasuklam-suklam ay tunog. Sa katunayan, ito ay dapat Inilapat gene pagtulung-tulungan.

    Ang pagbabago ng Paksa

    Defenders ng kautusan ay masyadong magandang sa pagbabago ng paksa. Ng Course Sigurado nila – nila nakuha kung ano ang iba? Marinig ang mga ito, gusto mo tingin ng isang tao ay Ipinanukalang Iyon pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis ay outlawed. (Well, Rick Santorum Iyon ay mukhang papabor, ngunit siya ay medyo magkano ang nag-iisa.) Obamacare champions ay naniniwala sa amin pagtalunan ay tungkol sa “access” sa ‘ilang mga produkto at serbisyo. Lahat ng kautusan ay, sinasabi nila, ay ang diyos insurance coverage para sa, at ma-access ang malakas Samakatuwid, sa libreng pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis (alongwith iba pang preventive serbisyo) para sa mga kababaihan na nais nito. Ngunit Iyon lamang raises isa pang tanong:

    Ano ay ito nakuha upang gawin sa insurance?

    Access ay hindi depende sa coverage. Kami ay may access sa maraming mahalagang mga bagay na hindi sakop ng insurance. Weirdly, ang ilang mga sinasabi ng kautusan ang talagang affirms relihiyon kalayaan. Paano kaya? Sens. Barbara boksingero, Jeanne Shaheen, at Patty Murray Ipinaliwanag sa Wall Street Journal: “[T] siya mga milyon-milyong mga Amerikano ang mga kababaihan na pumili upang gamitin ang pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis Dapat hindi mapipilitang sundin relihiyon doktrina, kung sa Katoliko o di-Katoliko”

    Sa ibang salita, ang kakulangan ng insurance coverage para sa pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis ay hindi katumbas na sapilitang upang gamitin pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis. Iyon ay ang ilang mga kakaiba argument, ngunit ito ay kung ano ang namin ang dumating sa inaasahan mula sa mga miyembro ng “pinakadakilang mundo pampakikipanayam katawan.”

    Mabuti?

    Kaya tanong ay nananatiling bilang: Ano ay ito nakuha upang gawin sa insurance?

    “Access sa control ng kapanganakan ay direktang naka-link sa mga pagtanggi sa ina at sanggol pagkakamatay, maaaring mabawasan ang panganib ng ovarian kanser, at naka-link sa pangkalahatang magandang kalusugan kinalabasan,” Sens. Boksingero, Shaheen, at Murray magsulat.

    Fine, ngunit kung ano ay ito nakuha upang gawin sa insurance?

    “[B] daan lation na access sa kapanganakan control ay makakatulong mabawasan ang bilang ng mga unintended pregnancies at abortions, dapat isang layunin namin ang lahat ng ibahagi.”

    Fine, ngunit kung ano ay ito nakuha upang gawin sa insurance?

    “Wastong pagpaplano ng pamilya sa pamamagitan ng mga resulta ng kapanganakan kontrol sa malusog mga ina at mga anak, Lahat na benepisyo sa mga lahat sa atin.”

    Fine, ngunit kung ano ay ito nakuha upang gawin sa insurance?

    “Ito ay ini-imbak sa amin ang pera masyadong ….”

    Fine, ngunit kung ano ay ito nakuha upang gawin sa insurance?

    “Ito ay magkakahalaga ng $ 600 sa isang taon para sa mga reseta Contraceptive.” (Iyan ay isang high-end na pagtantya, may mas mababang gastos pagpipilian, Kabilang ang binalak pagiging magulang para sa mga mababang-kita na mga kababaihan.)

    Fine, ngunit kung ano ay ito nakuha upang gawin sa insurance?

    “Ang ilang mga 99% ng mga kababaihan sa US na ay sekswal na aktibo o magkaroon ng binti sa ilang mga punto sa kanilang buhay may baldado kapanganakan control, Kabilang ang 98% ng mga kababaihan sa Katoliko, Ayon Upang Guttmacher Institute.”

    Fine, ngunit kung ano ay ito nakuha sa may-naku Hindi bale. Kukunin ko ang aking sarili answer: Ito ay nakuha ng walang kinalaman sa insurance.

    Panganib Pooling

    Insurance para sa mga indibidwal na lumitaw bilang isang paraan upang pool panganib, o ilang low-probability/high-cost sa kanilang kasawian befalling kanila. Dapat hindi ito ay kinakailangan upang maituro ito, ngunit pagdating ng edad ng bata-tindig at pagpili upang gamitin pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis ay hindi isang insurable kaganapan. Ito ay isang pakusa gawa. Ito ay maaaring magkaroon ng magandang kahihinatnan para sa mga tao sa pagkuha ng aksyon at lipunan sa malaking, ngunit ito ay pa rin ng isang pakusa gawa. Ito ay hindi gumagawa ng kahulugan upang makipag-usap tungkol sa insuring laban sa paroroonan na ang isang partikular na tao ay gumamit ng pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis. Mahigpit na nagsasalita, pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis ay walang kinalaman sa insurance.

    Sa kasamaang palad, hindi kami nagsasalita ng mahigpit na tungkol sa health insurance. Ang isang kadahilanan namin ay ang buwis code. Dahil ang World War II kompensasyon para sa paggawa sa anyo ng trabaho-based health insurance ay hindi mabibilang bilang dapat ipagbayad ng buwis Income. (Pera na ginastos sa nakapag-iisa sa health insurance ang count.) Ang buwis code Galanthus lumilikha sinsay insentibo sa 1) depende sa ng employer para sa medical insurance, 2) shift kita mula sa liquidating cash sa nalilimitahan ng mga benepisyo ng seguro, at 3) tukuyin uninsurable kaganapan bilang insurable. Gusto isang tao mahalaga sa ipaliwanag kung paano ang mahusay-aalaga ng sanggol ay maaaring maging insurable?

    Kaya mayroon kaming pagbubuwis upang pasalamatan para sa isa pang tampok ng modernong mundo: ang katiwalian ng mga wika. Sa medikal na baga kaharian Ibig Sabihin ng seguro walang insurance.

    Sa halip ito ay isang laro sa pamamagitan ng Ang na makuha namin ang iba pang mga tao na magbayad para sa mga bagay-bagay. Well, na hindi masyadong tumpak. Ito ay talagang isang laro sa Aling namin magpanggap Na ang ibang tao ay magbabayad para sa mga bagay-bagay. Tingnan, pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis, mammograms, colonoscopies, at mahusay-aalaga ng sanggol ay hindi libre. (Tingnan ang aking “May Walang ganoong bagay bilang isang Libreng Mammogram.”) Nila kinakailangan ng manggagawa at mga mapagkukunan para sa Lahat ng kung saan ang mga may-ari na nais-hindi-na may nagmamay ari makatwirang bayad. May bayaran. Kung ang employer ay sa panggalan lamang ay napilitang magbayad para sa coverage, ang sinuman malubhang pagdududa Iyon mga empleyado ay tunay na magbayad sa pamamagitan ng mas mababang sahod cash? Mga employer ay hindi kawanggawa. Kaya kahit na walang copayment, alam namin ang lahat ng malalim down na namin bilang manggagawa bayaran para sa coverage. (Aling ng paraan ay malamang na maging mas mahal kaysa sa mga serbisyo ay napalaya sa isang merkado, dahil ang mga kompanya ng seguro ay sisingilin ng higit pa para sa overhead at ang kanilang mga problema. Rin subsidized demand raises mga presyo.) Gayunpaman, ang katotohanan ay kaya Obscured na tao maaari magpanggap sila ay pagkuha ng isang bagay para sa libreng.

    Kaya ang pamahalaan-generated na sistema treats amin tulad ng mga bata, at sayang ang karamihan sa atin masaya na tratuhin tila na paraan.

    “Kompromiso” Obama ng

    Sa ilalim ng presyon, ang Obama pangangasiwa ay inaasahan na ipahayag ang isang “kompromiso” Lahat ng kung saan Exempt sa ilalim Katoliko employer ay hindi na magbayad para sa pagpipigil sa pagbubuntis coverage. Sa halip, mga kompanya ng seguro ng diyos ang coverage nang direkta sa empleyado. Dahil sa ilalim ng Kalusugan at Human Serbisyo patakaran, ang saklaw na ito ay dapat na libre, ang Obama pangangasiwa ay sa epekto direct Insurers upang kumain ang gastos. Ngunit Insurers ay profit-paggawa ng mga kompanya, hindi kawanggawa, kaya maaari naming asahan ang mga ito upang pumasa sa gastos sa ibang tao. Ngunit upang Kanino? May isa lamang posibilidad:, nonexempt employer na nangangahulugan sa mga empleyado ng katotohanan nonexempt o kumpanya. Kaya ang grand kompromiso shifts ang gastos mula sa isang maliit na minorya ng mga empleyado upang matukoy ang karamihan – lahat sa ang pangalan ng relihiyon kalayaan. Lahat nonexempt mga manggagawa sa mga kumpanya at mga Institusyon ay isang pay hiwa.

  22. Kiista raivoaa yli Obaman hallinnon ehdotti (ja my?hemmin muutettu)-Sis?lt?? ty?nantajan toimeksiantoon ett? kaikki katoliset sairaalat ja yliopistot ovat vapaasti Ehk?isy Niiden ty?ntekij?iden sairausvakuutus politiikka. Katolinen virkamiehet esine koska heid?n kirkko kielt?? Ehk?isyn, asetus rikkoo First Amendment suojaamiseksi uskonnonvapautta. Toiset ovat liittyneet protestiksi varovaisesti ennakointi t?m? rikkoo omantunnon voi levit? muihin asioihin ja muut uskonnot.

    Ne nostaa vastalauseita ei moitteettomia tapaus. Ennakkotapauksena on ilmeisesti enemm?n kuin kaksi laatikkoa jo valtioilla on samankaltaisista toimeksiannoista ei ole merkityst?. Mik? Immoral ei tullut moraalinen yksinkertaisesti ennakkotapaus. Periaate, jonka mukaan ket??n ei saa pakottaa rahoittamaan Ett? kaikki, jotka h?n l?yt?? vastenmielisi? on terve. Itse asiassa se olisi sovellettava geeni ralli.

    Vaihtaminen Aihe

    Puolustajat p??t?s ovat melko hyvi? muuttaa aihe. Tietenkin ne ovat – He ovat saaneet mit? muuta? Voit kuunnella niit?, luulisi, ett? joku on ehdottanut, ett? Ehk?isy kiellett?v?. (No, Rick Santorum Se ei n?yt? suosivan, mutta h?n on aika paljon yksin.) Obamacare Mestarien haluaa meid?n uskovan kiista on noin “allas” “tiettyihin tuotteisiin ja palveluihin. Kaikki asetuksella ei, he sanovat, on s??st?vakuutus kattavuus ja saada Therefore, vapaaseen Ehk?isy (alongwith muilla ehk?isevill? palveluilla) naisille, jotka haluavat sit?. Mutta se vain tuo esiin toisen kysymyksen:

    Mit? t?m? sai tehd? vakuutus?

    Access ei riipu kattavuutta. Meill? on p??sy monia t?rkeit? asioita, jotka eiv?t kuulu vakuutusturvan piiriin. Outo, jotkut sanovat asetuksen todella vakuuttaa uskonnonvapautta. Kuinka niin? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen ja Patty Murray selitetty Wall Street Journal: “[T] h?n miljoonat amerikkalaiset naiset jotka haluavat k?ytt?? ehk?isy? ei olisi pakko noudattaa uskonnollista oppia, joko katolinen tai ei-katolinen.”

    Toisin sanoen, ettei vakuutusturva ehk?isyyn ei ole sama asia on pakko k?ytt?? ehk?isy?. T?m? on noin outo argumentti, mutta se mit? olemme tottuneet j?senille “maailman suurin keskusteleva elin.”

    No?

    Joten her?? kysymys: Mit? on t?m? sai tehd? vakuutus?

    “P??sy syntyvyyden on suoraan sidoksissa laskusta ?itiys-ja lapsikuolleisuuden, voi v?hent?? munasarjasy?v?n riski?, ??ja liittyy yleisen terveyden tuloksia” Sens Boxer, Shaheen ja Murray kirjoittaa.

    Hieno, mutta mit? se sai tehd? vakuutus?

    “[B] tie asetuksen k?ytt?? syntyvyyden auttaa v?hent?m??n tahattomia raskauksia ja keskenmenoja Pit?isik? tavoite meille kaikille.”

    Hieno, mutta mit? se sai tehd? vakuutus?

    “Oikea perhesuunnittelu kautta syntyvyyden seurauksena terveempi? ?itej? ja lapsia, kaikki mik? hy?dytt?? meit? kaikkia.”

    Hieno, mutta mit? se sai tehd? vakuutus?

    “Se s??st?? my?s rahaa ….”

    Hieno, mutta mit? se sai tehd? vakuutus?

    “Se voi maksaa 600 dollaria vuodessa resepti? ehk?isyvalmisteet.” (Se on high-end arvioiden olemassa halvempia vaihtoehtoja, mukaan lukien suunnitellut Parenthood pienituloisia naisia.)

    Hieno, mutta mit? se sai tehd? vakuutus?

    “Noin 99% naisista Yhdysvalloissa, jotka ovat seksuaalisesti aktiivisia tai Jalkojen jossain vaiheessa el?m??ns? olla liikaa syntyvyyden, mukaan lukien 98% katolisen naisista mukaan Guttmacher instituutti.”

    Hieno, mutta mit? se sai tehd?-oh viis. Min? vastaan ??itse: Se ei ole mit??n tekemist? vakuutuksen.

    Riskien yhdist?minen

    Vakuutus Yksil?t syntyi tapa uima riski, tai jotkut low-probability/high-cost Heid?n ep?onnekseen v??r?st? niit?. Se pit?isi olla v?ltt?m?t?nt? korostaa t?t?, mutta tulossa on hedelm?llisess? i?ss? ja valitsemalla k?ytett?v? ehk?isy? ei ole vakuutuskelpoisia tapahtumaa. Se tahdonalaisia ??teko. Se voi olla hyv? Seuraukset henkil? ottaa toimintaa ja koko yhteiskuntaa, mutta se on silti tahdonalaisia ??teko. Ei ole mit??n j?rke? puhua vakuutuksen mahdollisuus, ett? tietty henkil? k?ytt?? ehk?isy?. Tarkkaan ottaen Ehk?isy ei ole mit??n tekemist? vakuutuksen.

    Valitettavasti emme puhu t?ysin siit? sairausvakuutus. Yksi syy teemme verolains??d?nn?n. Toisen maailmansodan j?lkeen korvausta ty?n muodossa ty?perusteisen sairausvakuutus ei lasketa verotettavaksi tuloksi. (Raha itsen?isesti sairausvakuutus ei lasketa.) Verolains??d?nn?n Galanthus Luo v??ristyneet kannustimet 1) luottamista ty?nantaja sairausvakuutus, 2) siirtyminen tuotot rahaksi rahaa rajoitettu vakuutuskorvaukset, ja 3) m??ritell??n vakuutusta tapahtumia vakuuttaa. Olisiko joku viitsisi selitt??, miten hyvin vauvan hoito voi olla vakuutuskelpoisia?

    Meid?n on siis verotuksen kiitt?? j?lleen piirre nykymaailmassa: korruptio kielen. L??ketieteen valtakunnassa keuhkojen Keinot vakuutus ei vakuutusta.

    Sen sijaan se on peli, jota kaikki jotka saamme muita ihmisi? maksamaan kamaa. No, se ei ole aivan tarkka. Se on oikeastaan ??peli, jossa me kuvitella, ett? muut ihmiset maksavat juttuja. Kuule, ehk?isyst?, mammografiassa, colonoscopies, ja hyvin vauvan hoidosta eiv?t ole ilmaisia. (Ks. “Ei ole sellaista asiaa kuin ilmainen mammografiassa.”) He ty?voimatarvetta ja resursseja kaikille joiden omistajat haluavat-ei-on riivattu kohtuuttomasti kompensoida. Jonkun on maksettava. Jos ty?nantajan nimellisesti joutuvat maksamaan kattavuutta, ei kukaan tosissaan usko, ett? ty?ntekij?t todella maksavat alhaisempien rahapalkan? Ty?nantajat eiv?t ole hyv?ntekev?isyysj?rjest?j?. Joten ilman copayment, me kaikki tied?mme, syv?lle, ett? me ty?ntekij?t maksamaan kattavuutta. (Joka muuten on todenn?k?isesti kalliimpia kuin palvelut olisi vapautunutta markkinoilla, koska vakuutusyhti?t veloittaa enemm?n yleiskustannuksia ja niiden ongelmia. My?s tuetun kysynt? nostaa hintoja.) Kuitenkin, totuus on niin peitetty, ett? ihmiset voivat teeskennell? he saavat jotain ilmaiseksi.

    Niinp? hallituksen syntyv?n j?rjestelm? kohtelee meit? kuin lapsia, ja valitettavasti useimmat meist? onnellisia hoidettavan SEEM niin.

    Obama: n “kompromissi”

    Paineen alla, Obaman hallinto oli odotetaan ilmoittavan “kompromissi” Kaikki mik? vapauttaa alle katolinen Ty?nantajat ei tarvitse maksaa Ehk?isy kattavuus. Sen sijaan vakuutusyhti?t kaitselmus kattavuus suoraan ty?ntekij?ille. Koska alle terveysministeri? s??nt?jen kattavuus saa olla, Obama hallinto on itse asiassa ohjaa vakuutusyhti?iden sy?d? kustannuksia. Mutta Vakuutusyhti?t ovat voittoa tavoittelevia yrityksi?, eiv?t hyv?ntekev?isyysj?rjest?j?, joten voimme odottaa heit? siirt?m??n kustannuksia toiselle. Mutta kenelle? On vain yksi mahdollisuus: nonexempt ty?nantajan, mik? merkitsee itse asiassa nonexempt henkil?? tai yrityst?. Joten grand kompromissi siirtyy kustannukset silt? pieni v?hemmist? ty?ntekij?ist? p??tt?? enemmist? – kaikki nimiss? uskonnonvapaus. Kaikki nonexempt ty?ntekij?ille yritysten ja instituutioiden vie palkkaa leikata.

  23. Pol?mique fait rage sur l’administration Obama a propos? (et modifi? par la suite)-y compris le mandat de l’employeur que tous les h?pitaux et les universit?s catholiques comprennent de libre-Contraception Dans leurs politiques du personnel d’assurance maladie. Catholique objet fonctionnaires depuis que leur ?glise interdit la contraception, le d?cret viole la protection du Premier amendement de la libert? religieuse. D’autres se sont joints ? la manifestation, avec prudence que l’anticipation de cette violation de la libert? de conscience pourrait se propager ? d’autres questions et d’autres religions.

    Ceux qui ?l?ve des objections ont un cas irr?prochable. Le pr?c?dent cr?? par les plus de deux cases qui apparemment D?j? les Etats ont des mandats similaires n’est pas pertinent. Qu’est-ce c’est immoral ne devienne pas simplement morale par la jurisprudence. Le principe selon lequel nul ne devrait ?tre contraint de financer que tout ce qu’il ou elle trouve odieuse est saine. En fait, elle devrait ?tre appliqu?e rallye g?ne.

    Modification de l’objet

    Les d?fenseurs de ce d?cret sont assez bon ? changer le sujet. Bien s?r, ils sont – ils ont eu quoi d’autre? Pour les entendre, on croirait que quelqu’un a propos? que la contraception soit d?clar? ill?gal. (Eh bien, Rick Santorum qui ne semble pas favoriser, mais il est ? peu pr?s seul.) Champions Obamacare voudrait nous faire croire la controverse est d’environ “acc?s” ? des certains produits et services. Tout le d?cret ne, disent-ils, est une couverture d’assurance providence, et d’acc?der puissante cons?quent, ? la contraception gratuite (alongwith autres services de pr?vention) pour les femmes qui le souhaitent. Mais cela soul?ve une autre question vient:

    Qu’est-ce que cela a ? voir avec l’assurance?

    Access ne d?pend pas de la couverture. Nous avons acc?s ? beaucoup de choses importantes ne sont pas couverts par une assurance. Bizarrement, certains disent que le d?cret affirme effectivement la libert? religieuse. Comment cela? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, et Patty Murray a expliqu? dans le Wall Street Journal: ?. [T] il des millions de femmes am?ricaines qui choisissent d’utiliser la contraception ne devrait pas ?tre forc? de suivre la doctrine religieuse, catholique ou non-catholique?

    En d’autres termes, le manque de couverture d’assurance pour la contraception n’est pas ?quivalent ? ?tre forc? d’utiliser la contraception. C’est un argument ?trange, mais c’est ce que nous sommes venus ? attendre des membres de la “plus grande du monde organe d?lib?rant.”

    Eh bien?

    Donc, la question demeure: Qu’est-ce que cela a ? voir avec l’assurance?

    ?L’acc?s au contr?le des naissances est directement li?e ? la baisse de la mortalit? maternelle et infantile, peut r?duire le risque de cancer de l’ovaire, et est li?e ? l’ensemble des bons r?sultats de sant?,? Sens Boxer, Shaheen, et Murray ?crire.

    Tr?s bien, mais ce qui il est arriv? ? faire avec l’assurance?

    “[B] acc?s lation routi?re au contr?le des naissances permettra de r?duire le nombre de grossesses non d?sir?es et des avortements, Si un objectif que nous partageons tous.”

    Tr?s bien, mais ce qui il est arriv? ? faire avec l’assurance?

    “Une bonne planification de la famille ? travers les r?sultats de contr?le des naissances dans la sant? des m?res et des enfants, qui profite ? tous Tous d’entre nous.”

    Tr?s bien, mais ce qui il est arriv? ? faire avec l’assurance?

    “Il nous permet d’?conomiser de l’argent trop ….”

    Tr?s bien, mais ce qui il est arriv? ? faire avec l’assurance?

    “Il peut en co?ter 600 $ par ann?e pour les contraceptifs sur ordonnance.” (C’est une estimation haute de gamme, il existe des options moins co?teuses, y compris Planned Parenthood pour femmes ? faible revenu.)

    Tr?s bien, mais ce qui il est arriv? ? faire avec l’assurance?

    “Environ 99% des femmes aux ?tats-Unis qui sont sexuellement actives ou qui ont la jambe ? un moment donn? dans leur vie ont le contr?le des naissances galvaud?, y compris 98% des femmes catholiques, Selon le Guttmacher Institute.”

    Tr?s bien, mais ce qui il est arriv? ? faire avec, oh tant pis. Je vais r?pondre moi-m?me: Il n’a rien ? voir avec l’assurance.

    La mutualisation des risques

    Assurance pour les particuliers se posait d’une mani?re au risque de la piscine, ou quelque low-probability/high-cost Leur malheur les affligent. Il devrait pas ?tre n?cessaire de souligner ce point, mais venant d’un enfant en ?ge de procr?er et en choisissant d’utiliser la contraception n’est pas un ?v?nement assurable. Il s’agit d’un acte volontaire. Il peut avoir des cons?quences bonnes pour la personne qui prend l’action et de la soci?t? au sens large, mais il est encore un acte volontaire. Il ne fait aucun sens de parler de l’assurance contre l’?ventualit? qu’une personne en particulier va utiliser la contraception. Strictement parlant, la contraception n’a rien ? voir avec l’assurance.

    Malheureusement, nous ne parlons pas strictement sur l’assurance maladie. Une des raisons que nous faisons est le code des imp?ts. Depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale compensation pour le travail sous la forme de l’assurance maladie bas?e sur l’emploi ne compte pas comme un revenu imposable. (L’argent d?pens? Ind?pendamment de l’assurance maladie ne comptent.) Le code des imp?ts Galanthus cr?e des incitations perverses ? 1) d?pendent d’un employeur pour l’assurance m?dicale, 2) le revenu passage de liquider en esp?ces ? des prestations d’assurance restreinte, et 3) d?finir les ?v?nements non assurables comme assurables. Quelqu’un veut-il expliquer comment le bien-b?b? de soins peut ?tre assurable?

    Donc, nous avons la fiscalit? ? remercier pour encore une autre caract?ristique du monde moderne: la corruption de la langue. Dans le poumon domaine m?dical, une assurance pas d’assurance.

    Au contraire, il s’agit d’un jeu par Tout ce que nous amener d’autres personnes ? payer pour des trucs. Eh bien, ce n’est pas tout ? fait exact. Il s’agit en fait d’un jeu dans lequel nous pr?tendons que d’autres personnes paient pour des trucs. Regardez, la contraception, la mammographie, coloscopie, et le bien-b?b? les soins ne sont pas libres. (Voir mon “Il n’ya aucune telle chose comme une mammographie gratuite.”) Ils exigence du travail et des ressources pour tous, qui les propri?taires souhaitent-pas-?tre poss?d? ind?ment indemnis?es. Quelqu’un doit payer. Si l’employeur est nominalement sont oblig?s de payer pour la couverture, personne ne doute s?rieusement que les employ?s seront effectivement payer par les salaires en esp?ces inf?rieurs? Les employeurs ne sont pas des organismes de bienfaisance. Ainsi, sans m?me une quote-part, nous savons tous au fond que nous, les travailleurs paient pour la couverture. (Qui, par la fa?on dont est susceptible d’?tre plus cher que les services seraient lib?r?s dans un march?, puisque les compagnies d’assurance fera payer plus cher pour les frais g?n?raux et leur peine. Aussi la demande fait monter les prix subventionn?s.) N?anmoins, la v?rit? est si Obscured que les gens peuvent pr?tendent qu’ils obtiennent quelque chose de gratuit.

    Ainsi, le syst?me de gouvernement g?n?r? par nous traite comme des enfants, et h?las plupart d’entre nous heureux d’?tre trait?s semblent de cette fa?on.

    Obama “compromis”

    Sous la pression, l’administration Obama devait annoncer un “compromis” Tout ce qui dispense en vertu de catholiques employeurs n’auraient pas ? payer pour une couverture de contraception. INSTEAD, les compagnies d’assurance serait la providence de la couverture directement aux employ?s. ?tant donn? qu’en vertu des r?gles de sant? et des services sociaux, cette couverture doit ?tre libre, l’administration Obama est en effet de diriger les assureurs ? manger le co?t. Mais les assureurs sont des soci?t?s ? but lucratif, et non les organismes de bienfaisance, afin que nous puissions attendre d’eux de r?percuter le co?t ? quelqu’un d’autre. Mais ? qui? Il n’y a qu’une seule possibilit?:, l’employeur nonexempt de Ce qui signifie en fait employ?s nonexempt ou des entreprises. Ainsi, le grand compromis d?place le co?t d’une petite minorit? de salari?s pour d?terminer la majorit? – tout cela au nom de la libert? religieuse. Tous les travailleurs nonexempt dans les entreprises et institutions aura une r?duction de salaire.

  24. Grassa controversia sobre a administraci?n Obama est? proposto (e m?is tarde modificado)-Ata mandato empresario que todos os hospitais e as universidades cat?licas incl?en Contracep??o libres nas s?as p?lizas de seguro de sa?de dos empregados. Obxecto funcionarios Cat?lica sempre que a s?a igrexa prohibe contracepci?n, o decreto viola a protecci?n da Primeira Enmenda da liberdade relixiosa. Outros se xuntaron ? protesta, prudentemente, que a anticipaci?n esta violaci?n da liberdade de conciencia pode estenderse a outros asuntos e outras fes.

    Os levantar a obxecci?n ten un caso indiscutible. O precedente establecido nos aparentemente m?is que d?as caixas que xa os Estados te?en mandatos semellantes ? irrelevante. O que ? inmoral non se fai moral simplemente polo precedente. O principio de que ningu?n debe ser obrigado a financiar que todo o que el ou ela atopa ? abominable son. Centrais, sen?n que debe ser aplicada rali xene.

    Cambiando o asunto

    Defensores do decreto son moi bos en cambiar de tema. Claro que son – Te?en que m?is? Para escoitar, vostede pensar?a que algu?n propuxo que a contracepci?n ser proscrita. (Ben, Rick Santorum Isto parece favorecer, pero ? moi bonito s?.) Campi?ns Obamacare nos queren facer crer a pol?mica ? o “acceso” a ‘certos produtos e servizos. Todo o decreto que, din, ? a providencia de cobertura de seguros para, e acceder poderoso Polo tanto, para contracepci?n libre (xunto doutros servizos de prevenci?n) para as mulleres que queren. Pero iso s? levanta outra cuesti?n:

    O que isto ten que ver co seguro?

    Acceso non depende da cuberta. Temos acceso a moitas cousas importantes non cubertos polo seguro. Estra?amente, alg?ns din que o decreto de feito asegura a liberdade relixiosa. Como as?? Senadores Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, e Patty Murray explicou no Wall Street Journal “. [T] que mill?ns de mulleres americanas que optan por utilizar un m?todo anticonceptivo non debe ser forzado a seguir a doutrina relixiosa, sexa cat?lica ou non cat?lica”

    Noutras palabras, a falta de cobertura de seguro para a contracepci?n non ? equivalente a ser condenado a usar contracepci?n. Iso ? un argumento raro, pero ? o que temos benvida a esperar de membros da “maior organizaci?n mundial deliberativo.”

    Ben?

    Ent?n a cuesti?n permanece como: O que isto ten que ver co seguro?

    “O acceso ao control de natalidade est? directamente ligada ao descenso da mortalidade materna e infantil, pode reducir o risco de cancro de ovario, e est? ligada ? resultados xerais de boa sa?de”, os senadores Boxer, Shaheen, e Murray escribir.

    Todo ben, pero o que isto ten que ver co seguro?

    “[B] Regulamento estrada de acceso ao control de natalidade vai axudar a reducir o n?mero de embarazos non desexadas e abortos, un obxectivo que todos compartimos”.

    Todo ben, pero o que isto ten que ver co seguro?

    “Planificaci?n familiar axeitado a trav?s dos resultados do control da natalidade en nais e nenos, todos acollido a todos.”

    Todo ben, pero o que isto ten que ver co seguro?

    “El salva-nos moito di?eiro ….”

    Todo ben, pero o que isto ten que ver co seguro?

    “Isto pode custa US $ 600 por ano para prescrici?n de anticonceptivos.” (Isto ? unha estimaci?n de gama alta, existen opci?ns de menor custo, inclu?ndo a Planned Parenthood para mulleres de baixa renda.)

    Todo ben, pero o que isto ten que ver co seguro?

    “Preto do 99% das mulleres EEUU que son sexualmente activos ou ter a perna nalg?n momento das s?as vidas te?en control de natalidade en demasia, inclu?ndo 98% das mulleres cat?licas, segundo o Instituto Guttmacher.”

    Todo ben, pero o que ? o que ten que ver coa-Oh, esqueza. Vou responder a min mesmo: non ten nada que ver co seguro.

    Risco Pooling

    Seguro para persoas Xurdiu como unha forma de risco piscina, ou alg?n low-probability/high-cost s?a befalling desgraza deles. Non debe ser necesario para apuntar isto, pero benvida de idade f?rtil e escollendo a usar a contracepci?n non ? un evento seguro. ? un acto volitivo. El pode ter consecuencias boas para a persoa tomar a acci?n ea sociedade en xeral, sen?n que ? un acto volitivo. Non ten sentido falar de seguro contra a posibilidade de que unha determinada persoa vai utilizar un m?todo anticonceptivo. Estrictamente falando, a contracepci?n non ten nada que ver co seguro.

    Desafortunadamente, non falamos estrictamente sobre seguro m?dico. Unha raz?n que facemos ? o c?digo tributario. Dende a Segunda Guerra II compensaci?n para o traballo en forma de traballo baseada no seguro de sa?de non conta como rendemento tribut?vel. (O di?eiro gasto Independentemente do seguro de sa?de, non contan.) O c?digo fiscal Galanthus Crea incentivos perversos 1) dependen dun empresario para o seguro m?dico, 2) o rendemento cambio de liquidar en di?eiro para os beneficios de seguro restrinxidas, e 3) establecer eventos non segur?veis ??como seguro. Ser? que algu?n poder?a explicar como coidar ben do beb? coidado pode ser obxecto de seguro?

    Ent?n temos a gracias a tributaci?n a?nda outra caracter?stica do mundo: a corrupci?n da linguaxe. No pulm?n campo da medicina, o seguro sen seguro.

    Pola contra, ? un xogo por todo o que temos outras persoas para pagar o material. Ben, iso non ? moi preciso. ? realmente un xogo no que n?s fingimos que outros pagan por cousas. Mira, Contracep??o, mamografias, colonoscopias e ben coidado do beb? non son libres. (V?xase o meu “Non hai tal cousa como unha mamograf?a gratu?ta.”) Eles esixencia de traballo e recursos para todos os propietarios que desexen-non-ser posu?do indebidamente compensado. Algu?n ten que pagar. Se empresario nominalmente est?n obrigados a pagar pola cuberta, algu?n dubidar seriamente de que os empregados van realmente pagar a trav?s de salarios m?is baixos en di?eiro? Os empresarios non son instituci?ns de caridade. As?, a?nda sen un co-pagamento, todos sabemos que no fondo n?s, como os traballadores pagan para a cobertura. (Que por certo ? probable que sexa m?is caro que os servizos ser?an liberados nun mercado, xa que compa??as de seguros van cobrar m?is por riba e os seus problemas. Tam?n demanda eleva os prezos subvencionados.) Con todo, o certo ? obscurecer desa forma que as persoas poden finxir que est? a recibir algo de gracia.

    As?, o sistema de goberno xerado nos trata como fillos, e por desgraza a maior?a de n?s feliz de ser tratado parece que xeito.

    “Compromiso” de Obama

    A presi?n, a administraci?n Obama se esperaba para anunciar un “compromiso” Todos que eximir baixo empresarios cat?licos non ter?a que pagar para a cobertura de contracepci?n. INSTEAD, empresas de seguros ser?a providencia a cobertura directamente aos empregados. Xa que baixo as regras de Sa?de e Servizos Humanos, esa cobertura deber?a ser libre, a administraci?n Obama est? en vigor dirixir aseguradoras para comer o custo. Pero as aseguradoras son empresas con ?nimo de lucro, e non instituci?ns de caridade, ent?n podemos esperar que pasen o custo para algu?n. Pero para quen? Hai s? unha posibilidade: empresario non exento, o que significa en funcionarios feito de non exento ou empresas. As?, o compromiso grand cambia o custo dunha pequena minor?a de empregados para determinar a maior?a – todo en nome da liberdade relixiosa. Todos os traballadores non exento en empresas e instituci?ns ter?n un corte de pagamento.

  25. Kontroverse tobt ?ber die Obama-Administration vorgeschlagenen (und sp?ter ge?ndert)-Inklusive Arbeitgebers Mandat, dass alle katholischen Krankenh?user und Universit?ten kostenlos-Kontrazeption bei der Personal Krankenversicherungen umfassen. Katholischen Beamten Objekt da, dass ihre Kirche verbietet Empf?ngnisverh?tung, verst??t gegen das Dekret des First Amendment der Schutz der Religionsfreiheit. Andere haben an dem Protest angeschlossen, umsichtig ist die Antizipation dieser Verletzung der Freiheit des Gewissens k?nnte auch auf andere Angelegenheiten und anderer Religionen zu verbreiten.

    Diejenigen Anhebung der Einwand haben eine unanfechtbare Fall. Der Pr?zedenzfall in den scheinbar mehr als zwei Boxen, die bereits Staaten haben ?hnliche Mandate gesetzt, ist irrelevant. Was ist unmoralisch wird nicht allein durch moralische Pr?zedenzfall. Der Grundsatz, dass niemand gezwungen werden sollten, finanzieren da? alles, was er oder sie findet Klang ist abscheulich sein. In der Tat sollte es Gen-Rallye angewendet werden.

    ?ndern des Betreffs

    Die Verteidiger des Erlasses sind recht gut an das Thema zu wechseln. Nat?rlich sind sie – sie haben was sonst? Um sie zu h?ren, w?rden Sie denken, jemand hat vorgeschlagen, dass Empf?ngnisverh?tung verboten werden. (Na ja, Rick Santorum Das scheint sich zu favorisieren, aber er ist ziemlich allein.) Obamacare Meister will uns glauben machen die Kontroverse geht es um “Zugang” zu “bestimmte Produkte und Dienstleistungen. All das Dekret nicht, sagen sie, ist die Vorsehung Versicherungsschutz f?r und Zugriff auf leistungsstarke Deshalb, um freie Empf?ngnisverh?tung (alongwith andere pr?ventive Leistungen) f?r Frauen, die es wollen. Aber das nur um eine andere Frage:

    Was hat das alles mit Versicherungen zu tun?

    Access nicht auf Deckung angewiesen. Wir haben Zugriff auf viele wichtige Dinge nicht durch Versicherungen abgedeckt. Seltsam, manche sagen das Dekret tats?chlich best?tigt Religionsfreiheit. Wie das? Sens. Boxer Barbara, Jeanne Shaheen, und Patty Murray erkl?rt im Wall Street Journal: “[T] he Millionen von amerikanischen Frauen, die Empf?ngnisverh?tung zu verwenden w?hlen, sollte nicht gezwungen werden, religi?se Doktrin folgen werden, egal ob katholisch oder nicht katholisch.”

    Mit anderen Worten, ist der Mangel an Versicherungsschutz f?r Empf?ngnisverh?tung nicht gleichwertig gezwungen, Empf?ngnisverh?tung zu verwenden. Das ist ein seltsames Argument, aber es ist das, was wir sind gekommen, um von den Mitgliedern des erwarte “Gr??ter Beratungsgremium.”

    Na?

    So bleibt die Frage: Was hat das mit Versicherungen zu tun?

    “Der Zugang zu Geburtenkontrolle direkt auf R?ckg?nge im M?tter-und S?uglingssterblichkeit verbunden, kann das Risiko von Eierstock-Krebs zu reduzieren, und wird an insgesamt guten gesundheitlichen Folgen verbunden”, Sens. Boxer, Shaheen, und Murray zu schreiben.

    Gut, aber was hat das mit Versicherungen zu tun?

    “[B] Stra?e nung Zugang zu Geburtenkontrolle wird dazu beitragen, die Zahl der ungewollten Schwangerschaften und Abtreibungen, sollte ein Ziel, das wir alle teilen.”

    Gut, aber was hat das mit Versicherungen zu tun?

    “Die richtige Familienplanung durch Geburtenkontrolle Ergebnisse in ges?ndere M?tter und Kinder, alle, die uns allen zugute kommt.”

    Gut, aber was hat das mit Versicherungen zu tun?

    “Es spart uns Geld zu ….”

    Gut, aber was hat das mit Versicherungen zu tun?

    “Es kann 600 Dollar im Jahr f?r verschreibungspflichtige Verh?tungsmittel kosten.” (Das ist ein High-End-Sch?tzung gibt es kosteng?nstiger Optionen, einschlie?lich geplanter Elternschaft f?r Frauen mit niedrigem Einkommen.)

    Gut, aber was hat das mit Versicherungen zu tun?

    “Etwa 99% der Frauen in den USA, die sexuell aktiv sind oder Bein an einem bestimmten Punkt in ihrem Leben haben ?berstrapaziert Empf?ngnisverh?tung, einschlie?lich 98% der katholischen Frauen, nach dem Guttmacher Institute.”

    Gut, aber was hat das mit-Oh, keine Sorge machen. Ich werde mich selbst zu beantworten: Es hat nichts mit Versicherungen zu tun.

    Risiko-Pooling

    Versicherungen f?r Einzelpersonen entstand als Weg zum Pool Risiko, oder einige low-probability/high-cost Ihr Ungl?ck widerfahren ihnen. Es sollte nicht n?tig sein, dies zu betonen, sondern kommen im geb?rf?higen Alter und der Auswahl, Empf?ngnisverh?tung zu verwenden ist nicht ein versicherbare Ereignisse. Es ist ein Willensakt. Es kann eine gute Folgen f?r die Person, die die Aktion und die Gesellschaft insgesamt, aber es ist immer noch ein Willensakt. Es macht keinen Sinn, ?ber die Versicherung gegen die Eventualit?t, dass eine bestimmte Person wird Verh?tungsmethode anwenden zu sprechen. Streng genommen, hat nichts mit Empf?ngnisverh?tung Versicherung zu tun.

    Leider haben wir nicht unbedingt sprechen ?ber Krankenversicherung. Ein Grund, wir tun, ist die Steuer-Code. Seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg Entsch?digung f?r Arbeit in Form von Besch?ftigung-basierte Krankenversicherung nicht als Einkommen zu versteuern. (Geld ausgegeben unabh?ngig auf Krankenversicherung tut z?hlen.) Die Abgabenordnung Galanthus Erstellt perverse Anreize zu 1) richten sich nach ein Arbeitgeber f?r Krankenversicherung, 2) Verschiebung Einnahmen aus der Liquidierung Bargeld auf eingeschr?nkte Versicherungsleistungen, und 3) definieren, nicht versicherbare Ereignisse als versicherbar. W?re jemand k?mmern zu erkl?ren, wie gut Babypflege kann versicherbar?

    So haben wir f?r die Besteuerung zu einem weiteren Merkmal der modernen Welt danken: die Korruption der Sprache. Im medizinischen Bereich Lunge eine Versicherung keine Versicherung.

    Stattdessen ist es ein Spiel, indem alles, was wir noch andere Leute f?r Sachen bezahlen. Nun, das ist nicht ganz richtig. Es ist eigentlich ein Spiel, in dem wir vorgeben, dass andere Menschen f?r Dinge zu bezahlen. Schauen Sie, Empf?ngnisverh?tung, Mammographien, Koloskopien, und gut S?uglingspflege sind nicht frei. (Siehe meine “Es gibt keine solche Sache wie ein Freies Mammogramm.”) Sie Arbeitsaufwand und Ressourcen f?r alle, die die Besitzer wollen-nicht-besessen zu werden, unangemessen kompensiert. Jemand muss bezahlen. Wenn Arbeitgeber nominell dazu gezwungen hat, sind f?r die Deckung zu zahlen, hat jemand ernsthaft bezweifeln, dass Mitarbeiter tats?chlich durch niedrigere L?hne bar bezahlen? Arbeitgeber sind keine Wohlt?tigkeitsorganisationen. Also auch ohne Zuzahlung, wissen wir alle tief, dass wir als Arbeiter f?r die Deckung zu zahlen. (Was ?brigens wahrscheinlich teurer sein als die Dienstleistungen in einem Markt w?rde befreit werden, da die Versicherungsgesellschaften mehr f?r Ihre M?he und Aufwand zu berechnen. Auch subventionierte Nachfrage die Preise erh?ht.) Dennoch ist die Wahrheit so verdunkelt, dass die Menschen so tun, sie bekommen etwas umsonst.

    Die von der Regierung erstellten System behandelt uns wie Kinder, und leider die meisten von uns gerne behandelt werden als das erscheinen.

    Obamas “Kompromiss”

    Unter dem Druck wurde die Obama-Regierung erwartet, dass sie einen “Kompromi?” Alle, die unter katholischen Arbeitgeber freistellen m?sste nicht f?r Empf?ngnisverh?tung Berichterstattung zahlen zu verk?nden. Stattdessen w?rden Versicherungsgesellschaften Vorsehung die Berichterstattung direkt an die Mitarbeiter. Da unter Health and Human Services Regeln, diese Deckung muss frei sein, ist die Obama-Regierung in Kraft Regie Versicherer, um die Kosten zu essen. Doch Versicherer sind gewinnorientierte Unternehmen, Wohlfahrtsverb?nde nicht, so d?rfen wir erwarten, dass sie die Kosten an jemand anderen weiterzugeben. Aber an wen? Es gibt nur eine M?glichkeit: nonexempt Arbeitgebers, was bedeutet, dass in der Tat nonexempt Mitarbeiter oder Unternehmen. Also das gro?e Kompromiss verschiebt die Kosten von einer kleinen Minderheit der Besch?ftigten, um die Mehrheit zu bestimmen – alles im Namen der Religionsfreiheit. Alle nonexempt Arbeiter in Unternehmen und Institutionen nehmen eine Lohnk?rzung.

  26. Raj diskisyon sou Obama Administrasyon an la te pwopoze (e pita modifye)-tankou manda anplway? a ki tout lopital Katolik ak iniv?site gen ladan gratis-Kontrasepsyon nan r?gleman anplwaye yo asirans sante. Katolik ofisy?l obj? depi ke legliz yo ent?di Kontrasepsyon, dekr? a vyole pwoteksyon Amannman an Premye nan lib?te relijyon. L?t moun ki te mete nan yon pwotestasyon a, przidan Sa Anticipant sa a vyolasyon lib?te konsyans ka pwopaje l?t zaf? ki gen ak l?t fwa.

    Moun sa yo ki soulve objeksyon an gen yon ka ireprochabl. Presedan, li mete nan aparamman bwat yo ki plis pase de ki deja eta yo gen egzije sanble se enp?tan. Ki sa ki imoral pa vin moral tou senpleman pa presedan. Prensip la ki ta dwe pesonn pa dwe f?se yo finanse Konsa, tout kote li oswa li te jwenn abominable se son. Anf?t, li dwe mete rasanbleman j?n.

    Chanje Subject a

    Defans? nan dekr? a se byen bon nan chanje sij? a. Natir?lman yo – yo gen ki l?t bagay? Tande yo, ou ta panse yon moun te pwopoze pou kontrasepsyon dwe ?lalwa. (Bon, Rick Santorum ke sanble gen k? sansib, men li te b?l anpil pou kont li.) Chanpyon Obamacare ta vle f? nou kw? konfli a se sou “aks?” a ‘s?ten pwodui ak s?vis. Tout dekr? a, yo di, se PROVIDENCE asirans pou, ak aks? pwisan Se pout?t sa, nan Kontrasepsyon gratis (alongwith l?t s?vis prevantif) pou fanm ki vle li. Men, ki jis ogmante yon l?t kesyon:

    Sa ki te sa a te f? ak asirans?

    Aks? pa depann de asirans. Nou gen aks? nan anpil bagay enp?tan pa kouvri pa asirans. Weirdly, k?k di dekr? a akty?lman afime lib?te relijyon. Kouman sa? Sens. Barbara boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, ak Patty Murray eksplike nan Wall Street Journal la: “. [T] li d? milyon de fanm ameriken ki chwazi s?vi ak Kontrasepsyon pa ta dwe f?se yo swiv doktrin relijye, si Katolik oswa ki pa gen Katolik”

    Nan l?t mo, mank de asirans pou Kontrasepsyon se pa ekivalan a te f?se yo s?vi ak Kontrasepsyon. Sa se k?k agiman dw?l, men se ki sa nou te vini nan atann nan manm yo nan “pi gran k? nan mond lan d?lib?ration.”

    Byen?

    Se konsa, kesyon an rete k?m: Ki sa sa a te f? ak asirans?

    “Se Aks? a pou kontw?l nesans dir?kteman lye a refize nan m?talite mat?n?l ak timoun piti, kapab diminye risk nan kans? nan ov?, epi yo lye ak rezilta jeneral bon sante,” Sens. Boxer, Shaheen, ak Murray ekri.

    Bon, men sa ki li te f? ak asirans?

    “[B] aks? lation wout pou kontw?l nesans pral ede redwi kantite moun ki ansent envolont? ak av?tman, yo ta dwe yon objektif nou tout nou pataje.”

    Bon, men sa ki li te f? ak asirans?

    “Bon planifikasyon fanmi a rezilta kontw?l nesans nan sante manman ak timoun, tout pou benefis tout moun nan nou.”

    Bon, men sa ki li te f? ak asirans?

    “Li sove nou lajan tou ….”

    Bon, men sa ki li te f? ak asirans?

    “Li ka koute $ 600 yon ane pou kontraseptif preskripsyon.” (Sa se yon estimasyon-wo fen, gen opsyon pi ba pri, ansanm ak Paran Elve planifye pou ti-revni ki fanm.)

    Bon, men sa ki li te f? ak asirans?

    “K?k 99% nan fanm nan peyi Etazini an ki seksy?lman aktif oswa ki gen janm nan k?k pwen nan lavi yo genyen ki te f? tw?p kontw?l nesans, ansanm ak 98% nan Katolik fanm, Dapre Enstiti Guttmacher la.”

    Bon, men sa ki li te f? ak-o nv?rmend. Mwen pral reponn mwen: Li te gen anyen f? ak asirans.

    Risk regwoupman

    Asirans pou Moun ki leve k?m yon fason nan risk pisin, oswa k?k low-probability/high-cost befalling mal? yo yo. Li pa ta dwe neses? nan pwen sa a soti, men vini nan pitit-pitit laj epi chwazi s?vi ak Kontrasepsyon se pa yon ev?nman asurabl. Li se yon zak volitif. Li kapab gen konsekans bon pou moun lan pran aksyon an yo ak sosyete a nan gwo, men li se toujou yon zak volitif. Li pa f? okenn sans pale sou afilyasyon kont evantyalite la ki yon moun an patikilye pral s?vi av?k Kontrasepsyon. F? egzateman pale, Kontrasepsyon pa gen anyen f? ak asirans.

    Malerezman, nou pa pale s?lman sou asirans sante. Yon rezon ki f? nou f? se k?d taks la. K?m konpansasyon pou Dezy?m G? Mondyal la pou travay nan f?m lan nan asirans medikal travay ki baze sou pa konsidere k?m revni taks sou li. (Lajan pou depanse oton?m sou asirans sante f? konte.) Galanthus nan k?d taks Kreye ankourajman move moun to 1) depann sou anplway? youn nan pou asirans medikal, 2) revni chanjman nan liquide lajan kach yo benefis asirans ent?di, ak 3) defini ev?nman uninsurable k?m asurabl. Yon moun ta pran swen a eksplike kijan byen swen pou tibebe kapab asurabl?

    Se konsa, nou gen taksasyon rem?sye pou karakteristik yon l?t ank? nan mond lan mod?n: koripsyon an nan lang. Nan poumon nan dom?n medikal asirans Sa vle di pa gen asirans.

    Olye de sa se yon jw?t pa tout ki nou jwenn l?t moun pou peye pou bagay. Bon, sa se pa byen egzat. Li akty?lman yon jw?t kote nou pran p?z ke l?t moun peye pou bagay. Gade, Kontrasepsyon, mamogram, colonoscopies, ak swen ki byen ti bebe yo pa gratis. (Gade mwen “Pa genyen okenn bagay tankou yon Mamogram gratis.”) Yo kondisyon travay ak resous pou tout moun ki m?t pwopriyete yo vle-pa-yo dwe posede san rezon rekonpanse. Yon moun genyen yo peye. Si travay la nominal wap f?se pou peye pou pwoteksyon an, nenp?t moun seryezman dout ke anplwaye yo ap peye akty?lman nan pi ba sal? lajan kach? Anplway? yo pa ?ganizasyon charitab. Se konsa, menm san yon kopeman, nou tout konnen fon desann Sa nou k?m travay? peye pou asirans la. (Ki pa fason a se chans yo dwe pi ch? pase s?vis yo ta dwe libere nan yon mache, depi konpayi asirans pral chaje plis pou ayeryen ak pwobl?m yo. Epitou demann sibvansyone ogmante pri.) Men, se verite a pou tou nwa ki moun ka pretann yo ap jwenn yon bagay pou gratis.

    Se konsa, sist?m nan gouv?nman-pwodwi trete nou tankou yon timoun, ak Woy pi f? nan nou kontan yo trete sanble ke fason.

    “Konpwomi” Obama a

    Anba presyon, administrasyon Obama a te espere li te anonse yon “konpwomi” Tout ki egzante anba Anplway? Katolik pa ta gen pou peye pou pwoteksyon Kontrasepsyon. Olye de sa, konpayi asirans ta PROVIDENCE pwoteksyon an dir?kteman nan anplwaye yo. Depi anba Sante ak S?vis Imen regleman, pwoteksyon sa a dwe gratis, administrasyon Obama a se nan ef? dirije Assureurs manje pri an. Men, Assureurs yo Peye-ap f? konpayi yo, pa ?ganizasyon charitab, pou nou ka atann yo pase pri a yon l?t moun. Men, yon moun? Genyen s?lman yon posibilite:, patwon-an nonexempt Ki vle di nan anplwaye nonexempt reyalite oswa konpayi. Se konsa, konpwomi an Grand or? pri a soti nan yon ti minorite nan anplwaye yo det?mine majorite a – tout nan non lib?te relijyon. Tout travay? nonexempt nan konpayi yo ak enstitisyon pral pran yon koupe peye.

  27. K?zdelem d?l ?t az Obama-adminisztr?ci? ?ltal javasolt (?s k?s?bb m?dos?tott), bele?rtve a munk?ltat? rendelkezik ?gy, hogy minden katolikus k?rh?zak ?s egyetemek k?z?tt szabadon Fogamz?sg?tl?s az alkalmazottak eg?szs?g?gyi biztos?t?st. Katolikus tisztvisel?k objektum ?ta tiltja hogy egyh?zi Fogamz?sg?tl?s, a rendelet s?rti az els? m?dos?t?s a vall?sszabads?g v?delm?re. M?sok is csatlakoztak a tiltakoz?, k?r?ltekint?en el?k?sz?teni a megs?rt?se, a lelkiismereti szabads?g is terjedhet a m?s ?gyekben ?s m?s vall?sok.

    Azok a kifog?s emel?se van elvitathatatlan ?gyben. A precedens a l?tsz?lag t?bb mint k?t doboz ?llamok, amelyek m?r rendelkeznek hasonl? mand?tumot irrelev?ns. Mi Erk?lcstelen nem lesz erk?lcsi egyszer?en precedens. Az elvet, hogy senkit sem szabad k?nytelenek finansz?rozni That All ?ltala tal?lja iszonyatos megalapozott. S?t, azt kell alkalmazni g?n rally.

    T?m?t v?ltva

    V?d?k A rendelet igen j? t?m?t v?ltva. Persze, hogy azok – ?k m?r megvan, mi m?s? Ahhoz, hogy hallja ?ket, azt hiszem, hogy valaki azt javasolta, hogy Fogamz?sg?tl?s tiltani. (Nos, Rick Santorum Ez ?gy t?nik r?szes?tik el?nyben, de el?g sokat egyed?l.) Obamacare bajnok szeretn?k vel?nk elhitetni a vita arr?l sz?l, “hozz?f?r?s”, hogy “bizonyos term?keket ?s szolg?ltat?sokat. Minden rendelet s?rti, azt mondj?k, ez gondvisel?s biztos?t?ssal, ?s a hozz?f?r?st er?teljes Ez?rt az ingyenes fogamz?sg?tl?s (alongwith egy?b prevenci?s szolg?ltat?sok), a n?k, akik azt akarj?k. De ez csak egy k?rd?st vet fel:

    Mi k?ze ennek a biztos?t?s?

    Access nem f?gg a lefedetts?g. Mi f?rhet hozz? sok fontos dolgot nem terjed ki a biztos?t?s. Furcs?n, egyesek szerint a rendelet val?ban meger?s?ti a vall?sszabads?got. Hogy ?rti ezt? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen ?s Patty Murray ismerteti a Wall Street Journal: “[A] milli? amerikai n?k, akik ?gy d?ntenek, hogy fogamz?sg?tl?st nem szabad arra k?nyszer?teni, hogy k?vess?k a vall?si doktr?na, hogy katolikus vagy nem katolikus.”

    M?s sz?val, a biztos?t?s hi?nya, a fogamz?sg?tl? nem egyen?rt?k? k?nytelenek fogamz?sg?tl?st. Ez valami furcsa ?rvel?s, de ez, amit mi elv?runk tagjait?l a “vil?g legnagyobb tan?cskoz? test?let.”

    Nos?

    Sz?val a k?rd?s tov?bbra is, mint: Mi k?ze ennek a biztos?t?s?

    “Hozz?f?r?s a fogamz?sg?tl? k?zvetlen?l ?sszef?gg cs?kken az anyai ?s gyermekhaland?s?g, cs?kkentheti a petef?szekr?k kock?zat?t, ?s kapcsol?dik az ?ltal?nos j? eg?szs?gi ?llapot,” Sens. Boxer, Shaheen, ?s Murray ?rni.

    Rendben, de mi is k?ze biztos?t?s?

    “[B] delet ?ton val? fogamz?sg?tl? seg?t cs?kkenteni a nem k?v?nt terhess?gek sz?m?t ?s vet?l?st, ha egy c?l, amit mindannyian osztozunk.”

    Rendben, de mi is k?ze biztos?t?s?

    “A megfelel? csal?dtervez?si kereszt?l fogamz?sg?tl? eredm?nyez eg?szs?gesebb any?k ?s gyermekek, Minden ami el?ny?s mindannyiunk sz?m?ra.”

    Rendben, de mi is k?ze biztos?t?s?

    “Ez ment meg minket p?nzt is ….”

    Rendben, de mi is k?ze biztos?t?s?

    “Ez ker?lhet $ 600 egy ?v v?nyk?teles fogamz?sg?tl?kat.” (Ez egy high-end becsl?s, vannak olcs?bb lehet?s?gek, ide?rtve a csal?dtervez?s az alacsony j?vedelm? n?k.)

    Rendben, de mi is k?ze biztos?t?s?

    “99%-?t a n?k az Egyes?lt ?llamokban, akik szexu?lisan akt?v vagy l?b valamikor ?let?k indokolatlanul sz?let?sszab?lyoz?s, ebb?l 98%-a katolikus n?k szerint a Guttmacher Int?zet.”

    Rendben, de mi is k?ze-oh sebaj. ?n magam v?laszolni: Van rajta semmi k?ze a biztos?t?st.

    Kock?zati Pooling

    Biztos?t?s Mag?nszem?lyek r?sz?re mer?lt fel, mert ?gy a medence vesz?lye, vagy valamilyen low-probability/high-cost A szerencs?tlens?g befalling ?ket. Nem sz?ks?ges hangs?lyozni ezt ki, de j?n a fogamz?k?pes kor ?s a v?laszt? fogamz?sg?tl?st nem biztos?that? esem?ny. Ez egy akarati aktus. Lehet, hogy j? K?vetkezm?nyek a foganatos?t? szem?ly az int?zked?s ?s a t?rsadalom eg?sze, de ez m?g mindig egy akarati aktus. Semmi ?rtelme besz?lni elleni biztos?t?s az eshet?s?gre, hogy egy adott szem?ly fogamz?sg?tl?st. Szigor?an v?ve, a fogamz?sg?tl?s semmi k?ze a biztos?t?st.

    Sajnos, mi nem besz?l?nk err?l szigor?an eg?szs?g?gyi biztos?t?s. Az egyik ok, ami?rt ezt az ad?t?rv?nyekben. Mivel a m?sodik vil?gh?bor? k?rt?r?t?st munkaer? foglalkoztat?si form?ban alap? eg?szs?gbiztos?t?s nem sz?m?t ad?k?teles j?vedelem. (Ford?tott p?nz F?ggetlen?l az eg?szs?gbiztos?t? nem sz?m?tanak.) Az ad?t?rv?ny Galanthus teremt vissz?s ?szt?nz?k 1) f?gg az egy?n munk?ltat?i eg?szs?gbiztos?t?si, 2) shift bev?tel v?gelsz?mol?si k?szp?nzt korl?tozott biztos?t?si juttat?sok, ?s 3) hat?rozza meg biztos?thatatlan esem?nyeket biztos?that?. Vajon ?rdekel valakit, hogy magyar?zza el, hogyan j?l baba?pol?si lehet biztos?that??

    Teh?t ad?z?s k?sz?nhetj?k ?jabb jellemz?je a modern vil?g: a korrupci? a nyelvet. Az orvosi birodalm?ban t?d? olyan biztos?t?s, biztos?t?s n?lk?l.

    Ehelyett van egy j?t?k: Minden, amit kap m?s emberek fizetni a cucc. Nos, ez nem eg?szen pontos. Tulajdonk?ppen ez egy j?t?k, amiben azt ?ll?tani, hogy az emberek fizetnek a cucc. N?zd, a fogamz?sg?tl?s, mammogr?fia, colonoscopies, ?s j?l baba?pol?si nem szabad. (L?sd: “nincs olyan dolog, hogy ingyen mammogram.”) Ezek a munkaer?-ig?ny ?s forr?sok, amelyek mindenki sz?m?ra a tulajdonosok szeretn?k-nem-lehet rendelkezett indokolatlanul kompenz?lni. Valakinek meg kell fizetni. Ha a munkaad? n?vlegesen van k?nytelenek fizetni a lefedetts?g, nem k?ts?ges, hogy b?rki komolyan munkav?llal?k t?nylegesen fizetend? k?szp?nzben az alacsonyabb b?rek? A munk?ltat?k nem j?t?konys?gi szervezetek. Teh?t n?lk?l is copayment, mindannyian tudjuk, m?lyen, hogy mi, munk?sok fizetni a lefedetts?g. (Ami egy?bk?nt val?sz?n?leg dr?g?bb, mint a szolg?ltat?sok is szabadult a piacon, mivel a biztos?t? t?rsas?gok t?bb fogja terhelni a rezsi-?s ? bajban van. Is t?mogatott kereslet ?rn?vel? hat?sa.) Mindazon?ltal az igazs?g annyira elhom?lyosult, hogy az emberek ?gy tesznek, mintha ?k kapok valamit ingyen.

    Ez?rt a korm?ny ?ltal l?trehozott rendszer b?nik vel?nk, mint a gyerekek, ?s sajnos a legt?bb ember boldog kezelend? ?gy n?z ki.

    Obama “kiegyez?st”

    Nyom?s alatt az Obama-adminisztr?ci? v?rhat? volt, hogy bejelents?k: “kompromisszum” Minden ami alapj?n ad?mentes katolikus munk?ltat?knak nem kell fizetnie Fogamz?sg?tl?s lefedetts?g. HELYETT, biztos?t? t?rsas?gok lenne a fedezet a gondvisel?s k?zvetlen?l a munkav?llal?k. Mivel alatt Eg?szs?g?gyi ?s Hum?n Szolg?ltat?sok szab?lyok, ez a lefedetts?g mentesnek kell lenni?k, az Obama-adminisztr?ci? val?j?ban ir?ny?tja a biztos?t?knak, hogy enni a k?lts?geket. De a biztos?t?k profitorient?lt c?gek nem j?t?konys?gi szervezetek, ?gy mi is elv?rjuk t?l?k, hogy adja ?t a k?lts?geket valaki m?s. De kinek? M?r csak egy lehet?s?g: nonexempt munk?ltat?, ami azt jelenti val?j?ban nonexempt alkalmazottai vagy c?gek. Teh?t a nagy kompromisszum eltolja a k?lts?gek egy csek?ly kisebbs?ge munkav?llal?k sz?m?ra annak meg?llap?t?s?t t?bbs?ge – mind a vall?sszabads?g nev?ben. Minden nonexempt munkav?llal?k a v?llalatok ?s int?zm?nyek eltart egy fizet?s v?gott.

  28. Deilur stormurinn yfir Obama stofnunarinnar Fyrirhugu? (og s??ar breytt)-Me? umbo?i vinnuveitanda ?a? All ka??lsku sj?krah?s og h?sk?lar eru ?keypis-getna?arv?rn ? starfsmanna sj?kratrygginga ?eirra stefnu. Ka??lska emb?ttismenn m?tm?la ?v? a? kirkjan ?eirra bannar getna?arvarnir, skipun br?tur v?rn ? fyrsta vi?auka er a? tr?frelsi. A?rir hafa gengi? ? m?tm?lum, varf?rni ?a? a? sj? ?etta brot ? frelsi samviskunnar Gat brei?st ?t til annarra m?la og annarra tr?arbrag?a.

    ?eir h?kka m?tm?li hafa unimpeachable m?li?. Ford?mi sett ? auglj?sri meira en tvo kassa sem ?egar r?ki hafa svipa?a umbo? er ?vi?komandi. Hva? er si?laust er ekki or?i? si?fer?ilega einfaldlega me? ?v? ford?mi. Meginreglan sem enginn ?tti a? ?urfa a? fj?rmagna ?a? Allt sem hann e?a h?n finnur andstygg? er hlj??. ? raun ?tti ?a? a? vera Applied gen heims?kn.

    Breyting ? titli

    Varnarmenn ? skipun eru alveg g??ir ? a? breyta um umr??uefni. Au?vita? ?eir eru – ?eir hafa fengi? hva? anna?? Til a? heyra ?? vilt ?? heldur a? einhver hefur lagt til a? getna?arvarna a? sekur. (J?ja, Rick Santorum ?a? vir?ist a? grei?a, en hann er ansi miki? ein.) Obamacare meistarar hef?i okkur tr?a ?v? a? ?greiningur er um “a?gang” ? ‘?kve?num v?rum og ?j?nustu. Allt skipun er, segja ?eir, er Providence tryggingavernd fyrir, og a?gang a? ?flugur ?v? a? frj?lsu horm?na (alongwith ??rum fyrirbyggjandi ?j?nustu) fyrir konur sem vilja ?a?. En ?a? vekur bara a?ra spurningu:

    Hva? hefur ?etta got ? a? gera me? tryggingar?

    A?gangur er ekki h?? umfj?llun. Vi? h?fum a?gang a? m?rgum mikilv?gum hlutum sem falla ekki undir v?tryggingu. Weirdly, segja sumir skipun ? raun sta?festir tr?frelsi. Hvernig svo? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, og Patty Murray ?tsk?r?ir ? Wall Street Journal: “. [T] hann millj?nir bandar?skra kvenna sem kj?sa a? nota getna?arv?rn skal ekki vera neydd til a? fylgja tr?arlega kenningu, hvort Ka??lska e?a ekki ka??lskur”

    ? ??rum or?um, skortur ? umfj?llun tryggingar fyrir getna?arv?rn er ekki jafngilt ?v? a? vera neydd til a? nota getna?arvarnir. ?a? er einhver undarleg r?ksemd, en ?a? er ?a? sem vi? h?fum komi? a? b?ast fr? me?limum ? “mesta deliberative l?kama heimsins.”

    J?ja?

    Svo er enn spurning sem: Hva? hefur ?etta got ? a? gera me? tryggingar?

    “A?gangur a? getna?arvarnir tengist beint l?kkar ? m??ur-og ungbarnadau?a, getur dregi? ?r h?ttu ? krabbameini ? eggjastokkum, og tengist Overall good ni?urst??um heilsu,” Sens. Boxer, Shaheen og Murray skrifa.

    Fine, en hva? er ?a? got a? gera me? tryggingar?

    “[B] Lei?in regluger? a?gang a? getna?arvarnir mun draga ?r fj?lda ?sj?lfr?tt me?g?ngu og f?sturey?inga, ?tti markmi? vi? ?ll hlut.”

    Fine, en hva? er ?a? got a? gera me? tryggingar?

    “R?tt fj?lskylda ??tlanager? ? gegnum getna?arvarnir ?rslit ? heilbrig?ari m??ra og barna, sem gagnast okkur.”

    Fine, en hva? er ?a? got a? gera me? tryggingar?

    “?a? sparar okkur peninga of ….”

    Fine, en hva? er ?a? got a? gera me? tryggingar?

    “?a? getur kosta? 600 $ ? ?ri fyrir lyfse?ilsskyld getna?arvarna.” (?a? er a h?r-endir mat, ?a? eru l?gri kostna?ur valkosti, me?al annars Planned Parenthood fyrir l?gar tekjur kvenna.)

    Fine, en hva? er ?a? got a? gera me? tryggingar?

    “Sumir 99% kvenna ? Bandar?kjunum sem eru kynfer?islega virk e?a hafa f?tinn ? einhverjum t?mapunkti ? l?fi ?eirra hafa overused getna?arvarnir, ?.mt 98% ka??lskra kvenna, ? samr?mi vi? Guttmacher Institute.”

    Fine, en hva? er ?a? got a? gera vi?-? Nevermind. ?g svara m?r: ?a? f?kk ekkert a? gera me? tryggingar.

    H?tta samn?tingu

    Tryggingar fyrir einstaklinga upp sem lei? til a? laug h?ttu e?a einhverju low-probability/high-cost ?g?fa befalling ?eirra ??. ?a? ?tti ekki a? vera nau?synlegt a? benda this ?t, en koma af barneignaaldri og velja a? nota getna?arv?rn er ekki insurable atbur?ur. ?a? er volitional ath?fn. ?a? kann a? hafa g??a aflei?ingar fyrir mann a? taka til a?ger?a og samf?lagsins ? heild, en ?a? er enn volitional ath?fn. ?a? gerir ekkert vit ? a? tala um insuring gegn eventuality a? tiltekin manneskja ver?ur a? nota getna?arv?rn. Strangt, getna?arvarnir hefur ekkert a? gera me? tryggingar.

    ?v? mi?ur, vi? t?lum ekki stranglega um sj?kratryggingu. Ein ?st??an sem vi? gerum er a? skattur k??a. ?ar World War II b?tur fyrir vinnuafl ? formi atvinnu-undirsta?a sj?kratrygginga ekki telja til skattskyldra tekna. (Peningar sj?lfst?tt sj?kratrygg?ur er telja.) K??inn skatta Galanthus B?r rangsn?na hvata til a? 1) r??ast ? vinnuveitanda manns fyrir sj?kratryggingu, 2) vakt tekjur fr? skiptastj?rar rei?uf? afm?rku?um almannatryggingakerfinu, og 3) skilgreina uninsurable atbur?um sem insurable. Myndi einhver k?ra a? ?tsk?ra hvernig vel elskan um?nnun getur veri? insurable?

    Svo h?fum vi? skattlagningu til a? ?akka fyrir enn a?ra m?guleika ? n?t?ma heimi: the spillingu tungum?lsins. ? heilbrig?is-r?ki lungum ???ir tryggingar ekki tryggingar.

    ?ess ? sta? er ?a? leikur me? Allt sem vi? f?um a?ra til a? borga fyrir efni. J?ja, ?a? er ekki alveg r?tt. ?a? er ? raun leikur sem vi? l?ta sem a?rir borga fyrir efni. Sj?, getna?arvarnir, mammograms, ristilspeglana og vel elskan um?nnun eru ekki ?keypis. (Sj? m?n “?a? er ekkert sem heitir Frj?ls Mammogram.”) ?eir vinnuafl skilyr?i og ?rr??i fyrir alla sem eigendur vilja-ekki-a? yfir ?e?lilega b?tt. Einhver ?arf a? borga. Ef vinnuveitandi hefur nafni er skylt a? grei?a fyrir umfj?llun, er einhver efast alvarlega a? starfsmenn munu ? raun a? borga me? l?gri fj?rh?? launa? Vinnuveitendur eru ekki g??ger?arstofnanir. Svo jafnvel ?n copayment, vitum vi? ?ll innst inni a? vi? sem starfsmenn grei?a fyrir umfj?llun. (Sem vi? the vegur er l?klegt til a? vera d?rari en ?j?nustan yr?i leystur ? marka?i, ?ar sem tryggingaf?l?g vilja rukka meira fyrir kostna?ur og vandr??i ?eirra. Einnig vekur ni?urgreidd eftirspurn ver?i.) Engu a? s??ur er sannleikurinn svo obscured a? f?lk getur ?ykjast ?eir f? eitthva? fr?tt.

    Svo skemmtun stj?rnvalda mynda kerfi okkur eins og b?rn, og ?v? mi?ur flest okkar f?s til a? me?h?ndla vir?ist sem lei?.

    Obama “M?lami?lun”

    Undir ?r?stingi, var Obama gert r?? fyrir a? kynna “m?lami?lun” Allt sem undan?egi? undir ka??lsku atvinnul?fsins ?yrfti ekki a? grei?a fyrir umfj?llun getna?arv?rn. ?ess ? sta?, tryggingaf?l?g myndu Providence umfj?llun beint til starfsmanna. ?ar undir Health og Human Services reglur, ?etta umfj?llun ver?ur a? vera ?keypis, en Obama er ? raun beina v?tryggjendum a? bor?a kostna?. En v?tryggjendum eru ? hagna?arskyni fyrirt?kjum, ekki g??ger?arm?la, svo vi? getum b?ist vi? ?? a? standast kostna? einhvers annars. En hverjum? ?a? er a?eins einn m?guleiki:, nonexempt vinnuveitanda Sem ???ir ? raun nonexempt starfsmanna e?a fyrirt?ki. Svo vaktir Grand m?lami?lun kostna? af litlum minnihluta starfsmanna til a? ?kvar?a meirihluta – allt ? nafni tr?frelsis. ?ll nonexempt starfsmenn ? fyrirt?kjum og stofnunum mun taka ? sig launal?kkun.

  29. Kontroversi merebak selama Pemerintahan Obama yang Diusulkan (dan kemudian dimodifikasi)-Termasuk mandat majikan Itu semua rumah sakit Katolik dan universitas termasuk bebas Kontrasepsi Dalam kebijakan karyawan asuransi kesehatan mereka. Katolik pejabat objek karena itu gereja mereka melarang Kontrasepsi, keputusan tersebut melanggar perlindungan Amandemen Pertama tentang kebebasan agama. Lainnya telah bergabung dalam protes itu, hati-hati Itu Mengantisipasi hal ini melanggar kebebasan hati nurani dapat menyebar ke hal-hal lain dan agama lain.

    Mereka menaikkan keberatan memiliki kasus tercela. Preseden diatur dalam ternyata lebih dari dua kotak Itu Sudah negara memiliki mandat yang sama adalah tidak relevan. Apa Immoral tidak menjadi moral yang hanya dengan preseden. Prinsip itu tidak ada yang harus dipaksa untuk membiayai Itu Semua yang ia menemukan menjijikkan adalah suara. Bahkan, Harus Terapan reli gen.

    Mengganti Subjek

    Pembela dari keputusan tersebut cukup baik mengubah topik pembicaraan. Untuk Kursus Mereka Apakah – Mereka telah mendapat apa lagi? Untuk mendengar mereka, Anda akan berpikir seseorang telah Usulan Itu Kontrasepsi dinyatakan terlarang. (Yah, Rick Santorum Itu TAMPAKNYA mendukung, tapi dia cukup banyak saja.) Juara Obamacare ingin kita percaya kontroversi adalah tentang “akses” untuk “produk dan layanan tertentu. Semua keputusan tersebut tidak, kata mereka, adalah penyelenggaraan pertanggungan asuransi untuk, dan mengakses kuat karena itu, untuk Kontrasepsi gratis (alongwith layanan pencegahan lainnya) bagi wanita yang menginginkannya. Tapi Itu hanya menimbulkan pertanyaan lain:

    Apa ini harus dilakukan dengan asuransi?

    Akses tidak tergantung pada cakupan. Kami memiliki akses ke banyak hal penting yang tidak tercakup oleh asuransi. Ganjil, ada yang mengatakan keputusan tersebut sebenarnya menegaskan kebebasan beragama. Bagaimana bisa begitu? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, dan Patty Murray Dijelaskan di Wall Street Journal: “. [T] dia jutaan wanita Amerika yang memilih untuk menggunakan Kontrasepsi Tidak boleh dipaksa untuk mengikuti ajaran agama, baik Katolik maupun non-Katolik”

    Dengan kata lain, kurangnya cakupan asuransi untuk Kontrasepsi tidak sama dengan dipaksa untuk menggunakan Kontrasepsi. Itulah beberapa argumen yang aneh, tapi apa yang kita telah datang ke harapkan dari anggota “terbesar tubuh deliberatif dunia.”

    Yah?

    Jadi pertanyaannya tetap sebagai: Apa ini harus dilakukan dengan asuransi?

    “Akses ke kontrol kelahiran secara langsung terkait dengan penurunan kematian ibu dan bayi, dapat mengurangi risiko kanker ovarium, dan terkait dengan keseluruhan hasil kesehatan yang baik,” Sens Boxer, Shaheen, dan Murray menulis.

    Baik, tapi apa itu harus dilakukan dengan asuransi?

    “[B] jalan lation akses untuk mengontrol kelahiran akan membantu mengurangi jumlah kehamilan yang tidak diinginkan dan aborsi, Haruskah tujuan kita semua.”

    Baik, tapi apa itu harus dilakukan dengan asuransi?

    “Keluarga berencana yang tepat melalui hasil pengendalian kelahiran pada ibu sehat dan anak-anak, Semua yang menguntungkan kita semua.”

    Baik, tapi apa itu harus dilakukan dengan asuransi?

    “Ini menghemat uang kami juga ….”

    Baik, tapi apa itu harus dilakukan dengan asuransi?

    “Hal ini dapat biaya $ 600 per tahun untuk kontrasepsi resep.” (Itu perkiraan yang high-end, ada pilihan biaya yang lebih rendah, Termasuk Planned Parenthood untuk perempuan berpenghasilan rendah.)

    Baik, tapi apa itu harus dilakukan dengan asuransi?

    “Beberapa 99% wanita di AS yang aktif secara seksual atau memiliki kaki di beberapa titik dalam Kehidupan mereka memiliki kontrol kelahiran terlalu sering digunakan, Termasuk 98% wanita Katolik, Menurut Institut Guttmacher.”

    Baik, tapi apa itu harus dilakukan dengan-oh Nevermind. Aku akan menjawab sendiri: Itu tidak ada hubungannya dengan asuransi.

    Risiko Pooling

    Asuransi Individu Timbul sebagai cara untuk risiko kolam, atau beberapa low-probability/high-cost kemalangan yang menimpa mereka mereka. Tidak Harus Diperlukan untuk menunjukkan ini, tapi kedatangan usia subur dan memilih untuk menggunakan kontrasepsi bukanlah suatu acara diasuransikan. Ini adalah tindakan kehendak. Hal itu mungkin karena Konsekuensi yang baik bagi orang mengambil tindakan dan masyarakat luas, tetapi masih merupakan tindakan kehendak. Tidak masuk akal untuk berbicara tentang asuransi terhadap kemungkinan Itu orang khusus akan menggunakan Kontrasepsi. Tepatnya, Kontrasepsi tidak ada hubungannya dengan asuransi.

    Sayangnya, kita tidak berbicara ketat mengenai asuransi kesehatan. Salah satu alasan kita lakukan adalah kode pajak. Sejak Perang Dunia II kompensasi bagi tenaga kerja dalam bentuk kerja berbasis asuransi kesehatan tidak dihitung sebagai Penghasilan Kena Pajak. (Uang menghabiskan Mandiri pada asuransi kesehatan memang berarti.) Pajak Galanthus kode Menciptakan insentif untuk 1) tergantung pada majikan untuk asuransi kesehatan, 2) Penghasilan pergeseran dari melikuidasi tunai untuk manfaat asuransi terbatas, dan 3) menentukan peristiwa uninsurable sebagai diasuransikan. Apakah seseorang peduli untuk menjelaskan bagaimana perawatan bayi dapat diasuransikan?

    Jadi kita harus perpajakan berterima kasih untuk fitur lain dari dunia modern: korupsi bahasa. Dalam paru-paru dunia medis Berarti asuransi asuransi.

    BUKAN itu permainan oleh Semua yang kita ajak orang lain untuk membayar barang. Nah, itu tidak cukup akurat. Ini sebenarnya permainan di Mana Kita Anggap Itu orang lain membayar untuk barang. Lihat, Kontrasepsi, mammogram, colonoscopies, dan perawatan bayi tidak bebas. (Lihat saya “Ada Tidak Thing tersebut sebagai Mammogram Gratis.”) Mereka persyaratan tenaga kerja dan sumber daya untuk Semua yang pemilik ingin-tidak-harus dimiliki tidak wajar kompensasi. Seseorang harus membayar. Jika majikan yang nominal dipaksa untuk membayar untuk cakupan, apakah ada yang benar-benar ragu Itu karyawan benar-benar akan membayar melalui tunai upah lebih rendah? Pengusaha tidak amal. Jadi, bahkan tanpa copayment, kita semua tahu dalam hati Bahwa kita sebagai pekerja membayar pertanggungan. (Yang dengan cara ini mungkin lebih mahal daripada layanan akan dibebaskan di pasar, karena perusahaan asuransi akan dikenakan biaya lebih untuk biaya overhead dan masalah mereka. Juga permintaan bersubsidi menaikkan harga.) Namun demikian, kebenaran begitu Obscured Itu orang dapat berpura-pura mereka mendapatkan sesuatu secara gratis.

    Jadi sistem pemerintahan yang dihasilkan memperlakukan kita seperti anak-anak, dan sayangnya kebanyakan dari kita senang bisa Diobati TAMPAKNYA seperti itu.

    Obama “Kompromi”

    Di bawah tekanan, pemerintahan Obama akan mengumumkan sebuah “kompromi” Semua yang membebaskan bawah Pengusaha Katolik tidak harus membayar untuk cakupan Kontrasepsi. BUKAN, perusahaan asuransi akan pemeliharaan cakupan langsung ke karyawan. Karena berdasarkan peraturan Kesehatan dan Layanan Kemanusiaan, liputan ini harus bebas, pemerintahan Obama ini berlaku mengarahkan Penanggung makan biaya. Namun Penanggung adalah profit membuat perusahaan-perusahaan, bukan badan amal, sehingga kita dapat mengharapkan mereka untuk lulus biaya untuk orang lain. Tetapi untuk Siapa? Hanya ada satu Kemungkinan:, TANPA KECUALI majikan Yang Berarti di karyawan TANPA KECUALI fakta atau perusahaan. Jadi kompromi besar menggeser biaya dari sebagian kecil karyawan untuk menentukan Mayoritas – semua atas nama kebebasan beragama. Semua pekerja TANPA KECUALI di perusahaan dan Lembaga akan mengambil pemotongan gaji.

  30. Rages consp?id an Riarach?in Obama at? beartaithe (agus n?os d?ana? mhodhn?)-Lena n-?ir?tear an fhost?ra sainord? sin san ?ireamh gach ospid?al Caitliceach agus ollscoileanna saor-Frithghini?int I gcuid polasaithe fosta? ?rachais sl?inte. Caitliceach oifigigh r?ad ? sin cosc ??ar a n-eaglais Frithghini?int sh?ra?onn, an fhoraithne an Ch?ad Leas? ar cosaint na saoirse creidimh. Daoine eile a isteach san ag?id, stuama Go N?orbh R?amh seo s?r? saoirse choinsiasa scaipeadh le h?bhair eile agus chreidimh eile.

    Iad si?d a ard? leis an ag?id go mbeadh c?s unimpeachable. Is ? an fasach at? leagtha s?os sa cos?il n?os m? n? dh? bosca? sin Cheana f?in t? st?it sainorduithe cos?il nach mbaineann le h?bhar. N? Cad at? m?mhor?lta bheith mor?lta go simpl? tr? fasach. An prionsabal sin ba cheart aon duine a ?igean a mhaoini? Is ? sin go l?ir a fhaigheann s? n? s? n?ireach fuaime. Go deimhin, ch?ir ? a bheith Fheidhmeach rally g?ine.

    Athr? ar an ?bhar

    T? Cosant?ir? na foraithne maith go leor ag an athr? ar an ?bhar. An Ch?rsa bhfuil siad – t? siad fuair cad eile? Iad a chloiste?il, gur mhaith leat a cheapann go bhfuil duine ?igin at? Beartaithe Go Frithghini?int a outlawed. (Bhuel, Rick Santorum n? sin IS L?IR dtaobh?far le hiompr?ir, ach t? s? go leor i bhfad ina n-aonar.) Go mbeadh Seaimp?n? Obamacare bhfuil Creidim d?inn go bhfuil an chonsp?id faoi “rochtana” a ‘t?irg? agus seirbh?s? ?irithe. N? Gach na foraithne, is ? a deir siad, cl?dach ?rachais PROVIDENCE do, agus rochtain a fh?il ar cumhachtach D? bhr? sin, go Frithghini?int saor in aisce (alongwith seirbh?s? coisctheacha eile) do mhn? at? ag iarraidh ?. Ach arda?onn Sin d?reach ceist eile:

    Cad a fuair seo a dh?anamh leis an ?rachais?

    N? Rochtain ag brath ar chl?dach. T? rochtain ar ruda? t?bhachtach go leor nach bhfuil cl?daithe ag ?rachas. Weirdly, a r? roinnt na foraithne dearbha?onn iarbh?r saoirse creidimh. Conas mar sin? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, agus Patty Murray M?ni? ar an Wall Street Journal: “. [T] Mura s? na milli?in de na mn? Meirice?nach a roghna?onn Frithghini?int a ?s?id iallach a chur chun lean?int teagasc creidimh, cib? acu Caitliceach n? neamh-Chaitliceach”

    I bhfocail eile, nach bhfuil easpa cl?dach ?rachais do Frithghini?int ionann ? iachall Frithghini?int a ?s?id. Is ? sin roinnt arg?int aisteach, ach t? s? an m?id at? againn le bheith ag s?il ? bhaill an “domhan comhlacht breithni?ch?in is m?.”

    Bhuel?

    Mar sin, t? an cheist: Cad a fuair seo a dh?anamh leis an ?rachais?

    “T? rochtain ar rial? breithe nasctha go d?reach le laghduithe i mortla?ocht na?on?n m?thar agus is f?idir, laghd? ar an mbaol ailse ovarian, agus t? s? nasctha le tortha? sl?inte ioml?n maith,” Sens. Boxer, Shaheen, agus Murray scr?obh.

    Fine, ach s? cad a fuair s? a dh?anamh leis an ?rachais?

    “[B] M?s rud ? go mbeidh rochtain ar Rialach?n b?thair a rial? breithe cabhr? le laghd? ar l?on na dtoircheas agus ginmhilleadh neamhbheartaithe, a bhfuil mar aidhm againn ar fad a roinnt.”

    Fine, ach s? cad a fuair s? a dh?anamh leis an ?rachais?

    “Plean?la clainne tr? cheart tortha? a rial? breithe i m?ithreacha n?os sl?inti?la agus ar leana?, a rachaidh chun tairbhe go l?ir d?inn ar fad.”

    Fine, ach s? cad a fuair s? a dh?anamh leis an ?rachais?

    “S?bh?lann s? d?inn an iomarca airgid ….”

    Fine, ach s? cad a fuair s? a dh?anamh leis an ?rachais?

    “Is f?idir ? costas $ 600 in aghaidh na bliana le haghaidh frithghini?naigh oideas.” (Sin meastach?n ard-deireadh, t? roghanna chostas n?os ?sle, lena n-?ir?tear Tuismitheoireacht Plean?ilte ar ioncam ?seal ban.)

    Fine, ach s? cad a fuair s? a dh?anamh leis an ?rachais?

    “T? roinnt 99% de na mn? i SAM at? gn?omhach go gn?asach n? a bhfuil cos ag pointe ?igin i Their Lives rial? breithe overused, lena n-?ir?tear 98% de na mn? Caitliceach, Dar Chun an Institi?id Guttmacher.”

    Fine, ach s? cad a fuair s? a dh?anamh le-OH Nevermind. Feicfidh m? m? f?in a fhreagairt: T? s? seo fuair faic a dh?anamh le h?rachas.

    Riosca Comhthioms?

    ?rachas do Dhaoine Aonair eascair mar bhealach chun riosca a chomhthioms?, n? cuid d?obh a low-probability/high-cost befalling misfortune leo. N? ch?ir go mbeadh s? riachtanach a chur in i?l seo amach, ach nach bhfuil ag teacht de leana? ar a bhfuil aois agus a roghn? Frithghini?int a ?s?id ar ?c?id ??in?rachaithe. T? s? gn?omh volitional. D’fh?adfadh s? a bheith Iarmhairt? maith le haghaidh an duine ag glacadh an ghn?mh agus na socha? i gcoitinne, ach t? s? f?s gn?omh volitional. D?anann s? aon chiall chun labhairt faoi insuring i gcoinne an eventuality Go mbeidh duine ar leith a ?s?id Frithghini?int. Bhf?rinne a r?, t? Frithghini?int aon rud a dh?anamh le h?rachas.

    Ar an drochuair, n? f?idir linn labhairt go docht faoi ?rachas sl?inte. C?is amh?in a dh?anann muid ar an gc?d c?nach. ?s rud ? nach bhfuil c?iteamh an Dara Cogadh Domhanda le haghaidh saothair i bhfoirm ?rachais fosta?ocht-bhunaithe sl?inte ?ir?tear mar Ioncam Inch?nach. (A chaitear Airgead neamhsple?ch ar ?rachas sl?inte a dh?anann l?on.) An c?d Galanthus c?nach Cruthaigh saobhdhreasachta? chun 1) ag brath ar cheann amh?in ar fhost?ir le haghaidh ?rachas leighis, 2) ioncam aistri? ? liquidating airgid le sochair ?rachais srianta, agus 3) sainmh?ni? imeachta? uninsurable mar in?rachaithe. Go mbeadh duine ?igin c?ram a mh?ni? conas is f?idir dea-ch?ram leanbh a bheith in?rachais?

    Mar sin, n? m?r d?inn c?nachais a ghabh?il le haghaidh gn? eile f?s ar an saol nua-aimseartha: an ?illi? an teanga. I scamh?g r?imse leighis Me?in ?rachais aon ?rachais.

    IONAD t? s? ina cluiche ag gach a fh?il againn le daoine eile chun ?oc as ruda?. Bhuel, nach bhfuil go leor cruinn. T? s? i nd?ir?re cluiche i C?n againn Lig Sin a ?oc le daoine eile le haghaidh ruda?. Nach bhfuil Amharc, Frithghini?int, mamagraim, colonoscopies, agus dea-leanbh c?ram saor in aisce. (F?ach ar mo “T? N?l aon rud den s?rt sin mar mamagraim saor in aisce.”) Siad riachtanas saothair agus acmhainn? do Ch?ch ar mian-nach-a n-?in?ir? a sheilbh ch?iteamh m?r?as?nta. T? duine ?igin a ?oc. M?s fost?ir at? ag bhfuil s? d’fhiacha ainmni?il a ?oc as an cl?dach nach, duine ar bith a bheith in amhras d?ir?re Go mbeidh fostaithe a ?oc go hiarbh?r tr?d p? airgid n?os ?sle? Nach bhfuil Fost?ir? charthanais. Mar sin, fi? gan copayment, t? a fhios againn go l?ir domhain s?os sin a ?oc againn mar oibrithe ar an chl?dach. (C? acu ag an mbealach d?cha go mbeidh n?os costasa? n? mar a bheadh ??ar na seirbh?s? a freed i margadh, toisc go mbeidh comhlachta? ?rachais n?os m? in aisce le haghaidh forchostais agus a n-triobl?ide. Arda?onn Chomh maith leis an ?ileamh f?irdheonaithe praghsanna.) Mar sin f?in, t? an fh?rinne sin doil?ir sin is f?idir le daoine ligean a bh?onn siad ag f?il rud ?igin do saor in aisce.

    Mar sin, d?ile?lann an c?ras rialtais a ghintear ar d?inn cos?il le leana?, agus faraor chuid is m? againn s?sta a bheith c?ire?ilte IS L?IR go bhealach.

    Obama “Comhr?iteach”

    Faoi bhr?, agus bh?othas ag s?il leis an riarach?n Obama a fh?gairt “comhr?iteach” nach mbeadh gach a dh?olmh? faoin Fost?ir? Caitliceach a ?oc le haghaidh cl?dach Frithghini?int. IONAD, bheadh ??cuideachta? ?rachais PROVIDENCE an cl?dach go d?reach do na fostaithe. ?s rud ? faoi rialacha Sl?inte agus Seirbh?s? Daonna, n? m?r an cl?dach a bheith saor, t? an riarach?n Obama i bhfeidhm ? ord? ?rach?ir? a ithe an costas. Ach t? ?rach?ir? brab?sach cuideachta?, n? carthanais, mar sin is f?idir linn a bheith ag s?il leo leis an gcostas ar aghaidh chuig duine ?igin eile. Ach go C?? N?l ach aon Deis: fost?ir nonexempt, An Modh C? acu i fostaithe nonexempt f?orais n? cuideachta?. Mar sin, aistr?onn an gcomhr?iteach mh?r an costas as mionlach beag fostaithe chun a chinneadh an Tromlaigh – go l?ir in ainm na saoirse creidimh. Beidh gach oibr? nonexempt i gcuideachta? agus Institi?id? ghlacadh a ?sli? p

  31. Infuria la polemica sui amministrazione Obama ha proposto (e successivamente modificata), tra cui il mandato del datore di lavoro che tutti gli ospedali e le universit? cattoliche sono free-contraccezione nelle loro politiche sanitarie dei dipendenti di assicurazione. Cattolica oggetto funzionari in quanto che la loro chiesa vieta Contraccezione, il decreto viola la protezione del Primo Emendamento della libert? religiosa. Altri si sono uniti alla protesta, prudentemente che l’anticipazione questa violazione della libert? di coscienza potrebbe diffondersi in altre questioni e le altre confessioni.

    Quelli sollevare l’obiezione sono un caso ineccepibile. Il precedente ambientato negli apparentemente pi? di due scatole che gi? agli Stati hanno mandati simili ? irrilevante. Ci? che ? immorale non diventi morale, semplicemente precedenti. Il principio che nessuno dovrebbe essere costretto a finanziare che tutto ci? che lui o lei trova aberrante ? il suono. In realt?, dovrebbe essere applicata raduno gene.

    Cambiando argomento

    I difensori del decreto sono abbastanza bravi a cambiare discorso. Certo che lo sono – Hanno ottenuto quello che altro? A sentire loro, si potrebbe pensare che qualcuno ha proposto che la contraccezione ? fuorilegge. (Beh, Rick Santorum che non sembra favorire, ma ? praticamente da sola.) Campioni Obamacare vorrebbe farci credere la polemica ? di “accesso” a ‘determinati prodotti e servizi. Tutto il decreto ?, dicono, ? la copertura assicurativa per la provvidenza, e accedere a potenti Pertanto, alla contraccezione libera (alongwith altri servizi di prevenzione) per le donne che lo desiderano. Ma questo solleva un altro interrogativo:

    Che cosa ha a che fare con l’assicurazione?

    L’accesso non dipende dalla copertura. Abbiamo accesso a molte cose importanti non coperti da assicurazione. Stranamente, alcuni dicono che il decreto afferma in realt? la libert? religiosa. In che modo? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, e Patty Murray spiegato sul Wall Street Journal: “. [T] a milioni di donne americane che scelgono di utilizzare un metodo contraccettivo non dovrebbero essere costretti a seguire la dottrina religiosa, siano essi cattolici o non cattolici”

    In altre parole, la mancanza di copertura assicurativa per la contraccezione non ? equivalente ad essere costretti ad usare un metodo contraccettivo. Questo ? un argomento strano, ma ? quello che ci si aspetta dai membri del “pi? grande organo deliberativo del mondo.”

    Allora?

    Quindi la domanda rimane: Che cosa ha a che fare con l’assicurazione?

    “Accesso al controllo delle nascite ? direttamente legata alla diminuzione della mortalit? materna e infantile, pu? ridurre il rischio di cancro ovarico, ed ? collegato a complessivi risultati di buona salute,” Sens Boxer, Shaheen, Murray e scrivere.

    Bene, ma cosa ce l’ha a che fare con l’assicurazione?

    “[B] accesso regolamento strada per il controllo delle nascite contribuir? a ridurre il numero di gravidanze indesiderate e gli aborti, se un obiettivo che tutti condividiamo”.

    Bene, ma cosa ce l’ha a che fare con l’assicurazione?

    “Una corretta pianificazione familiare attraverso i risultati di controllo delle nascite in pi? sane madri e bambini, tutti che beneficia tutti noi.”

    Bene, ma cosa ce l’ha a che fare con l’assicurazione?

    “E ci fa risparmiare denaro troppo ….”

    Bene, ma cosa ce l’ha a che fare con l’assicurazione?

    “Si pu? costare 600 dollari l’anno per prescrizione contraccettivi.” (Questo ? un high-end stima, ci sono opzioni di costo inferiore, comprese Planned Parenthood per le donne a basso reddito.)

    Bene, ma cosa ce l’ha a che fare con l’assicurazione?

    “Il 99% delle donne negli Stati Uniti che sono sessualmente attivi o hanno la gamba ad un certo punto nella loro vita hanno abusato di controllo delle nascite, il 98% delle donne cattoliche, Secondo l’Istituto Guttmacher”.

    Bene, ma cosa ce l’ha a che fare con oh-nevermind. Io mi rispondo: Non ha niente a che fare con l’assicurazione.

    Risk Pooling

    Assicurazione per gli individui ? nata come un modo per rischio di piscina, o qualche low-probability/high-cost loro possano esserci disgrazia loro. Non dovrebbe essere necessario farlo notare, ma venuta in et? fertile e la scelta di usare un metodo contraccettivo non ? un evento assicurabile. Si tratta di un atto volitivo. Pu? avere conseguenze positive per la persona che l’azione e la societ? in generale, ma ? ancora un atto volitivo. Non ha senso parlare di assicurarsi contro l’eventualit? che una determinata persona si usare un metodo contraccettivo. A rigor di termini, la contraccezione non ha nulla a che fare con l’assicurazione.

    Purtroppo, non parliamo strettamente di assicurazione sanitaria. Uno dei motivi che facciamo ? il codice fiscale. Dal risarcimento la seconda guerra mondiale per il lavoro in forma di lavoro basato su assicurazione sanitaria non conta come reddito imponibile. (Il denaro speso Indipendentemente sulle assicurazioni sanitarie non contano.) Il Codice Fiscale Galanthus crea incentivi perversi a 1) dipendono proprio datore di lavoro per l’assicurazione medica, 2) redditi passaggio da liquidare in denaro a prestazioni assicurative ristrette, e 3) definire gli eventi non assicurabili come assicurabile. Qualcuno dovrebbe prendersi cura di spiegare come ben cura del bambino pu? essere assicurabile?

    Quindi dobbiamo ringraziare per la tassazione ancora un’altra caratteristica del mondo moderno: la corruzione del linguaggio. Nel polmone campo medico: l’assicurazione, nessuna assicurazione.

    Invece ? un gioco da All cui si ricava altre persone a pagare per le cose. Beh, questo non ? abbastanza preciso. In realt? ? un gioco in cui facciamo finta che le altre persone pagano per le cose. Guarda, la contraccezione, mammografie, colonscopie, e ben la cura del bambino non sono liberi. (Vedi il mio “Non c’? nulla di simile ad una mammografia gratuita.”) Hanno obbligo di lavoro e delle risorse per tutti, che i proprietari vogliono-non-deve essere posseduto irragionevolmente compensata. Qualcuno deve pagare. Se il datore di lavoro ? nominalmente sono costretti a pagare per la copertura, qualcuno seri dubbi che i dipendenti effettivamente pagare con stipendi pi? bassi di cassa? I datori di lavoro non sono enti di beneficenza. Cos?, anche senza un copayment, tutti sappiamo in fondo che noi, come i lavoratori pagano per la copertura. (Che tra l’altro ? probabile che ad essere pi? costosi rispetto ai servizi sarebbe stato liberato in un mercato, dal momento che le compagnie di assicurazione si riserva di addebitare pi? per spese generali e la loro difficolt?. Anche sovvenzionato la domanda fa lievitare i prezzi.) Tuttavia, la verit? ? cos? che la gente possa Obscured far finta che stai ricevendo qualcosa di gratuito.

    Cos? il governo-generated sistema ci tratta come bambini, e purtroppo la maggior parte di noi felici di essere trattati sembrare cos?.

    Obama “compromesso”

    Sotto la pressione, l’amministrazione Obama avrebbe dovuto annunciare un “compromesso” All I datori di lavoro che esentano sotto cattolici non avrebbe dovuto pagare per la copertura Contraccezione. INVECE, compagnie di assicurazione sarebbero provvidenza la copertura direttamente ai dipendenti. Dal momento che in base alle norme Salute e Servizi Umani, questa copertura deve essere libero, l’amministrazione Obama ? in effetti dirigere gli assicuratori a mangiare il costo. Ma assicuratori sono imprese lucrative, non enti di beneficenza, in modo da possiamo aspettarci loro di passare il costo per qualcun altro. Ma per chi? C’? solo una possibilit?: nonexempt datore di lavoro, il che significa in realt? dipendenti nonexempt o societ?. Quindi il compromesso grande sposta il costo da una piccola minoranza di dipendenti per determinare la maggioranza – il tutto in nome della libert? religiosa. Tutti i lavoratori nonexempt in aziende e istituzioni avranno un taglio dello stipendio.

  32. Controversia furit super Obama Administration suus propositum (et post mutatio)-Complectens employer scriptor mandatum omnes catholica hospitalium et universitatibus includit liberum contraconceptionem In eorum operarius salutem assecurationis policies. Catholicam principes obiectum cum eorum ecclesia prohibet contraconceptionem, decretum violat Primo Emendatione praesidio de libertate. Alii coniuncta in in protestatione, prudenter Quod priusquam hoc violatio libertatis conscientiae potuistis expandit ad alia et alia fides.

    Illis sublato obiectio habere firma causa. In exemplo in in videtur magis quam duo boxes iam civitates similis mandata est impertinens. Quid IMPROBUS non factus moralis simpliciter per exemplo. Nullus distringatur ad hoc quod ipse invenerit omnia, quae abhorret finance integrum. Immo adhibeantur gene testatur.

    Mutata Subject

    Decretum de mutatione possunt bene defendunt. Sunt profecto – quid habuerint? Audire, quis putes contraconceptionem utlagetur censuit. (Bene, Rick Santorum facit VIDEOR favere, sed ille fere solus.) Obamacare pugiles esset nos credere controversia est de “aditus” ad ‘quidam products et officia. Omnes decretum facit, dicunt, est providentia assecurationis coverage enim, et obvius potens ergo, ad liberum contraconceptionem (alongwith alia Praecaventur officia) mulieres vis. Sed justum suscitat alia quaestio:

    Quod hoc obtinuit ad cum assecurationis?

    Accessum non dependet in coverage. Habemus accessum ad multa et magna elit, non operta. Weirdly, quidam decretum actu affirmat libertate. Quam sic? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Johanna Shaheen, et Patty Murray Explained in in Wall Street Acta: “[T] ipse millions de American mulieres qui eligere ad uti contraconceptionem non coactus sequi doctrina religionis, sive catholica vel non catholicae.”

    In alia verba, defectum assecurationis coverage enim contraconceptionem est non equivalent ad cogi ad uti contraconceptionem. Ratio est nescio, sed quae tandem est quod expectetis membra “Aliquam consilium.”

    Bene?

    Ita quaestio manet: Quid hoc obtinuit ad cum assecurationis?

    “Obvius ad coerceatur est directe coniunctum declinaret in materno et infans mortalitatis, potest reducere periculum ovarian cancer, et est coniunctum altiore bonum salutis eventus,” Sens. Pugil, Shaheen, et Murray scribere.

    Denique, sed quid eam obtinuit ad cum assecurationis?

    “[B] via lation accessum ad coerceatur erit justo numerum ignorata uterum et abortus, Si a metam communem.”

    Denique, sed quid eam obtinuit ad cum assecurationis?

    “Proprio familia consilio per coerceatur consequitur in salubrius matres et filii, omnes quod prodest omnes.”

    Denique, sed quid eam obtinuit ad cum assecurationis?

    “Interrogatio nobis pecuniam etiam ….”

    Denique, sed quid eam obtinuit ad cum assecurationis?

    “Potest constant $ DC annum praescripto contraceptives.” (Quod suus summus finem estimate, sunt inferiores sumptus bene, Complectens cogitavit paternitatis enim humili-reditus mulieres.)

    Denique, sed quid eam obtinuit ad cum assecurationis?

    “Quidam XCIX% mulierum in in US qui sunt sexually activa aut crus ad punctum in eorum vitae overused coerceatur, Complectens XCVIII% catholicae mulieres, Secundum in Guttmacher Instituti.”

    Denique, sed quid eam obtinuit ad-o nevermind. Ego respondere ipse: At nichil ad cum assecurationis.

    Periculo CONCORPORATIO

    Assecurationis singulis Surr?xit ut a ad stagnum periculo, vel low-probability/high-cost calamitate incidens eos. Ostendit hoc non esse necessarium, sed ut eligat venit pariendi aetatem contraconceptionem insurable non lacus. Suus a volunt actus. Bonum habet consequentias pro eo pluribus societatem accepto facti, sed tamen actu voluntatis. Facit non sensu loqui de providentia ne frangerentur contra fortunam Quod personam utendum contraconceptionem. Simpliciter nihil facere contraconceptionem elit.

    Donec non dicitur proprie de sanitate elit. Mauris elit est nobis ratio. Cum Mundus II recompensationem labor in forma usus-dicentur salutem assecurationis non arbitror ut Taxable facilis. (Pecunia consumpta LEGIBUS in salutem assecurationis facit comes.) Tributum codice Galanthus creat perversa incitamenta ad I) dependet in quis employer medicinae assecurationis, II) trabea reditus liquidating nummis ad quid assecurationis beneficia, et III) definire uninsurable gesta insurable. Aliquis curare ad quomodo bene infantem cura potest esse insurable?

    Dederunt ergo nobis adhuc salutis nostrae aetatis notam mundi corruptionem mi. In medicinae regni pulmonis Means assecurationis non assecurationis.

    Lorem ipsum set ludus alios pro quibus omnibus domi. Bene, quod suus non satis accurate. Suus actu ludum in Quod simula Quod aliis pro effercio. Vultu, contraconceptionem, mammograms, colonoscopies, et bene infantem cura sunt non liberum. (Vide meum “ibi nulla talis ut a Libero Mammogram.”) Et labor exigentiam et opes omnes quae dominis vis-non ad possederunt irrationabiliter compensatur. Aliquis habet reddere. Si employer Lorem nominaliter coguntur ad pro in coverage, quis graviter dubium elit actu reddere per inferiores nummis mercedem? Mus sunt non charitates. Ita etiam sine copayment, omnes scire penitus Quod ut operantur pro in coverage. (Quod per viam est verisimile ad magis pretiosa quam merita esset liberari in a foro, cum assecurationis turmas erit arguere magis capitis et eorum tribulationis. Item rebum postulant suscitat prices.) Tamen, verum est obscurabat populus potest simulant es questus aliquid libero.

    Ita imperium-generati ratio tractat nobis sicut filii, et heu maxime nobis beatus ad agitur quod modo.

    Obama scriptor “compromissum”

    Sub pressura, in Obama administratio expectatur nuntiate “compromissum” omnes quae eximere sub catholica Laboris locatores non ad pro contraconceptionem coverage. VICEM, assecurationis turmas utinam providentia in coverage directe ad elit. Cum sub Salus et Humanum elit praecepta, hoc coverage sit liberum, in Obama administrationis est in effectus dirigens Insurers manducare sumptus. Sed Insurers sunt utilitatem-faciens turmas, non charitates, ita ut sperare transire sumptus ad aliquis aliud. Sed ad quem? Ibi tantum unum posse: nonexempt employer scriptor, Quod Means in facto nonexempt elit vel turmas. Ita magnam compromissum transferentis sumptus a parva paucioribus elit determinare Maioritas – omnes in nomine libertate. Omnes nonexempt operantur in turmas et Institutionum erit a stipendium sectis.

  33. Str?ds rages p?r Obamas administr?cijas ierosin?tais l?dzek?u (un v?l?k p?rveidots), Ieskaitot darba dev?ja pilnvar?s, ka visi Kato?u slimn?cas un universit?tes ietver br?v?s kontracepcija ar? uz darbinieku vesel?bas apdro?in??anas polis?m. Kato?u amatpersonas objekts kop? to bazn?ca aizliedz kontracepciju, dekr?ts p?rk?pj pirmo groz?jumu ties?bu aizsardz?bu reli?isko br?v?bu. Citi jau pievienoj?s protesta apdom?gi paredz??ana ?o p?rk?pumu apzi?as br?v?bu var?tu izplat?ties uz cit?m liet?m un cit?m tic?b?m.

    Tie, paaugstinot iebildumu ir nevainojama lietu. Precedentu ?pa?i ??ietami vair?k nek? diviem lodzi?iem, kas jau noteikts ar l?dz?giem mand?tu, nav noz?mes. Kas ir amor?ls nek??st mor?li vienk?r?i precedents. Princips, ka nevienam nevajadz?tu b?t spiesti finans?t Tas viss, ko vi?? vai vi?a uzskata, pret?gs ir stabils. Paties?b?, t? b?tu j?piem?ro g?nu ralliju.

    Str?da priek?metu

    Aizst?vji dekr?tu ir diezgan labi str?da priek?metu. Protams tie ir – tie esam ieguvu?i to, ko v?l? Vi?us uzklaus?t, j?s dom?jat, k?ds ir ierosin?jusi, ka kontracepcija ir aizliegt?. (Nu, Rick Santorum Tas nenoz?m?, ??iet, labu, ta?u vi?? ir diezgan daudz vien.) ObamaCare ?empioni b?tu mums dom?t str?ds ir par “piek?uve” uz “atsevi??u produktu un pakalpojumu. Visi Dekr?ts, vi?i saka, ir apdro?in??ana segums, un piek??t sp?c?gs T?p?c, lai bez kontracepciju (alongwith citus prevent?vos pakalpojumus) par sieviet?m, kuras v?las to. Bet tas tikai rada v?l vienu jaut?jumu:

    Kas ir ?is got dar?t ar apdro?in??anu?

    Piek?uve nav atkar?gs no p?rkl?juma. Mums ir pieeja daudz?m svar?g?m liet?m nav apdro?in?ti. Weirdly, da?i saka dekr?ts faktiski apstiprina, reli?isko br?v?bu. K? t?? Sens. Barbara Boxer, ?anna Shaheen, un Patty Murray Paskaidroja, Wall Street Journal: “. [T] vi?? miljoniem amerik??u sievie?u, kas izv?las lietot kontracepciju nevajadz?tu piespiest iev?rot reli?isko doktr?nu, vai kato?u vai nav kato?u”

    Citiem v?rdiem sakot, nav apdro?in??anas seguma kontracepcija nav l?dzv?rt?ga spiesti lietot kontracepciju. Tas ir da?i d?vaini arguments, bet tas, ko m?s esam ieradu?ies sagaid?t no locek?iem “pasaules liel?kajiem padomdev?js org?ns.”

    Labi?

    T?tad paliek jaut?jums, k?: Kas ir tas got dar?t ar apdro?in??anu?

    “Piek?uve dzimst?bas kontroli, ir tie?i saist?ts ar lejupsl?di m?tes un b?rna mirst?bu, var samazin?t risku oln?cu v?zi, un ir saist?ta ar labu visp?r?jo vesel?bas st?vokli,” Sens. Bokseris, Shaheen, un Murray rakst?t.

    Naudas sodu, bet to, kas tas got dar?t ar apdro?in??anu?

    “[B] ce?u Regulu piek?uvi dzimst?bas regul??anas pal?dz?s samazin?t skaitu nepl?notu gr?tniec?bu un abortus, Ja m?r?is mums visiem.”

    Naudas sodu, bet to, kas tas got dar?t ar apdro?in??anu?

    “Pareiza ?imenes pl?no?ana, izmantojot pretapaug?o?an?s rezult?tus vesel?g?ku m?t?m un b?rniem, visi, kas n?k par labu mums visiem.”

    Naudas sodu, bet to, kas tas got dar?t ar apdro?in??anu?

    “Tas ietaupa mums naudu p?r?k ….”

    Naudas sodu, bet to, kas tas got dar?t ar apdro?in??anu?

    “Tas var maks?t $ 600 gad? par recep?u pretapaug?o?an?s l?dzek?iem.” (Tas ir augstas klases apr??ins, ir maz?kas izmaksas iesp?jas, iek?aujot ?imenes pl?no?anas uz maznodro?in?t?m sieviet?m.)

    Naudas sodu, bet to, kas tas got dar?t ar apdro?in??anu?

    “Da?i 99% sievie?u ASV, kas ir seksu?li akt?vi, vai ir k?ju k?d? br?d? vi?u dz?v? ir overused dzimst?bas kontroli, tai skait? 98% kato?u sievie?u, saska?? ar Guttmacher instit?ts.”

    Naudas sodu, bet to, kas tas got dar?t ar-oh Tik. Es atbild?tu sevi: Tas ir ieguvu?i neko dar?t ar apdro?in??anu.

    Riska kopfondi

    Apdro?in??ana fizisk?m person?m rad?s k? veids, k? apkopot risku, vai k?du low-probability/high-cost Vi?u nelaime befalling vi?iem. Tas neb?tu nepiecie?ams nor?d?t ?o, bet n?k no reprodukt?v? vecum? un izv?las lietot kontracepciju, nav apdro?in??anas gad?jums. Tas volitional akts. T? var b?t labas sekas personai, kura pie??musi l?mumu un sabiedr?bu kopum?, ta?u tas joproj?m volitional akts. Nav j?gas run?t par nodro?in?ties pret gad?jumam, konkr?t? persona tiks izmantot kontracepciju. Stingri run?jot, kontracepcija nav nek?da sakara ar apdro?in??anu.

    Diem??l, m?s nerun?jam stingri par vesel?bas apdro?in??anu. Viens no iemesliem m?s dar?m, ir nodok?u kodekss. Kop? Otr? pasaules kara kompens?ciju par darba veid? nodarbin?t?bas l?me?a vesel?bas apdro?in??anas, nav uzskat?ma par ar nodokli apliekamie ien?kumi. (Nauda izlietota neatkar?gi no vesel?bas apdro?in??anu nav uzskait?ta.) PVN kods Galanthus Izveido pretdabisku stimulu 1) ir atkar?gas no savu darba dev?ju par vesel?bas apdro?in??anu, 2) shift ien?kumus no likvid?jot naudu ierobe?otas apdro?in??anas pabalstus, un 3) noteikt neapdro?in?m?m notikumus apdro?in?ma. Vai k?ds apr?pi, lai izskaidrotu, k? labi b?rnu apr?pe var b?t apdro?in?ma?

    T?p?c mums ir nodok?u, lai pateiktos par v?l vienu iez?mi m?sdienu pasaul?: korupcijas valodas. ?aj? medic?nas jomai plau??s ir apdro?in??ana nav apdro?in??ana.

    T? viet? ir sp?le ar visu, kas mums nok??t citu cilv?ku maks?t par liet?m. Nu, tas nav glu?i prec?zs. Tas ir tie??m sp?le, kur? m?s izliekamies, ka citi cilv?ki maks? par stuff. Izskat?s, Kontracepcija, mammogrammu, taisn?s zarnas apskati, un labi b?rnu apr?pes, nav bezmaksas. (Skat?t manu “Nav t?das lietas k? bezmaksas mammogramma.”) T?s darba pras?bas un resursi visiem kuriem ?pa?nieki v?las-nav-to tur?jum?, nepamatoti kompens?tas. K?dam ir j?maks?. Ja darba dev?ja faktiski ir spiesti maks?t par p?rkl?jumu, vai k?ds nopietni ?aubos, ka darbinieki faktiski maks? caur zem?k?m naudas alg?m? Darba dev?ji nav labdar?bas. T?p?c pat bez copayment, m?s visi zin?m, dzi?i, ka m?s k? darba ??m?jiem maks?t par segumu. (Kas starp citu, visticam?k, b?s d?rg?kas nek? ?ie pakalpojumi b?tu j?atbr?vo tirg?, jo apdro?in??anas komp?nijas iekas?t vair?k par gaisvadu un to nepatik?anas. Ar? subsid?t?s piepras?jums palielina cenas.) Tom?r paties?ba ir t? apsl?pta, ka cilv?ki var izlikties vi?i k??st kaut ko par br?vu.

    T? vald?bas rad?tie sist?ma pret mums izturas k? b?rni, un diem??l liel?k? da?a no mums ar prieku j??rst? ?kiet, ka veid?.

    Obamas “kompromiss”

    Zem spiediena, Obama administr?cija bija paredz?ts izsludin?t “kompromiss” Viss, ko atbr?vo saska?? ar kato?u dev?jiem neb?tu j?maks? par kontracepciju segumu. T? viet? apdro?in??anas uz??mumi Providence segums tie?i darbiniekiem. Jo saska?? ar Vesel?bas un Human Services noteikumiem, ?is p?rkl?jums ir j?b?t bezmaksas, Obama administr?cija ir sp?k? virz?t?ja apdro?in?t?jus ?st izmaksas. Bet Apdro?in?t?ji pe??as uz??mumi, nevis labdar?bas, lai m?s var?tu sagaid?t tos nodot izmaksas k?dam citam. Bet kam? Tur ir tikai viena iesp?ja: nonexempt darba dev?ja, kas noz?m? faktiski nonexempt darbiniekiem un uz??mumiem. Tik grand kompromiss p?riet izmaksas no nelielai darbinieku, lai noteiktu liel?ko – viss ar nosaukumu reli?ijas br?v?bu. Visas nonexempt darbiniekiem uz??mumos un iest?d?s veiks darba samaksas samazin?jumu.

  34. Prie?taros ?siliepsnoja pasi?lyta vir? Obamos administracijos (ir v?liau modifikuotas) ?skaitant darbdavio ?galiojimus, kad visi katalik? ligonines ir universitetus yra nemokamas kontracepcijos j? darbuotoj? sveikatos draudimo politikos. Katalik? pareig?nai, nes, kad j? ba?ny?ia draud?ia kontracepcijos objektas, dekretas pa?eid?ia Pirmosios pataisos religijos laisv?s apsaug?. Kiti prisijung? protestus, apdairiai, numatymas ?? s??in?s laisv?s pa?eidimo, gali plisti su kitais klausimais ir kit? tik?jim?.

    Prie?taravimo, nepriekai?tingai byl?. Akivaizd?iai daugiau nei du langelius, kad jau nar?s turi pana?ius ?galiojimus nustatyti precedentas yra nesvarbus. Kas yra amoralus netampa moralinis tiesiog precedentu. Principas, kad niekas netur?t? b?ti ver?iamas finansuoti, kur? jis ar ji nustato bjauri garsas. Ties? sakant, ji tur?t? b?ti taikoma gen? miting?.

    Keisti tem?

    Dekreto Gyn?jai yra gana gera keisti tem?. ?inoma, jie yra – Jis buvo k? dar? Nor?dami i?girsti juos, j?s manote, kas nors pasi?l?, kad Kontracepcija b?ti u?drausta. (Na, Rick Santorum Tai atrodo palanki, ta?iau jis gana daug vien.) Obamacare ?empionai priversti mus patik?ti, gin?as apie “susipa?inti” su “tam tikr? produkt? ir paslaug?. Visa dekretas, jie sako, yra apvaizda draudimas, ir pasiekti galingas Tod?l moterims, kurie nori laisvai Kontracepcija alongwith kitos prevencin?s tarnybos). Bet tai tik kelia kit? klausim?:

    Kas tai turiu daryti su draudimu?

    Prieiga nepriklauso nuo apr?pties. Mes turime prieig? prie daugelio svarbiausi? dalyk? n?ra apdraustos. Upiornie, kai kurie sako, dekretas i? tikr?j? patvirtina religin? laisv?. Kaip taip? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, ir Patty Murray, kod?l “Wall Street Journal”: “[T] jis milijonai Amerikos moter?, kurie pasirenka naudoti kontracepcijos priemones netur?t? b?ti ver?iami laikytis religin? doktrin?, ar katalik? ir ne katalik?”

    Kitaip tariant, draudimo Kontracepcija stoka n?ra lygiavert? priverstos naudoti kontracepcijos priemones. Tai yra ?iek tiek keista argumentas, bet tai, k? mes tikisi i? did?iausi? “pasaulio patariamojo organo nari?.”

    Na?

    Taigi lieka klausimas: Kas tai turiu daryti su draudimu?

    “Prieiga prie gimstamumo kontrol? yra tiesiogiai susijusi su gimdyvi? ir k?diki? mirtingumas ma??ja, gali suma?inti kiau?id?i? v??io rizik?, ir yra susij?s su visos geros sveikatos rezultatus,” Sens. Bokseris, Shaheen ir Murray ra?yti.

    Puiku, bet kas jis gavo daryti su draudimu?

    “[B] keli? reglamento prieiga prie kontracepcijos pad?s suma?inti nenumatyt? n??tum? ir abort? skai?i?, tikslas, mes visi dalijasi.”

    Puiku, bet kas jis gavo daryti su draudimu?

    “Tinkamas ?eimos planavimas per kontraceptines sveikiau motinoms ir vaikams, kuri naudinga mums visiems.”

    Puiku, bet kas jis gavo daryti su draudimu?

    “Tai taupo m?s? pinigus taip pat ….”

    Puiku, bet kas jis gavo daryti su draudimu?

    “Tai gali kainuoti 600 JAV doleri? per metus receptini? kontraceptik?.” (Tai auk?tos klas?s ?vertis yra ma?esni? s?naud?, ?skaitant planuojamos t?vyst?s ma?as pajamas gaunan?ioms moterims.)

    Puiku, bet kas jis gavo daryti su draudimu?

    “Ma?daug 99% moter? JAV, kurie yra lyti?kai aktyv?s, ar koj? tam tikru savo gyvenimo momentu netinkamiausias kontracepcijos, ?skaitant 98% katalik? moter? Pagal ? Guttmacher institut?.”

    Puiku, bet kas jis gavo daryti su-OH Nevermind. A? atsakyti sau: Jis gavo nieko bendro su draudimu.

    Rizikos sujungimas

    Draudimas asmenims atsirado kaip b?du kaupti rizika, arba kai low-probability/high-cost J? nelaim? juos befalling,. Jis netur?t? b?ti B?tina pabr??ti tai, bet vaisingo am?iaus ir pasirinkti naudoti kontracepcijos n?ra draudimo ?vykis. Tai valinis veiksmas. Jis gali tur?ti ger? pasekmi? atitinkamam asmeniui ar asmenims, atsi?velgiant ? veiksm?, ir pla?ioji visuomen?, bet ji vis dar yra valinis veiksmas. N?ra prasm?s kalb?ti apie galimyb?, kad konkre?iam asmeniui naudoti kontraceptines priemones apsidrausti nuo. Tiksliau sakant, Kontracepcija nieko bendro su draudimu.

    Deja, ne kalb?ti grie?tai apie sveikatos draudim?. Viena i? prie?as?i?, mes darome, yra mokes?io kodas. Nuo Antrojo pasaulinio karo kompensacijos u? darbo j?gos u?imtumo sveikatos draudimo nesiskaito kaip apmokestinamosios pajamos. (Pinig? praleido Nepriklausomai sveikatos draudimo ar skai?i?.) Mokes?io kodas Galanthus Sukuria netinkam? paskat? 1) priklauso nuo savo darbdavio medicinos draudim?, 2) perjungimo pajam? likvidavimo pinigus ? riboto draudimo i?mokas, ir 3) nustatyti uninsurable renginius kaip draudimo. Ar kas nors r?pi paai?kinti, kaip gerai k?diki? prie?i?ra gali b?ti draudimo?

    Taigi mes turime apmokestinimo A?i? u? dar vien? ?iuolaikinio pasaulio bruo?as: kalbos korupcija. Medicinos sferos plau?i? priemoni? draudimas ne draudimas.

    U?uot tai Viskas, kuri? mes gauname kad kiti ?mon?s gal?t? sumok?ti u? daikt? ?aidimas. Na, tai ne visai tiksli. Tai i? tikr?j? ?aidimas, kuriame mes apsimesti, kad kiti ?mon?s moka u? stuff. ?i?r?k, Kontracepcija, mamografija, colonoscopies, ir gerai k?diki? prie?i?ra n?ra nemokama. (?r. mano “Yra toks dalykas kaip Nemokami mamogram?.) Darbo visiems, kuri? savininkai nori ne b?ti aps?sti nepagr?stai kompensavo reikalavimas ir i?tekliai. Ka?kas turi mok?ti. Jei darbdavys manimi formaliai yra priversti mok?ti u? draudim?, ar kas nors rimtai abejoju, kad darbuotojai tikrai bus sumok?ti d?l ma?esni? gryn?j? pinig? darbo u?mokes?io? Darbdaviai – ne labdaros organizacijos. Taigi, net be copayment, mes visi ?inome, gilyn, kad mes kaip darbuotojai moka u? draudim?. (Kuris, beje, gali b?ti brangesnis nei paslaugos b?t? i?laisvinti rinkoje, nes draudimo bendrov?s imti daugiau prid?tines i?laidas ir j? nelaim?s. Taip pat subsidijuojamas paklausa kelia kainas.) Vis d?lto tiesa yra tokia nery?ki, kad ?mon?s gal?t? apsimesti jie gauti ka?k? nemokamai.

    Taigi vyriausyb?s sukurto sistema traktuoja mus kaip vaikai, ir deja dauguma m?s? malonu b?ti vertinamos, atrodo, kad taip.

    B.Obamos “kompromisas”

    Spaudimo, Obamos administracija tur?t? paskelbti “kompromis?”, kurie atleisti pagal katalik? darbdavi? neb?t? tur?jusi mok?ti kontracepcijai apr?pties. Vietoj to, draudimo bendrov?s b?t? apvaizda apr?ptis tiesiogiai darbuotojams. Kadangi pagal sveikatos ir ?mogaus paslaug? taisykli?, ?i apr?ptis turi b?ti laisvas, Obamos administracija yra i? esm?s, re?is?ros draudikams valgyti i?laidas. Bet Draudikai teikia pelno siekian?ios bendrov?s, o ne labdaros, taigi galime tik?tis, kad jie ka?kam kitam perduoti i?laidas. Ta?iau kam? Yra tik viena galimyb?: nonexempt darbdavio, o tai rei?kia i? tikr?j? nonexempt darbuotoj? arba ?mon?s. Taigi didysis kompromisas perkelia i? nedidelei darbuotoj? i?laidas, siekiant nustatyti, daugum? – visos religin?s laisv?s vardu. Visi nonexempt ?moni? ir ?staig? darbuotojams darbo u?mokes?io suma?inimas.

  35. Rages Kontroversi Pentadbiran Obama yang Cadangan (dan kemudiannya diubahsuai) Termasuk mandat Bahawa semua hospital dan universiti Katolik termasuk bebas Kontraseptif Dalam polisi insurans kesihatan pekerja mereka majikan. Katolik objek pegawai sejak Bahawa gereja mereka melarang Kontraseptif, dekri melanggar perlindungan Pindaan Pertama kebebasan beragama. Lain-lain telah menyertai dalam protes, berhemat Bahawa jangkaan ini melanggar kebebasan beragama dapat merebak kepada perkara-perkara lain dan agama lain.

    Mereka yang menimbulkan bantahan itu mempunyai kes yg tak dpt disangsikan. Duluan yang ditetapkan dalam nampaknya lebih daripada dua kotak Bahawa Sudah negeri mempunyai mandat yang sama adalah tidak relevan. Apa ada yang tidak bermoral tidak menjadi moral hanya dengan duluan. Prinsip Bahawa tiada sesiapa yang akan dipaksa untuk membiayai Bahawa Semua yang dia mendapati hina bunyi. Malah, ia Perlu Gunaan perhimpunan gen.

    Menukar Subjek

    Pembela perintah agak baik menukar subjek. Kursus Mereka Adakah – Mereka mempunyai apa lagi? Untuk mendengar mereka, anda akan berfikir seseorang telah Cadangan Bahawa Kontraseptif diharamkan. (, Rick Santorum Itu nampaknya tidak memihak, tetapi dia cukup banyak sahaja.) Obamacare juara mahu kita percaya kontroversi adalah mengenai “akses” kepada ‘produk dan perkhidmatan tertentu. Semua dekri tidak, mereka berkata, rezeki perlindungan insurans untuk, dan mengakses berkuasa Oleh itu, untuk Kontraseptif percuma (alongwith lain perkhidmatan pencegahan) bagi wanita yang mahu. Tetapi hanya menimbulkan soalan lain:

    Apa yang ini ada kaitan dengan insurans?

    Akses tidak bergantung kepada liputan. Kami mempunyai akses kepada banyak perkara penting yang tidak dilindungi oleh insurans. Weirdly, ada yang mengatakan perintah sebenarnya mengesahkan kebebasan beragama. Bagaimana begitu? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, dan Patty Murray Dinyatakan dalam Wall Street Journal: “[T] dia berjuta-juta wanita di Amerika yang memilih untuk menggunakan Kontraseptif Sekiranya tidak dipaksa untuk mengikuti doktrin agama, sama ada Katolik atau bukan-Katolik”

    Dalam erti kata lain, kekurangan perlindungan insurans untuk Kontraseptif tidak bersamaan dengan dipaksa untuk menggunakan Kontraseptif. Bahawa beberapa hujah yang pelik, tetapi ia adalah apa yang kita telah datang ke harapkan daripada ahli-ahli “badan dunia Perwakilan yang terbesar.”

    Baik?

    Jadi persoalannya kekal sebagai: Apa yang ada kaitan dengan insurans?

    “Akses kepada kawalan kelahiran secara langsung dikaitkan dengan penurunan dalam kadar kematian ibu dan bayi, boleh mengurangkan risiko kanser ovari, dan dikaitkan dengan hasil kesihatan keseluruhan yang baik,” Sens. Peninju, Shaheen, dan Murray menulis.

    Baik, tetapi apa yang ia ada kaitan dengan insurans?

    “[B] jalan pulasi akses kepada kawalan kelahiran akan membantu mengurangkan bilangan kehamilan dan pengguguran yang tidak diingini, matlamat kita semua berkongsi.”

    Baik, tetapi apa yang ia ada kaitan dengan insurans?

    “Perancangan keluarga yang betul melalui keputusan kawalan kelahiran di ibu sihat dan kanak-kanak, Semua yang memberi manfaat kepada kita semua.”

    Baik, tetapi apa yang ia ada kaitan dengan insurans?

    “Ia menyelamatkan kita wang terlalu ….”

    Baik, tetapi apa yang ia ada kaitan dengan insurans?

    “Ia boleh menelan belanja $ 600 setahun untuk kontraseptif preskripsi.” (Itulah anggaran yang mewah, terdapat pilihan kos yang lebih rendah, Termasuk Parenthood dirancang untuk wanita berpendapatan rendah.)

    Baik, tetapi apa yang ia ada kaitan dengan insurans?

    “Sebanyak 99% wanita di Amerika Syarikat yang aktif secara seksual atau mempunyai kaki di beberapa titik dalam Kehidupan mereka mempunyai kawalan kelahiran secara berlebihan, Termasuk 98% wanita Katolik, Mengikut Institut Guttmacher.”

    Baik, tetapi apa yang ia ada kaitan dengan-oh takpa. Saya akan menjawab diri saya: Ia mempunyai apa-apa kaitan dengan insurans.

    Risiko Pooling

    Insurans Individu timbul sebagai satu cara untuk risiko kolam, atau beberapa low-probability/high-cost yang malang yang menimpa mereka mereka. Ia tidak Hendaklah yang Perlu Untuk titik ini, tetapi kedatangan umur menanggung kanak-kanak dan memilih untuk menggunakan Kontraseptif tidak merupakan satu peristiwa yang boleh diinsuranskan. Ia adalah satu perbuatan yang kemahuan. Ia mungkin mempunyai Akibat baik untuk orang yang mengambil tindakan dan masyarakat umum, tetapi ia masih merupakan satu perbuatan kemahuan. Ia tidak masuk akal untuk bercakap tentang menginsuranskan terhadap kemungkinan Bahawa seseorang yang khusus akan menggunakan Kontraseptif. Sebenarnya, Kontraseptif mempunyai apa-apa kaitan dengan insurans.

    Malangnya, kami tidak bercakap dengan tegas mengenai insurans kesihatan. Salah satu sebab yang kita lakukan adalah kod cukai. Sejak pampasan Perang Dunia II untuk pekerja-pekerja dalam bentuk insurans kesihatan pekerjaan berasaskan tidak dikira sebagai Pendapatan kena cukai. (Wang yang dibelanjakan MARKAH insurans kesihatan tidak kiraan.) The cukai kod Galanthus Mencipta insentif sesat 1) bergantung pada majikan seseorang untuk insurans perubatan, 2) pendapatan anjakan daripada mencairkan tunai kepada manfaat insurans terhad, dan 3) mentakrifkan peristiwa uninsurable sebagai insurans. Seseorang akan peduli untuk menerangkan bagaimana baik-bayi penjagaan boleh insurans?

    Jadi kita mempunyai cukai untuk mengucapkan terima kasih lagi ciri lain dunia moden: rasuah bahasa. Dalam paru-paru bidang perubatan Bermakna insurans insurans tidak.

    Sebaliknya, ia adalah satu permainan oleh Semua yang kita mendapatkan orang lain untuk membayar barangan. Baik, yang tidak cukup tepat. Ia sebenarnya satu permainan di Antara Kita Bayangkan Bahawa orang lain bayar untuk barangan. Lihat, Kontraseptif, mamogram, colonoscopies, dan penjagaan yang baik bayi tidak bebas. (Lihat saya “Ada Tiada Thing Seperti Mamogram Bebas.”) Mereka keperluan buruh dan sumber untuk Semua pemilik ingin tidak akan dimiliki tidak munasabah pampasan. Seseorang perlu membayar. Jika majikan yang nominal dipaksa membayar untuk perlindungan, adakah sesiapa yang serius ragu-ragu itu sebenarnya akan membayar melalui upah tunai yang lebih rendah? Majikan tidak adalah badan amal. Jadi walaupun tanpa copayment, kita semua tahu jauh ke Bahawa kita sebagai pekerja membayar untuk perlindungan. (Antara dengan cara yang berkemungkinan menjadi lebih mahal daripada perkhidmatan itu akan dibebaskan dalam pasaran, kerana syarikat insurans akan mengenakan bayaran yang lebih untuk overhed dan masalah mereka. Juga permintaan subsidi menaikkan harga.) Namun begitu, kebenaran itu begitu dikaburkan Bahawa orang boleh berpura-pura mereka menerima sesuatu secara percuma.

    Jadi sistem janaan kerajaan menganggap kami seperti kanak-kanak, dan malangnya kebanyakan kita gembira akan Dirawat seolah-olah cara itu.

    “Kompromi” Obama

    Di bawah tekanan, pentadbiran Obama dijangka mengumumkan “kompromi” Semua yang mengecualikan di bawah Majikan Katolik tidak perlu membayar untuk perlindungan Kontraseptif. Sebaliknya, syarikat insurans rezeki liputan secara langsung kepada pekerja. Sejak di bawah peraturan Kesihatan dan Perkhidmatan Manusia, liputan ini mestilah bebas, pentadbiran Obama adalah kesan mengarah Penanggung Insurans makan kos. Tetapi Penanggung Insurans adalah syarikat yang membuat keuntungan, bukan badan amal, jadi kami boleh mengharapkan mereka untuk meluluskan kos tersebut kepada orang lain. Tetapi Yang? Ada hanya satu Kemungkinan:, majikan nonexempt Yang Bermakna dalam pekerja nonexempt fakta atau syarikat. Jadi kompromi besar memindahkan kos daripada sebuah minoriti kecil daripada pekerja untuk menentukan Majoriti – semua di atas nama kebebasan beragama. Semua pekerja nonexempt yang dalam syarikat dan Institusi akan mengambil pemotongan gaji.

  36. Rages Kontroversja fuq l-Amministrazzjoni Obama huwa propost (u aktar tard immodifikata)-Inklu?i mandat i?addem Dan l-isptarijiet Kattolika u universitajiet jinkludu ?ieles Kontra?ezzjoni Fil politiki impjegat tag?hom assigurazzjoni tas-sa??a. Kattolika uffi?jali o??ett peress Dan knisja tag?hom tipprojbixxi Kontra?ezzjoni, id-digriet jikser protezzjoni-Ewwel Emenda tal-libert? reli?ju?a. O?rajn ng?aqdu fil-protesta, prudenti Dan anti?ipazzjoni dan il-ksur tal-libert? tal-kuxjenza Jista jinfirxu g?al kwistjonijiet o?ra u reli?jonijiet o?ra.

    Dawk jg?ollu l-o??ezzjoni jkollhom ka? mhijiex sindakabbli. Il-pre?edent stabbilit fl-apparentement aktar minn ?ew? kaxxi Li Di?? istati jkollhom mandati simili huwa irrilevanti. X’hemm immorali ma ssirx morali sempli?iment billi pre?edent. Il-prin?ipju li ?add ma g?andhom ji?u sfurzati jiffinanzjaw Dan kollu li hu jew hi ssib mistmella hija soda. Fil-fatt, g?andu ji?i applikat rally tal-?eni.

    Nibdlu l-Su??ett

    Difensuri tad-digriet huma pjuttost tajba li jbiddlu s-su??ett. Of course huma – Huma jkunu kisbu x’iktar? Biex tismag?hom, youd ta?seb li xi ?add pproponiet li Kontra?ezzjoni jkun illegali. (Well, Rick Santorum Dan ma tidhirx li jiffavorixxu, i?da huwa pjuttost ?afna wa?du.) ?ampjins ObamaCare kien minna jemmnu li l-kontroversja hija dwar “a??ess” g?all-‘?erti prodotti u servizzi. L-digriet ma, jg?idu, hija l-assigurazzjoni providenza kopertura g?al, u l-a??ess qawwija G?alhekk, biex Kontra?ezzjoni ?ieles (alongwith servizzi preventivi o?ra) g?al nisa li jixtiequ dan. I?da Dik biss iqajjem mistoqsija o?ra:

    Dak li dan ltqajna ma ‘assigurazzjoni?

    A??ess ma tiddependix fuq il-kopertura. A?na jkollhom a??ess g?all affarijiet importanti ?afna li mhumiex koperti minn assigurazzjoni. Weirdly, xi w?ud jg?idu id-digriet attwalment jafferma libert? reli?ju?a. Kif hekk? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, u Patty Murray spjegat fil-Wall Street Journal: “. [I] miljuni ta ‘nisa Amerikani li jag??lu li ju?aw Kontra?ezzjoni Jekk ma ji?u sfurzati li jsegwu duttrina reli?ju?a, kemm jekk Kattolika jew mhux Kattolika”

    Fi kliem ie?or, nuqqas ta ‘kopertura ta’ assigurazzjoni g?all Kontra?ezzjoni mhuwiex ekwivalenti li jkunu m?ieg?la ju?aw Kontra?ezzjoni. Din hija xi argument stramba, imma huwa dak li a?na ?adthom waslu biex jistennew mill-membri tal-“dinja ?isem deliberattiva akbar.”

    Ukoll?

    G?alhekk il-kwistjoni tibqa ‘b?ala: Dak li dan ltqajna ma’ assigurazzjoni?

    “A??ess g?all-kontroll tat-twelid hija direttament marbuta g?al tnaqqis fil-mortalit? materna u tat-trabi, tista ‘tnaqqas ir-riskju ta’ kan?er fl-ovarji, u hija marbuta mal ri?ultati globali ta ‘sa??a tajba,” Sens. Boxer, Shaheen, u Murray jiktbu.

    Multa, i?da dak li huwa ltqajna ma ‘assigurazzjoni?

    “[B] Regolament triq a??ess g?all-kontroll tat-twelid se jg?in biex titnaqqas in-numru ta ‘tqala mhux mixtieqa u aborti, Jekk l-g?an a?na lkoll jaqsmu.”

    Multa, i?da dak li huwa ltqajna ma ‘assigurazzjoni?

    “Xierqa ippjanar tal-familja permezz ta ‘ri?ultati kontroll tat-twelid fl-ommijiet b’sa??ithom u t-tfal, kollha li l-benefi??ji lkoll.”

    Multa, i?da dak li huwa ltqajna ma ‘assigurazzjoni?

    “Huwa jiffranka mag?na wisq flus ….”

    Multa, i?da dak li huwa ltqajna ma ‘assigurazzjoni?

    “Hija tista ’tiswa $ 600 fis-sena g?al kontra?ettivi preskrizzjoni.” (Dan huwa stima high-end, hemm g?a?liet b’inqas spejje?, Inklu?i Parenthood ppjanata g?all bi d?ul baxx nisa.)

    Multa, i?da dak li huwa ltqajna ma ‘assigurazzjoni?

    “Xi 99% tan-nisa fl-Istati Uniti li huma sesswalment attivi jew li jkollhom ri?el f’xi punt fil-?ajja tag?hom ikollhom kontroll tat-twelid Overused, Inklu?i 98% tan-nisa Kattoli?i, Skond l-Istitut Guttmacher.”

    Multa, i?da dak li huwa ltqajna ma ‘oh nevermind. I ser tirrispondi lili nnifsi: Huwa ltqajna xejn x’jaqsmu ma ‘assigurazzjoni.

    Tqassim tar-riskju

    Assigurazzjoni g?all-Individwi inqalg?et b?ala mod biex riskju pool, jew xi low-probability/high-cost sfortuna befalling tag?hom minnhom. Dan m’g?andux ikun me?tie? li ji?i jwettqu dan, imma d?ul ta ‘f’et? li jwelldu u li jag??lu li ju?aw Kontra?ezzjoni mhijiex avveniment assigurabbli. Huwa att volitional. Jista ‘jkollha konsegwenzi tajbin g?all-persuna li tie?u l-azzjoni u s-so?jet? in ?enerali, i?da xorta huwa att volitional. Ma jag?milx sens li nitkellmu dwar assigurazzjoni kontra l-eventwalit? li persuna partikolari se tu?a Kontra?ezzjoni. Strettament, Kontra?ezzjoni m’g?andha x’taqsam xejn ma ‘assigurazzjoni.

    Sfortunatament, a?na ma jitkellmu strettament dwar l-assigurazzjoni tas-sa??a. Wa?da mir-ra?unijiet li nag?mlu huwa l-kodi?i tat-taxxa. Peress II kumpens Gwerra Dinjija g?ax-xog?ol fil-forma ta ‘assigurazzjoni impjieg bba?ata fuq is-sa??a ma tg?oddx b?ala D?ul Taxxabbli. (Flus minfuqa Indipendentement fuq assigurazzjoni tas-sa??a ma g?add.) Il-kodi?i tat-taxxa Galanthus To?loq in?entivi perversi g?al 1) jiddependu fuq min i?addem wie?ed g?all-assigurazzjoni medika, 2) id-d?ul bidla minn likwidazzjoni flus g?all-benefi??ji ta ‘assigurazzjoni ristretti, u 3) jiddefinixxi l-avvenimenti assigurazzjoni g?alih b?ala assigurabbli. Kieku xi ?add kura biex tispjega kif ukoll baby kura ma jistax ji?i assigurabbli?

    Allura a?na g?andna tassazzjoni biex nirringrazzja g?all-ie?or g?adha karatteristika tad-dinja moderna: il-korruzzjoni ta ‘lingwa. Fil-pulmun qasam mediku Mezzi assigurazzjoni ebda assigurazzjoni.

    INSTEAD huwa log?ba mill Kollha li a?na nies o?ra li j?allsu g?all-g?alf. Ukoll, li mhux pjuttost pre?i?a. Huwa fil-fatt log?ba li a?na nippretendu li nies o?ra j?allsu g?all-g?alf. ?ares, Kontra?ezzjoni, mammograms, colonoscopies, u sew tarbija kura ma jkunux ?ielsa. (Ara tieg?i “Hemm Nru ?a?a b?al din b?ala mammogram ?ieles.”) Huma rekwi?it tax-xog?ol u r-ri?orsi g?al Kul?add li s-sidien jixtiequ-mhux-li fil-pussess mhux ra?onevoli kkumpensati. Xi ?add irid i?allas. Jekk min huwa nominalment huma obbligati li j?allsu g?all-kopertura, ?add ma serjament dubju li l-impjegati fil-fatt se t?allas permezz pagi baxxi flus? Min i?addem mhumiex karit?. G?alhekk anki ming?ajr copayment, nafu lkoll fil-fond fl Li a?na b?ala ?addiema j?allsu g?all-kopertura. (Liema mill-mod x’aktarx li jkun aktar g?ali mill-servizzi ji?u liberati fis-suq, peress li kumpaniji ta ‘assigurazzjoni se charge aktar g?all-ispejje? u l-inkwiet tag?hom. Ukoll domanda sussidjati jg?olli l-prezzijiet.) Madankollu, il-verit? hija tant mg?ottija in-nies jistg?u nippretendu li qed jkollna xi ?a?a b’xejn.

    G?alhekk is-sistema tal-gvern i??enerat tittratta mag?na b?at-tfal, u sfortunatament ?afna minna kuntenti li ji?u Ittrattat SEEM il-mod.

    Obama “kompromess”

    Ta?t pressjoni, l-amministrazzjoni Obama kien mistenni li j?abbar “kompromess” Kull li je?entaw ta?t I?addem Kattolika ma kien ikollu j?allas g?all-kopertura Kontra?ezzjoni. Minflok, kumpaniji ta ‘assigurazzjoni kieku providenza-kopertura direttament lill-impjegati. Peress ta?t regoli tas-Sa??a u Servizzi Umani, din il-kopertura g?andhom ikunu ?ielsa, l-amministrazzjoni Obama huwa fil-fatt direzzjoni Assiguraturi li jieklu l-ispi?a. I?da assiguraturi huma jag?mlux profitt kumpaniji, mhux karitajiet, hekk a?na jistg?u jistennew li jg?addu l-ispi?a lil xi ?add ie?or. I?da biex min? Hemm wie?ed biss Possibbilt?: i?addem nonexempt fuq, li jfisser fil-impjegati nonexempt fatt jew kumpaniji. Allura l-kompromess grand xiftijiet l-ispi?a minn minoranza ?g?ira ta ‘impjegati li jiddetermina l-Ma??oranza – kollha fl-isem tal-libert? reli?ju?a. Il-?addiema kollha nonexempt fil-kumpaniji u l-Istituzzjonijiet se jie?du tnaqqis paga.

  37. Kontroversen raser over Obama-administrasjonens foresl?tte (og senere modifisert)-Inkludert arbeidsgivers mandat at alle katolske sykehus og universiteter inkluderer gratis-prevensjon i sine ansattes helse forsikringer. Katolske tjenestemenn objekt siden at deres kirke forbyr prevensjon, bryter dekretet First Amendment beskyttelse av religi?s frihet. Andre har sluttet i protest, prudently At forutse dette brudd p? samvittighetsfrihet kunne spre seg til andre saker og andre trosretninger.

    De heve innvending har en uangripelig sak. Den presedens satt i de tilsynelatende mer enn to bokser som allerede stater har lignende mandater er irrelevant. Hva er umoralsk ikke blir moralsk bare ved presedens. Prinsippet om at ingen skal bli tvunget til ? finansiere at alt det som han eller hun finner avskyelig er lyd. Faktisk b?r det v?re Applied genet rally.

    Endre Emne

    Forsvarere av dekretet er ganske flinke til ? endre faget. Selvf?lgelig de er – de har f?tt hva ellers? For ? h?re dem, ville du tror noen har foresl?tt at prevensjon ogs? forbys. (Vel, Rick Santorum som ikke ser ut til ? favorisere, men han er ganske mye alene.) Obamacare Champions ville ha oss til ? tro at striden handler om “access” til ‘visse produkter og tjenester. All dekretet ikke, sier de, er forsynet forsikringsdekning for, og f? tilgang til kraftige derfor til gratis prevensjon (alongwith andre forebyggende tjenester) for kvinner som ?nsker det. Men det reiser bare et annet sp?rsm?l:

    Hva har dette med saken ? gj?re forsikring?

    Tilgang er ikke avhengig av dekning. Vi har tilgang til mange viktige ting som ikke dekkes av forsikringen. Nifs, noen sier dekretet faktisk bekrefter religi?s frihet. Hvordan det? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, og Patty Murray forklart i Wall Street Journal: “. [T] han millioner av amerikanske kvinner som velger ? bruke prevensjon b?r ikke bli tvunget til ? f?lge religi?se l?ren katolikk eller ikke-katolske”

    Med andre ord, er mangel p? forsikringsdekning for prevensjon ikke tilsvarer blir tvunget til ? bruke prevensjon. Det er litt merkelig argument, men det er hva vi er vant til fra medlemmer av “verdens st?rste deliberative kropp.”

    Vel?

    S? sp?rsm?let er fortsatt som: Hva har dette med saken ? gj?re forsikring?

    “Tilgang til prevensjon er direkte knyttet til nedgang i m?dre-og spedbarnsd?delighet, kan redusere risikoen for eggstokkreft, og er knyttet til generelt god helse utfall,” Sens Boxer, Shaheen, og Murray skrive.

    Fin, men hva er det med saken ? gj?re forsikring?

    “[B] vei ningen tilgang til prevensjon vil bidra til ? redusere antall u?nskede svangerskap og aborter, b?r en m?l vi alle deler.”

    Fin, men hva er det med saken ? gj?re forsikring?

    “Riktig familieplanlegging gjennom prevensjon resulterer i sunnere m?dre og barn, alt som gagner oss alle.”

    Fin, men hva er det med saken ? gj?re forsikring?

    “Det sparer oss penger ogs? ….”

    Fin, men hva er det med saken ? gj?re forsikring?

    “Det kan koste $ 600 i ?ret for reseptbelagte piller.” (Det er en high-end anslag, er det rimeligere alternativer, inkludert Planned Parenthood for fattige kvinner.)

    Fin, men hva er det med saken ? gj?re forsikring?

    “Noen 99% av kvinner i USA som er seksuelt aktive eller har etappe p? et tidspunkt i livet har overused prevensjon, inkludert 98% av katolske kvinner, if?lge Guttmacher Institute.”

    Fin, men hva er det med saken ? gj?re-oh Nevermind. Jeg skal svare meg selv: Det er ingenting ? gj?re med forsikring.

    Risiko Pooling

    Forsikring for enkeltpersoner oppsto som en m?te ? samle risiko, eller noen low-probability/high-cost Deres ulykke befalling dem. Det burde ikke v?re n?dvendig ? p?peke dette, men kommer i fruktbar alder og velge ? bruke prevensjon er ikke en forsikringsverdi hendelse. Det er en viljebestemte handling. Det kan ha gode Konsekvenser for personen tar handlingen og samfunnet for ?vrig, men det er fortsatt en viljebestemte handling. Det gir ingen mening ? snakke om ? forsikre mot eventualitet at en bestemt person vil bruke prevensjon. Strengt tatt har Prevensjon ingenting ? gj?re med forsikring.

    Dessverre har vi ikke snakke strengt om helseforsikring. En grunn til at vi gj?r er skatte-koden. Siden andre verdenskrig kompensasjon for arbeidskraft i form av sysselsetting-baserte helseforsikring regnes ikke som skattepliktig inntekt. (Penger brukt Uavhengig om helseforsikring teller.) Skatte-koden Galanthus Oppretter perverse incentiver til 1) avhenger av ens arbeidsgiver for medisinsk forsikring, 2) skift inntekter fra likvidere kontanter til begrensede trygdeytelser, og 3) definerer uninsurable arrangementer som forsikringsverdien. Ville noen bryr ? forklare hvor godt barnet omsorg kan v?re forsikringsverdien?

    S? vi m? beskatningen takke for enda en funksjon i den moderne verden: korrumpering av spr?k. I den medisinske verden lunge Betyr forsikring ingen forsikring.

    I stedet er det et spill ved Alt som vi f?r andre mennesker til ? betale for ting. Vel, det er ikke helt n?yaktige. Det er faktisk et spill der vi later som andre folk betale for ting. Se, Prevensjon, mammografi, koloskopier, og godt Babypleie er ikke gratis. (Se min “Det finnes ikke noe slikt som en gratis Mammogram.”) De arbeidskraft krav og ressurser for alle som eierne ?nsker-ikke-? bli besatt urimelig kompensert. Noen m? betale. Dersom arbeidsgivers nominelt er tvunget til ? betale for dekningen, er det noen som tviler at de ansatte faktisk vil betale gjennom lavere kontant l?nn? Arbeidsgivere er ikke veldedighetsorganisasjoner. S? selv uten en copayment, vi alle vet innerst inne at vi som arbeidstakere betaler for dekningen. (Som forresten er sannsynligvis ? v?re dyrere enn de tjenestene ville bli frigjort i et marked, siden forsikringsselskapene vil kreve mer for overhead og deres problemer. Ogs? subsidiert ettersp?rsel ?ker prisene.) Likevel er sannheten slik t?kela at folk kan later de f?r noe gratis.

    S? regjeringen genererte systemet behandler oss som barn, og akk de fleste av oss glad for ? bli behandlet virke slik.

    Obamas “Kompromiss”

    Under press, ble Obama-administrasjonen forventes ? annonsere et “kompromiss” Alle som fritatt under katolske Arbeidsgiverne ville ikke ? betale for prevensjon dekning. I stedet forsikringsselskapene ville forsyn dekning direkte til ansatte. Siden henhold Helse-og omsorgsminister regler, m? denne dekningen v?re gratis, er det Obama-administrasjonen i kraft regi Assurand?rer ? spise kostnadene. Men forsikringsselskapene er allmennyttige selskaper, ikke veldedighetsorganisasjoner, s? vi kan forvente at de skal passere kostnadene til noen andre. Men til hvem? Det er bare ?n mulighet: nonexempt arbeidsgiver, som betyr faktisk nonexempt ansatte eller bedrifter. S? den store kompromisset dytter kostnaden fra en liten minoritet av de ansatte ? bestemme Majority – alt i navnet av religi?s frihet. Alle nonexempt arbeidere i bedrifter og institusjoner vil g? ned i l?nn.

  38. Szaleje kontrowersje administracji Obamy zaproponowa? (a p??niej zmodyfikowane)-tym pracodawc? mandatem, ?e wszystkie katolickie szpitale i uniwersytety zawiera? wolnego antykoncepcji w ich polityce zdrowotnej pracowniczych ubezpiecze?. Katolicki obiekt urz?dnicy poniewa?, ?e ich Ko?ci?? zabrania antykoncepcji, dekret narusza Pierwsz? Poprawk? na ochron? wolno?ci religijnej. Inni przy??czyli si? do protestu, roztropnie To Przewiduj?c takie naruszenie wolno?ci sumienia mo?e rozprzestrzeni? si? do innych spraw i wyzna? innych.

    Ci, podnosz?c zarzut ma nieskazitelnego spraw?. Precedensu w pozornie wi?cej ni? dw?ch p?l, kt?re ju? pa?stwa maj? podobne mandat?w nie ma znaczenia. Co jest niemoralne nie staje si? moralne po prostu precedensu. Zasada, ?e ??nikt nie powinien by? zmuszany do finansowania ?e wszystko, co on lub ona znajduje odra?aj?ce jest d?wi?k. W rzeczywisto?ci, powinno si? je stosowa? rajd gen?w.

    Zmiany przedmiotu

    Obro?cy dekretu s? ca?kiem dobre na zmieniaj?c temat. Oczywi?cie s? – Maj? co jeszcze? Aby je us?ysze?, mo?na pomy?le?, kto? zaproponowa?, ?e antykoncepcja jest zakazana. (C??, Rick Santorum To wydaje si? faworyzowa?, ale jest do?? du?o spokoju.) Mistrzowie Obamacare chcieliby nam wm?wi? sp?r jest o “dost?p” do “niekt?re produkty i us?ugi. Wszystko dekret ma, jak m?wi?, jest ubezpieczenie Opatrzno?ci, a dost?p pot??ny Dlatego do bezp?atnej antykoncepcji (alongwith inne zapobiegawcze) dla kobiet, kt?re chc? j?. Ale to tylko rodzi kolejne pytanie:

    Co to ma wsp?lnego z ubezpieczeniem?

    Dost?p nie zale?y od zasi?gu. Mamy dost?p do wielu wa?nych rzeczy, kt?re nie s? obj?te ubezpieczeniem. Dziwnie, niekt?rzy m?wi?, dekret rzeczywi?cie potwierdza wolno?? religijn?. W jaki spos?b? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen i Patty Murray wyja?nione w Wall Street Journal “. [T] on miliony ameryka?skich kobiet, kt?re zdecyduj? si? na stosowanie ?rodk?w antykoncepcyjnych nie powinien by? zmuszany do na?ladowania doktryny religijnej, czy katolik czy niekatolik”

    Innymi s?owy, brak ubezpieczenia do antykoncepcji nie jest r?wnoznaczne z zmuszony do korzystania z antykoncepcji. To jest jaki? dziwny argument, ale to co my oczekujemy od cz?onk?w “?wiat najwi?kszego cia?a dyskusyjnego”.

    Dobrze?

    Wi?c pozostaje pytanie: Co to ma wsp?lnego z ubezpieczeniem?

    “Dost?p do antykoncepcji jest bezpo?rednio zwi?zana spadk?w ?miertelno?ci matek i noworodk?w, mo?e zmniejszy? ryzyko raka jajnika i jest zwi?zany z og?lnym dobrym stanie zdrowia,” Sens Boxer, Shaheen, a Murray pisa?.

    Dobrze, ale co to ma wsp?lnego z ubezpieczeniem?

    “[B] rozporz?dzenia dojazd do kontroli urodze? pomo?e zmniejszy? liczb? niechcianych ci?? i aborcji, gdyby celem nas wszystkich.”

    Dobrze, ale co to ma wsp?lnego z ubezpieczeniem?

    “Prawid?owe planowanie rodziny poprzez wynik?w kontroli urodze? zdrowszych matek i dzieci, wszystkie, kt?re przynosi korzy?ci nam wszystkim.”

    Dobrze, ale co to ma wsp?lnego z ubezpieczeniem?

    “To oszcz?dza nam pieni?dze za ….”

    Dobrze, ale co to ma wsp?lnego z ubezpieczeniem?

    “To mo?e kosztowa? 600 dolar?w rocznie na recepty ?rodk?w antykoncepcyjnych.” (To wysokiej klasy szacunek, s? ni?sze opcje koszt?w, ??cznie z Planned Parenthood dla kobiet o niskich dochodach).

    Dobrze, ale co to ma wsp?lnego z ubezpieczeniem?

    “Oko?o 99% kobiet w USA, kt?rzy s? aktywni seksualnie lub mie? nog? w pewnym momencie w ich ?ycie nadu?ywane kontroli urodze?, w tym 98 procent kobiet katolickich Wed?ug Guttmacher Institute.”

    Dobrze, ale co to ma wsp?lnego z-oh Nevermind. Ja odpowiem sobie: To ma nic wsp?lnego z ubezpieczeniem.

    Ryzyko Pooling

    Ubezpieczenia dla indywidualist?w powstawa?a jako spos?b na ryzyko basen, lub jaki? low-probability/high-cost Ich nieszcz??cie im befalling. To nie powinno by? konieczne zwr?ci? na to uwag?, ale przyj?cie wieku rozrodczym i decyduje si? na stosowanie ?rodk?w antykoncepcyjnych nie jest ubezpieczeniem zdarzenia. To wolicjonalne akt. To mo?e mie? dobre skutki dla osoby podejmuj?cej dzia?ania i spo?ecze?stwa w og?le, ale wci?? jest wolicjonalne akt. Nie ma sensu m?wi? o ubezpieczenia od istnieje mo?liwo??, ?e dana osoba b?dzie stosowa? antykoncepcj?. ?ci?le m?wi?c, antykoncepcja nie ma nic wsp?lnego z ubezpieczeniem.

    Niestety, nie m?wimy wy??cznie o ubezpieczeniu zdrowotnym. Jednym z powod?w mo?emy zrobi?, to podatek kodu. Od czas?w II wojny odszkodowania za prac? w formie zatrudnienia opartego na ubezpieczenie zdrowotne nie liczy si? jako doch?d podlegaj?cy opodatkowaniu. (Pieni?dze wydane Niezale?nie od ubezpieczenia zdrowotnego nie liczy.) Podatek kod Galanthus Tworzy perwersyjne bod?ce do: 1) zale?y od w?asnego pracodawcy na ubezpieczenie zdrowotne, 2) doch?d shift z likwidacji got?wki do ograniczonych ?wiadcze? z ubezpieczenia, 3) okre?lenie nieobj?tego ubezpieczeniem wydarzenia jak ubezpieczeniu. Czy kto? dba o wyja?nienie, jak dobrze dziecko opieka mo?e by? ubezpieczeniu?

    Mamy wi?c opodatkowanie podzi?kowa? za kolejn? cech? wsp??czesnego ?wiata: korupcja j?zyku. W medycynie p?uc realm oznacza ubezpieczenie nie s? ubezpieczeni.

    ZAMIAST jest to gra o wszystko co mamy innych ludzi do p?acenia za rzeczy. Dobrze, ?e nie ca?kiem dok?adne. Tak naprawd? gra, w kt?rej udajemy, ?e inni ludzie p?ac? za rzeczy. S?uchaj, Antykoncepcja, Mammografia, kolonoskopie i dobrze dziecko opieka nie jest bezp?atna. (Patrz m?j “Nie ma takiej rzeczy jak darmowy mammografii.”) One wym?g pracy i zasoby dla wszystkich, kt?re w?a?ciciele chc?-nie-by? op?tany nadmiernie kompensowane. Kto? musi zap?aci?. Je?li pracodawca jest nominalnie s? zmuszone p?aci? za ubezpieczenia, czy kto? powa?nie w?tpi?, ?e pracownicy faktycznie p?aci? za ni?sze p?ace pieni??ne? Pracodawcy nie s? organizacje charytatywne. Wi?c nawet bez copayment, wszyscy wiemy w g??bi duszy, ?e my jako pracownicy p?ac? za ubezpieczenia. (Co zreszt? mo?e by? dro?sze ni? us?ugi b?dzie uwolniony na rynku, gdy? towarzystwa ubezpieczeniowe b?d? ??da? wi?cej za napowietrznych i ich k?opotu. R?wnie? dotowane popyt powoduje wzrost cen). Jednak prawda jest tak Obscured, ?e ludzie mog? udawa?, ?e dostajesz co? za darmo.

    Wi?c rz?d wygenerowany system traktuje nas jak dzieci, a niestety wi?kszo?? z nas z przyjemno?ci? by? traktowane wydawa?, ?e tak.

    Obamy “kompromis”

    Pod presj?, administracja Obamy mia? og?osi? “kompromis” Wszystko co zwalnia pod katolickich Pracodawc?w nie b?dzie musia? p?aci? za ubezpieczenia antykoncepcji. ZAMIAST, firmy ubezpieczeniowe by opatrzno?? pokrycia bezpo?rednio do pracownik?w. Poniewa? w Health and Human Services regu?, pokrycie to musi by? wolny, administracja Obamy jest w efekcie kieruj?c ubezpieczycielom je?? koszt. Ale Ubezpieczyciele s? zarobkowego firmy, a nie organizacje charytatywne, wi?c mo?emy spodziewa? si? im przekaza? koszt komu? innemu. Ale do kogo? Jest tylko jedna mo?liwo??: pracodawca nonexempt s, co oznacza w rzeczywisto?ci pracownik?w nonexempt lub firm. Tak wi?c wielki kompromis przesuwa koszt od niewielkiej grupy pracownik?w w celu ustalenia wi?kszo?? – wszystko w imi? wolno?ci religijnej. Wszystkie nonexempt pracownicy firm i instytucji b?d? ci?cia p?ac.

  39. Grassa controv?rsia sobre a administra??o Obama est? proposto (e mais tarde modificado)-Incluindo mandato empregador que todos os hospitais e as universidades cat?licas incluem Contracep??o-livres em suas ap?lices de seguro de sa?de dos empregados. Objeto funcion?rios Cat?lica desde que a sua igreja pro?be a contracep??o, o decreto viola a prote??o da Primeira Emenda da liberdade religiosa. Outros se juntaram ao protesto, prudentemente, que a antecipa??o esta viola??o da liberdade de consci?ncia pode se espalhar para outros assuntos e outras f?s.

    Aqueles levantar a obje??o tem um caso incontest?vel. O precedente estabelecido nos aparentemente mais do que duas caixas que j? os Estados t?m mandatos semelhantes ? irrelevante. O que ? imoral n?o se torne moral simplesmente pelo precedente. O princ?pio de que ningu?m deve ser obrigado a financiar que tudo o que ele ou ela encontra ? abomin?vel som. Na verdade, ela deve ser aplicada rali gene.

    Mudando o assunto

    Os defensores do decreto s?o muito bons em mudar o assunto. Claro que s?o – Eles t?m o que mais? Para ouvi-los, voc? pensaria que algu?m prop?s que a contracep??o ser banida. (Bem, Rick Santorum Isso parece favorecer, mas ele ? muito bonito sozinho.) Campe?es Obamacare nos querem fazer crer a pol?mica ? sobre o “acesso” a ‘certos produtos e servi?os. Todo o decreto que, dizem, ? a provid?ncia de cobertura de seguros para, e acessar poderoso Portanto, para contracep??o livre (junto de outros servi?os de preven??o) para as mulheres que querem. Mas isso s? levanta outra quest?o:

    O que isso tem a ver com o seguro?

    Acesso n?o depende da cobertura. Temos acesso a muitas coisas importantes n?o cobertos por seguros. Estranhamente, alguns dizem que o decreto de fato afirma a liberdade religiosa. Como assim? Senadores Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, e Patty Murray explicou no Wall Street Journal: “. [T] que milh?es de mulheres americanas que optam por utilizar um m?todo contraceptivo n?o deve ser for?ado a seguir a doutrina religiosa, seja cat?lica ou n?o cat?lica”

    Em outras palavras, a falta de cobertura de seguro para a contracep??o n?o ? equivalente a ser for?ado a usar contracep??o. Isso ? um argumento estranho, mas ? o que temos vindo a esperar de membros da “maior organiza??o mundial deliberativo.”

    Bem?

    Ent?o a quest?o permanece como: O que isso tem a ver com o seguro?

    “O acesso ao controle de natalidade est? diretamente ligada ao decl?nio da mortalidade materna e infantil, pode reduzir o risco de c?ncer de ov?rio, e est? ligada a resultados gerais de boa sa?de”, os senadores Boxer, Shaheen, e Murray escrever.

    Tudo bem, mas o que isso tem a ver com o seguro?

    “[B] Regulamento estrada de acesso ao controle de natalidade vai ajudar a reduzir o n?mero de gravidezes indesejadas e abortos, se um objectivo que todos partilhamos”.

    Tudo bem, mas o que isso tem a ver com o seguro?

    “Planejamento familiar adequado atrav?s dos resultados do controlo da natalidade em m?es e crian?as, Todos que beneficia a todos n?s.”

    Tudo bem, mas o que isso tem a ver com o seguro?

    “Ele salva-nos muito dinheiro ….”

    Tudo bem, mas o que isso tem a ver com o seguro?

    “Isso pode custar US $ 600 por ano para prescri??o de contraceptivos.” (Isso ? uma estimativa high-end, existem op??es de menor custo, incluindo a Planned Parenthood para mulheres de baixa renda.)

    Tudo bem, mas o que isso tem a ver com o seguro?

    “Cerca de 99% das mulheres os EUA que s?o sexualmente ativos ou ter a perna em algum momento de suas vidas t?m controle de natalidade em demasia, incluindo 98% das mulheres cat?licas, segundo o Instituto Guttmacher.”

    Tudo bem, mas o que isso tem a ver com-Oh, esque?a. Eu vou responder a mim mesmo: N?o tem nada a ver com o seguro.

    Risco Pooling

    Seguro para pessoas Surgiu como uma forma de risco piscina, ou algum low-probability/high-cost Sua befalling desgra?a deles. N?o deve ser necess?rio para apontar isso, mas vinda de idade f?rtil e escolhendo a usar a contracep??o n?o ? um evento seguro. ? um ato volitivo. Ele pode ter conseq??ncias boas para a pessoa tomar a a??o ea sociedade em geral, mas ainda ? um ato volitivo. N?o faz sentido falar de seguro contra a possibilidade que uma determinada pessoa vai usar um m?todo contraceptivo. Estritamente falando, a contracep??o n?o tem nada a ver com o seguro.

    Infelizmente, n?s n?o falamos estritamente sobre seguro de sa?de. Uma raz?o que fazemos ? o c?digo tribut?rio. Desde a Segunda Guerra II compensa??o para o trabalho sob a forma de trabalho baseada no seguro de sa?de n?o conta como rendimento tribut?vel. (O dinheiro gasto Independentemente do seguro de sa?de, n?o contam.) O imposto sobre o c?digo Galanthus Cria incentivos perversos a 1) dependem de um empregador para o seguro m?dico, 2) a renda mudan?a de liquidar em dinheiro para os benef?cios de seguro restritas, e 3) definir eventos n?o segur?veis ??como seguro. Ser? que algu?m poderia explicar como cuidar bem do beb?-cuidado pode ser objecto de seguro?

    Ent?o n?s temos a agradecer a tributa??o ainda uma outra caracter?stica do mundo moderno: a corrup??o da linguagem. No pulm?o campo da medicina, o seguro sem seguro.

    Vez disso, ? um jogo por tudo que temos outras pessoas para pagar o material. Bem, isso n?o ? muito preciso. ? realmente um jogo em que n?s fingimos que outras pessoas pagam por coisas. Olha, Contracep??o, mamografias, colonoscopias e bem-cuidado do beb? n?o s?o livres. (Veja o meu “N?o h? tal coisa como uma mamografia gratuita.”) Eles exig?ncia de trabalho e recursos para todos os propriet?rios que desejarem-n?o-ser possu?do indevidamente compensados. Algu?m tem que pagar. Se empregador nominalmente s?o obrigados a pagar pela cobertura, algu?m duvidar seriamente de que os funcion?rios v?o realmente pagar atrav?s de sal?rios mais baixos em dinheiro? Os empregadores n?o s?o institui??es de caridade. Assim, mesmo sem um co-pagamento, todos n?s sabemos que no fundo n?s, como os trabalhadores pagam para a cobertura. (Que por sinal ? prov?vel que seja mais caro do que os servi?os seriam libertados em um mercado, uma vez que companhias de seguros v?o cobrar mais por cima e seus problemas. Tamb?m demanda eleva os pre?os subsidiados.) No entanto, a verdade ? obscurecida dessa forma que as pessoas podem fingir que est? recebendo algo de gra?a.

    Assim, o sistema de governo gerado nos trata como filhos, e infelizmente a maioria de n?s feliz de ser tratado parece que maneira.

    “Compromisso” de Obama

    Sob press?o, a administra??o Obama era esperado para anunciar um “compromisso” Todos que isentar sob empregadores cat?licos n?o teria que pagar para a cobertura de contracep??o. Instead, as companhias de seguros seria provid?ncia a cobertura diretamente aos empregados. Por for?a das regras de Sa?de e Servi?os Humanos, essa cobertura deve ser livre, a administra??o Obama est? em vigor dirigir seguradoras para comer o custo. Mas as seguradoras s?o empresas com fins lucrativos, e n?o institui??es de caridade, ent?o podemos esperar que eles passem o custo para algu?m. Mas para quem? H? apenas uma possibilidade: empregador n?o isento, o que significa em funcion?rios fato de n?o isento ou empresas. Assim, o compromisso grand muda o custo de uma pequena minoria de empregados para determinar a Maioria – tudo em nome da liberdade religiosa. Todos os trabalhadores n?o isento em empresas e institui??es ter?o um corte de pagamento.

  40. Furie controversa Administra?ia lui Obama a propus (si mai tarziu modificat)-Inclusiv mandatul angajatorului ca toate spitalele catolice ?i universit??i includ liber-contracep?ie ?n politicile lor de asigurare de s?n?tate ale angaja?ilor. Catolic obiect oficialii din moment ce biserica lor interzice Contracep?ia, decretul ?ncalc? Primul Amendament de protec?ie a libert??ii religioase. Al?ii s-au al?turat ?n semn de protest, cu pruden?? Asta Anticip?nd aceast? ?nc?lcare a libert??ii de con?tiin?? ar putea raspandi la alte aspecte ?i alte credin?e.

    Cei care ridica obiec?ii au un caz incontestabil. Precedent stabilit ?n aparen?? mai mult de dou? cutii de statele care deja au mandate similare este lipsit de relevan??. Ceea ce este imoral s? nu devin? moral? pur ?i simplu de precedent. Principiul c? nimeni nu ar trebui s? fie obliga?i s? finan?eze ca tot ce el sau ea g?se?te resping?toare este solid?. De fapt, acesta ar trebui aplicat de raliu gena.

    Schimbarea Subiect

    Ap?r?torii decret sunt destul de bun la schimbarea subiectului. Bine?n?eles c? sunt de – Ei au primit ceea ce altceva? Pentru a le auzi, ai crede c? cineva a propus ca s? fie scos ?n afara legii contracep?ie. (Ei bine, Rick Santorum Asta pare s? favorizeze, dar e destul de mult singur.) Campionii Obamacare ar fi s? ne credem controverse este despre “accesul” la “unele produse ?i servicii. Toate decret nu, spun ei, este o acoperire de asigurare pentru providen?a, ?i accesul puternic Prin urmare, la contraceptive gratuite (alongwith alte servicii de prevenire), pentru femeile care-l doresc. Dar asta doar ridic? o alt? ?ntrebare:

    Ce a fost acest lucru de-a face cu asigurare?

    Access nu depinde de acoperire. Avem acces la multe lucruri importante care nu sunt acoperite de asigurare. Ciudat, unii spun decretul afirm? de fapt, libertatea religioas?. Cum a?a? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, ?i Patty Murray explicate ?n Wall Street Journal: “. [T] a milioane de femei americane care aleg s? utilizeze metode contraceptive, nu trebuie s? fie for?at s? urmeze doctrina religioas?, fie catolice sau non-catolic”

    Cu alte cuvinte, lipsa de acoperire de asigurare pentru contraceptie nu este echivalent cu a fi obliga?i s? utilizeze metode contraceptive. Acesta este un argument ciudat, dar este ceea ce am ajuns s? a?tept?m de la membri ai “lumii cel mai mare organ deliberativ.”

    Ei bine?

    Deci, ?ntrebarea r?m?ne: Ce a fost acest lucru de-a face cu asigurare?

    “Accesul la controlul na?terii este direct legat la un declin al mortalit??ii materne ?i infantile, poate reduce riscul de cancer ovarian, ?i este legat? de rezultatele generale de sanatate bune,” Sens Boxer, Shaheen, ?i Murray a scrie.

    Bine, dar ceea ce este ea de-a face cu asigurare?

    “[B], drum de acces la Regulamentul de control al nasterii va contribui la reducerea num?rului de sarcini nedorite ?i de avorturi, cazul ?n care un obiectiv ne ?mp?rt??im cu to?ii.”

    Bine, dar ceea ce este ea de-a face cu asigurare?

    “Planificare a familiei corespunz?toare de control al nasterii, prin rezultatele din mame s?n?toase ?i copii, toate care beneficiaza de toate noi.”

    Bine, dar ceea ce este ea de-a face cu asigurare?

    “Ea ne salveaz? de bani prea ….”

    Bine, dar ceea ce este ea de-a face cu asigurare?

    “Se poate costa 600 dolari pe an pentru contraceptive baza de prescriptie medicala.” (Aceasta este o estimare high-end, exist? op?iuni inferioare costurilor, inclusiv Planned Parenthood pentru femeile cu venituri mici.)

    Bine, dar ceea ce este ea de-a face cu asigurare?

    “Aproximativ 99% din femeile din SUA, care sunt active sexual sau au picior la un moment dat in viata lor de control al natalit??ii au suprasolicitate, inclusiv 98% din femeile catolice, potrivit Institutului Guttmacher.”

    Bine, dar ceea ce este ea de-a face cu-oh Nevermind. Ma voi r?spunde: Nu are nimic de-a face cu asigurare.

    De cumulare a riscului

    Asigurare pentru persoane fizice au ap?rut ca o modalitate de a riscului de piscina, sau unele low-probability/high-cost befalling lor nenorocire le. Nu ar trebui s? fie necesar s? se sublinieze acest lucru, dar care provin de la v?rsta fertil? ?i aleg?nd s? foloseasc? metode contraceptive, nu este un eveniment asigurabil. Este un act volitiv. Aceasta poate avea consecin?e bune pentru persoana care ac?iunea ?i a societ??ii ?n general, dar acesta este ?nc? un act volitiv. Nu are nici un sens s? vorbim despre asigurarea ?mpotriva eventualitatea c? anumite persoane vor folosi contraceptive. Strict vorbind, contraceptie nu are nimic de-a face cu asigurare.

    Din p?cate, noi nu vorbim strict despre asigur?ri de s?n?tate. Un motiv facem este codul fiscal. Din al doilea r?zboi mondial de compensare al II-lea pentru a for?ei de munc? ?n form? de asigur?ri de s?n?tate bazat pe ocuparea for?ei de munc? nu este considerat ca venit impozabil. (Banii cheltui?i independent privind asigur?rile de s?n?tate nu conteaz?.) Codul fiscal Galanthus creeaz? stimulente perverse la 1) depinde de angajator una pentru asigurare medical?, 2) veniturile trecerea de la lichidarea de numerar pentru a presta?iilor de asigur?ri de restr?nse, ?i 3) defini evenimentele nu pot fi asigurate ca asigurabil. Ar fi cineva grij? s? explice c?t de bine-de ?ngrijire copilul poate fi asigurat?

    Deci, avem impozitare s? mul?umim ?nc? o caracteristic? a lumii moderne: corup?ia a limbii. ?n domeniul medical pulmonar ?nseamn? o asigurare nici o asigurare.

    ?n schimb, acesta este un joc de tot ceea ce ne face pe oameni s? pl?teasc? pentru alte lucruri. Ei bine, c? nu e destul de exacte. Este de fapt un joc in care ne prefacem c? alte persoane pentru a pl?ti lucruri. Uite, Contracep?ia, mamografii, colonoscopii, ?i bine-Baby Care nu sunt gratuite. (A se vedea meu “Nu exist? nici un astfel de lucru ca o mamografie gratuit.”) Au obliga?ia de munc? ?i resurse pentru to?i proprietarii care doresc s?-nu-fi posedat nejustificat compensate. Cineva trebuie s? pl?teasc?. Dac? angajatorul este nominal sunt obliga?i s? pl?teasc? pentru acoperirea, nimeni nu ?ndoiesc c? angaja?ii vor pl?ti de fapt, prin salarii mai mici de numerar? Angajatorii nu sunt organiza?ii de caritate. Deci, chiar f?r? o copayment, noi to?i ?tiu ad?nc ?n jos ca noi, ca muncitorii pl?ti?i pentru acoperire. (Care, apropo, este probabil s? fie mai scumpe dec?t serviciile ar fi eliberat ?ntr-o pia??, deoarece companiile de asigur?ri se va percepe mai mult de deasupra capului ?i probleme lor. De asemenea, cererea cre?te pre?urile subven?ionate.) Cu toate acestea, adev?rul este at?t de Obscured ?nc?t oamenii s? poat? pretinde c? primesc ceva gratis.

    Deci, sistemul de guvernare, generat de noi trateaza ca si copiii, ?i din p?cate cele mai multe dintre noi ferici?i s? fie tratate pare c? felul.

    Lui Obama “de compromis”

    Sub presiunea, administra?ia Obama a fost de a?teptat s? anun?e un “compromis” To?i care scutite ?n temeiul Angajatorii catolice nu ar trebui s? pl?teasc? pentru acoperirea contracep?ie. ?n schimb, societ??ile de asigur?ri ar providen?a acoperire direct de angaja?i. Deoarece ?n conformitate cu normele de S?n?tate ?i Servicii Umane, aceast? acoperire trebuie s? fie liber, administra?ia Obama este ?n vigoare conducerea asiguratorilor s? m?n?nce costul. Asiguratorii sunt, dar profit de luare de companii, nu de caritate, astfel ?nc?t ne putem a?tepta s? treac? costurile de altcineva. Dar pentru cine? Exist? doar o singur? posibilitate: nonexempt angajatorului, ceea ce ?nseamn? ?n fapt de angaja?i nonexempt sau companii. Deci, marele compromis trece costul de la o mic? minoritate de angaja?i pentru a determina majoritatea – toate ?n numele libert??ii religioase. To?i lucr?torii nonexempt ?n companiile ?i institu?iile vor avea o reducere de salarizare.

  41. Spor z?ri nad Obamovej vl?dy n?vrh (a nesk?r upraven?), vr?tane zamestn?vate?ov aby sa v?etky katol?cke nemocnice a univerzity zah??a? vo?n? antikoncepcie v ich zamestnaneck? zdravotn? pois?ovne. Katol?cka ?radn?ci objekt, preto?e to cirkev zakazuje antikoncepciu Ich, vyhl??ka poru?uje prv?m dodatkom ?stavy na ochranu n?bo?enskej slobody. In? sa zapojila do protestu, obozretne predv?danie toto poru?enie slobody svedomia sa m??e roz??ri? na ?al?ie oblasti a in?ch vyznan?.

    T? zv??enie n?mietky maj? nespochybnite?n?m stup?om pr?pad. Precedens odohr?va v zdanlivo viac ako dva boxy, ktor? u? maj? podobn? stavy mand?tov, je irelevantn?. ?o je Nemor?lne nestane mor?lne jednoducho t?m, ?e precedens. Z?sada, ?e nikto by nemal by? n?ten? k financovaniu to cel? ktor? on alebo ona zist?, nepr?pustn? je zdrav?. V skuto?nosti by mal by? pou?it? g?n rally.

    Zmena Predmet

    Obhajcovia vyhl??ky s? celkom dobr? na zmenu t?my. Samozrejme s? – Maj? ?o in?? Ak chcete po?u?, budete si myslie?, ?e niekto navrhol, aby Antikoncepcia by? zak?zan?. (No, Rick Santorum To sa zrejme prednos?, ale je do zna?nej miery s?m.) Obamacare v??azovi by, aby sme verili, ?e tento spor je o “access” “ur?it?ch v?robkov a slu?ieb. V?etky vyhl??ky sa, oni hovoria, je prozrete?nos? poistenie pre, a pr?stup k silnej preto, vo?n? antikoncepcie (alongwith ?al?ie prevent?vne slu?by) pre ?eny, ktor? chc? to. Ale to len vyvol?va ?al?iu ot?zku:

    ?o sa to m? urobi? s poisten?m?

    Pr?stup nie je z?visl? na pokrytie. M?me pr?stup k mnoh?m d?le?it?ch vec?, na ktor? sa nevz?ahuje poistenie. Podivne, niektor? hovoria, ?e vyhl??ka v skuto?nosti potvrdzuje n?bo?ensk? slobodu. Ako to? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, a Patty Murray vysvetlil v liste Wall Street Journal: “. [T] on mili?ny americk?ch ?ien, ktor? sa rozhodn? pou??va? antikoncepciu by nemali by? n?ten? nasledova? n?bo?ensk? doktr?nu, ?i u? katol?cka alebo non-katol?cky”

    In?mi slovami, nedostatok poistn?ho krytia pre antikoncepciu nie je ekvivalentn? n?ten? pou??va? antikoncepciu. To je nejak? divn? argument, ale je to, ?o sme si zvykli o?ak?va? od ?lenov “najv????ch svetov?ch poradn? org?n.”

    Tak ?o?

    Tak?e ot?zka zost?va: ?o to m? ?o robi? s poisten?m?

    “Pr?stup ku kontrole p?rodnosti je priamo spojen? s poklesom ?mrtnosti matiek a det?, m??u zn??i? riziko rakoviny vaje?n?kov, a je viazan? na celkov? dobr? v?sledky v oblasti zdravia,” Sens Boxer, Shaheen, a Murray p?sa?.

    Dobre, ale ?o je to ?o do ?inenia s poisten?m?

    “[B] ceste nariadenia, pr?stup k rodi?ovstvu pom??e zn??i? po?et nechcen?ch tehotenstiev a potratov, ?i by cie? n?m v?etk?m.”

    Dobre, ale ?o je to ?o do ?inenia s poisten?m?

    “Spr?vne pl?novanie rodiny na z?klade v?sledkov kontroly p?rodnosti v zdrav?ie matky a deti, v?etci, ktor? prospieva n?m v?etk?m.”

    Dobre, ale ?o je to ?o do ?inenia s poisten?m?

    “To n?m u?etr? peniaze taky ….”

    Dobre, ale ?o je to ?o do ?inenia s poisten?m?

    “To m??e st?? 600 dol?rov ro?ne pre predpis antikoncepcie.” (To je high-end odhad, existuj? menej n?kladn? mo?nosti, vr?tane Planned rodi?ovstvo pre n?zkopr?jmov? ?ien.)

    Dobre, ale ?o je to ?o do ?inenia s poisten?m?

    “Niektor? 99% ?ien v USA, ktor? s? sexu?lne akt?vne, alebo m?te nohu v ur?itom okamihu svojho ?ivota maj? nadmerne antikoncepciu, vr?tane 98% katol?ckych ?ien, pod?a Guttmacher ?stavu.”

    Dobre, ale ?o je to ?o do ?inenia s oh-Nevermind. Ja s?m odpoveda?: Je to nem? ni? spolo?n? s poisten?m.

    Riziko Zdru?ovanie

    Poistenie pre jednotlivca Vznikol ako cesta k baz?nu riziko, alebo nejak? low-probability/high-cost Ich ne??ast?m je postihuj?. To by nemalo by? potrebn? zd?razni? to von, ale pr?chod v plodnom veku a rozhodol som sa pou??va? antikoncepciu, nie je poistnej udalosti. Je to vo?n? akt. To m??e ma? pozit?vne d?sledky pre osoby, ktor? prij?ma toto opatrenie a spolo?nos? ako celok, ale je to st?le vo?n? akt. Nem? zmysel hovori? o poistenie proti pr?pad, ?e ur?it? osoba bude pou??va? antikoncepciu. Presnej?ie povedan?, antikoncepcia nem? ni? spolo?n?ho s poisten?m.

    Bohu?ia?, nem?me hovori? striktne o zdravotnom poisten?. Jedn?m z d?vodov rob?me, je da?ov? z?konn?k. Od druhej svetovej vojny II od?kodnenie za pr?cu v podobe zamestnanosti zalo?enej na zdravotn? poistenie sa nepo??ta ako zdanite?n? pr?jem. (Peniaze str?vil Nez?visle na zdravotn? poistenie sa po??ta.) Da?ov? z?konn?k Galanthus vytv?ra nevhodn? stimuly na 1) z?vis? na nie?? zamestn?vate?a zdravotn? poistenie, 2) posun pr?jmy z likvid?cie hotovosti do vyhraden?ch poistn?ho plnenia, a 3) definova? nepojistiteln? udalosti, ako poisti?. By niekto vysvetli?, ako sa stara? dobre baby starostlivosti m??e by? poistite?n??

    Tak?e m?me zdanenia v?a?? za ?al?ie funkcie modern?ho sveta: korupcia jazyka. V lek?rskej sf?ry p??c je poistenie bez poistenia.

    Namiesto toho je to hra, ktor? v?etko sme si in? ?udia plati? za veci. No, to nie je ?plne presn?. Je to vlastne hra, v ktorej sme Predstavte si, ?e in? ?udia plati? za veci. Pozrite sa, antikoncepcia, mamografy, colonoscopies, a dobre-baby starostlivos? nie je zadarmo. (Pozri m?j “Nie je ?iadna tak? vec ako slobodn? mamogram.”) Maj? pracovn? po?iadavky a zdroje pre v?etky, ktor? majitelia chc?-ne-by? posadnut? neprimerane kompenzova?. Niekto mus? zaplati?. Ak sa zamestn?vate? so nomin?lne s? n?ten? plati? za krytie, m? niekto v??ne pochybujem, ?e zamestnanci bud? skuto?ne plati? prostredn?ctvom ni???ch pe?a?n?ch miezd? Zamestn?vatelia nie s? charity. Tak?e aj bez copayment, v?etci vieme, hlboko, ?e my ako zamestnanci plati? na krytie. (?o je mimochodom pravdepodobne drah?ie ne? slu?by by by? prepusten? na trhu, preto?e pois?ovne bud? ??tova? poplatok za r??iu a ich probl?my. Tie? dotovan? dopyt zvy?uje ceny.) Av?ak je pravda, tak?e Obscured, ?e ?udia m??u predstiera?, ?e dost?vaj? nie?o zadarmo.

    Tak?e vl?da vytv?ran? syst?m spracov?va n?s ako deti, a bohu?ia? v???ina z n?s ??astn?, ?e sa lie?i sa zda?, ?e tak.

    Obamov “kompromis”

    Pod tlakom bola Obamova administrat?va o?ak?va, ?e vyhl?si “kompromis”, ktor? v?etko osloboden? od dane pod?a katol?ckych zamestn?vate?ov nebude musie? plati? za antikoncepcie pokrytie. Namiesto toho by pois?ovne prozrete?nos? pokrytie priamo na zamestnanca. Vzh?adom k tomu, za zdravotn?ctva a soci?lnych slu?ieb pravidiel, mus? to pokrytie je zadarmo, Obamova administrat?va je v podstate r??ii pois?ovate?a k jedlu n?klady. Ale Pois?ovne s? neziskov?mi spolo?nosti, nie charity, tak?e m??eme o?ak?va?, ?e bud? odovzd?va? cenu na niekoho in?ho. Ale pre koho? Existuje len jedna mo?nos?: nonexempt zamestn?vate?a, ?o znamen? u zamestnancov skuto?nosti nonexempt alebo spolo?nos?ami. Tak ve?k? kompromis pres?va n?klady od malej men?iny zamestnancov ur?i? v???inu – to v?etko v mene n?bo?enskej slobody. V?etky nonexempt pracovn?ci firiem a in?tit?ci? bude trva? zn??en? plat.

  42. Kontroverznost divja nad Obamova administracija je predlagal (in kasneje spremenjena)-Vklju?no s pooblastilom delodajalca, da vse katoli?ke bolni?nice in univerze vklju?uje proste kontracepcijo pri svojih zaposlenih politike zdravstvenega zavarovanja. Katoli?ki uradniki objekt, saj da je njihova cerkev prepoveduje kontracepcijo, odlok kr?i za??ito s prvim amandmajem za verske svobode. Drugi so se pridru?ile v protest, preudarno To bi Predvidevanje to kr?itev svobode vesti raz?iril na druge zadeve, in drugih ver.

    Tisti, dvig ugovor imajo nekrivdnega primer. Precedensa v o?itno bolj kot dve polji, ki so ?e ?lanice imajo podobne mandatov ni pomembno. Kaj je Nemoralno ne postane moralno preprosto precedens. Na?elo, da se nih?e prisiljen financirati to vse kar on ali ona najde Odvratan je zvok. Pravzaprav bi bilo treba uporabljati gensko shod.

    Spreminjanje sporo?ila

    Zagovorniki odloka so zelo dobri pri spreminjanju temo. Seveda so – so dobili kaj drugega? Da bi jih sli?ali, bi mislite, da je nekdo predlagal, da se prepovedana kontracepcije. (No, Rick Santorum To pa se zdi, da prednost, vendar je to precej sam.) Bi Obamacare prvaki so nam verjamejo, obstajajo glede “dostop” do “nekateri proizvodi in storitvami. Vse odlok ne, pravijo, je varnostno zavarovanje za in dostop mo?an torej do brezpla?ne kontracepcije (alongwith druge preventivne storitve) za ?enske, ki jo ?elijo. Ampak to samo odpira ?e eno vpra?anje:

    Kaj je to mora? storiti z zavarovanjem?

    Dostop ni odvisna od pokritosti. Imamo dostop do ?tevilnih pomembnih stvari, ki niso zajeti v zavarovanje. Nenavadno, nekateri pravijo odlok dejansko potrjuje, versko svobodo. Kako to? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen in Patty Murray je razlo?eno v Wall Street Journal: “. [T] je na milijone ameri?kih ?ensk, ki se odlo?ijo za uporabo kontracepcijo, se ne sme prisiliti, da sledijo verski nauk, tako katoli?ki ali ne-katoli?ki”

    Z drugimi besedami, pomanjkanje zavarovalnega kritja za kontracepcijo ni enakovredna prisiljeni uporabljati kontracepcije. To je nekaj ?udno trditev, ampak to je tisto, kar smo pri?akujejo od ?lani “najve?ji svetovni posvetovalno telo.”

    No?

    Tako ostaja vpra?anje: Kaj je to mora? storiti z zavarovanjem?

    “Dostop do kontracepcije je neposredno povezan z zmanj?anjem mater in umrljivost dojen?kov, lahko zmanj?a tveganje za raka na jaj?nikih, in je povezano s splo?no dobro zdravje rezultate,” Sens. Boxer, Shaheen in Murray pisati.

    V redu, ampak kaj je to mora? storiti z zavarovanjem?

    “[B] cesta Uredbo dostop do kontracepcije bo pomagalo zmanj?ati ?tevilo ne?elenih nose?nosti in splavov, bi cilj smo vsi delimo.”

    V redu, ampak kaj je to mora? storiti z zavarovanjem?

    “Pravilno na?rtovanje dru?ine s pomo?jo rezultatov rojstvu nadzora v zdravih mater in otrok, vse kar koristi vsem nam.”

    V redu, ampak kaj je to mora? storiti z zavarovanjem?

    “To nam prihrani denar preve? ….”

    V redu, ampak kaj je to mora? storiti z zavarovanjem?

    “To lahko stane 600 $ na leto za recept kontracepcijskih sredstev.” (To je high-end oceno, obstajajo mo?nosti ni?je stro?ke, vklju?no s predvidenimi za star?evstvo z nizkimi dohodki ?ensk.)

    V redu, ampak kaj je to mora? storiti z zavarovanjem?

    “Nekateri 99% ?ensk v ZDA, ki so spolno aktivni ali pa so noge na neki to?ki v svojem ?ivljenju imela overused kontracepcijo, tudi 98 odstotkov ?ensk katoli?kih, glede na Guttmacher in?tituta.”

    V redu, ampak kaj je to mora? storiti s-oh nic. Bom jaz odgovoril: To je dobil ni? opraviti z zavarovanjem.

    Tveganje zdru?evanje

    Zavarovanje za posameznika je nastala kot na?in tveganju bazen, ali nekaj low-probability/high-cost Njihova nesre?a befalling njih. To ne bi bilo treba izpostaviti to ven, ampak prihod v rodni dobi in se odlo?ijo za uporabo kontracepcije ne zavarovati dogodek. To dejanje namerne. Morda imajo dobre posledice za osebo, ki vzame to?bo in dru?bo na splo?no, vendar je ?e vedno namerne dejanje. Nima smisla govoriti o zavarovanju proti mo?nosti je, da bo dolo?ena oseba uporablja kontracepcije. Strogo gledano, kontracepcija nima ni? opraviti z zavarovanjem.

    Na ?alost ne govorimo izklju?no o zdravstvenem zavarovanju. Eden od razlogov mi je dav?na ?tevilka. Od svetovne vojne od?kodnine po delovni sili v obliki dela, ki temelji zdravstvenega zavarovanja, ne ?teje kot obdav?ljiv dohodek. (Denar, porabljen Neodvisno o zdravstvenem zavarovanju pa count.) Dav?na ?tevilka Galanthus Ustvari neprimerne pobude za 1), odvisno od lastnega delodajalca za zdravstveno zavarovanje, 2) shift prihodek od likvidacije denar za omejenega zavarovanja, in 3) opredeliti mo?no zavarovati, dogodke, kot zavarovati. Bi nekdo skrbi, da pojasni, kako je lahko dobro nego otroka zavarovati?

    Zato moramo zahvaliti za obdav?itev ?e eno zna?ilnost sodobnega sveta: korupcije jezika. V zdravstveni plju? Realm pomeni zavarovanje ni zavarovanja.

    Namesto tega je igra za vse, ki smo pri?li drugi ljudje pla?ati za stvari. No, to ni ?isto to?na. To je pravzaprav igra, v kateri smo si, da drugi ljudje pla?ati za stvari. Poglej, kontracepcija, mamografija, colonoscopies, in dobro nego dojen?kov, niso zastonj. (Glej moje “Ni take stvari kot proste mamografije.”) So delovne zahteve in vire za vse, ki so lastniki ?elijo, da ne-bi imel nerazumno od?kodnino. Nekdo mora pla?ati. ?e je delodajalec nominalno so prisiljeni pla?evati za kritje, ali kdo resno dvomi, da bodo zaposleni dejansko pla?ali z ni?jimi pla?ami gotovine? Delodajalci niso dobrodelne ustanove. Torej, tudi brez copayment, vsi vemo, globoko v sebi, da smo kot delavci pla?ati za kritje. (Ki mimogrede verjetno dra?ja, kot bi se osvobodil storitev na trgu, saj bodo zavarovalnice zara?unajo ve? za re?ijske stro?ke in njihovega te?av. Tudi subvencionirana povpra?evanje postavlja cene.) Kljub temu pa je resnica, tako da ljudje lahko Nespodobno pretvarjati, da ste dobili nekaj za prost.

    Tako je vlada ustvari sistem nas obravnava kot otrok, in ?al ve?ina od nas veseli, da se obravnavajo zdi, da na?in.

    Obama “kompromis”

    Pod pritiskom se je Obamova administracija naj bi napovedali “kompromis” Vse, ki opro??a v katoli?kih delodajalcev ne bi morali pla?ati za kritje kontracepcije. Namesto tega bi zavarovalnice varnostno pokritost neposredno zaposlenih. Ker v skladu s pravili zdravje in ?love?ke vire, mora biti ta obseg brezpla?no, Obamova administracija je v bistvu usmerja zavarovatelji, da bi jedli stro?ke. Ampak Zavarovalnice so udele?ena pridobitna podjetja in ne dobrodelne, zato smo lahko pri?akujem, da prenese stro?ke nekomu drugemu. Ampak komu? Obstaja samo ena mo?nost: nonexempt delodajalca, kar pomeni v resnici zaposlenih nonexempt ali podjetja. Torej grand kompromis premakne stro?ke od majhnega manj?ine zaposlenih za dolo?itev ve?ine – vse v imenu verske svobode. Vse nonexempt delavcev v podjetjih in ustanovah bo zni?anje pla?ila.

  43. Surge controversia sobre la administraci?n de Obama ha propuesto (y posteriormente modificado)-en particular las atribuciones del empleador que todos los hospitales y las universidades cat?licas son de libre anticonceptivos en su p?liza de seguro de salud para empleados. Objeto los funcionarios cat?licos desde que su iglesia proh?be la anticoncepci?n, el decreto viola la protecci?n de la Primera Enmienda de la libertad religiosa. Otros se han unido en la protesta, con prudencia que Anticip?ndose a esta violaci?n de la libertad de conciencia podr?a extenderse a otros asuntos y otras religiones.

    Los levantar la objeci?n tiene un caso impecable. El precedente sentado en los aparentemente m?s de dos cajas que ya los estados tienen mandatos similares es irrelevante. Lo que es inmoral no se convierta simplemente moral, por los precedentes. El principio de que nadie debe ser forzado a financiar el que todo lo que ?l o ella considera abominable es el sonido. De hecho, se debe aplicar concentraci?n de genes.

    Cambio del tema

    Los defensores del decreto son muy buenos para cambiar de tema. Por supuesto que s? – Tienen ?qu? m?s? Para escucharlos, uno pensar?a que alguien ha propuesto que la anticoncepci?n se fuera de la ley. (Bueno, Rick Santorum, que no parecen estar a favor, pero est? muy solo.) Campeones Obamacare nos quieren hacer creer que la controversia es sobre “acceso” a los ciertos productos y servicios. Todo el decreto lo hace, dicen, es la providencia de la cobertura de seguros para, y el acceso de gran alcance Por lo tanto, a la anticoncepci?n gratuita (alongwith preventivas otros servicios) para las mujeres que lo deseen. Pero eso s?lo nos lleva a otra pregunta:

    ?Qu? tiene esto que ver con el seguro?

    El acceso no depende de la cobertura. Tenemos acceso a muchas cosas importantes que no est?n cubiertos por el seguro. Extra?amente, algunos dicen que el decreto de hecho afirma la libertad religiosa. ?C?mo es eso? Los senadores Barbara Boxer, Shaheen Jeanne, y Patty Murray Explicado en el Wall Street Journal: “. [L] a millones de mujeres estadounidenses que optan por utilizar un m?todo anticonceptivo no debe ser forzado a seguir la doctrina religiosa, ya sea cat?lico o no cat?lico”

    En otras palabras, la falta de cobertura de seguro para la anticoncepci?n no es equivalente a que se ven obligados a utilizar un m?todo anticonceptivo. Eso es un argumento extra?o, pero es lo que hemos llegado a esperar de los miembros de la “mayor ?rgano deliberativo del mundo”.

    ?Y bien?

    As? que la pregunta sigue siendo: ?Qu? tiene esto que ver con el seguro?

    “El acceso al control de la natalidad est? directamente vinculada a la disminuci?n de la mortalidad materna e infantil, pueden reducir el riesgo de c?ncer de ovario, y est? vinculada a los resultados globales de buena salud”, los senadores Boxer, Shaheen, y Murray escribir.

    Bien, pero ?qu? tiene que ver con el seguro?

    “[B] Reglamento de acceso por carretera al control de la natalidad le ayudar? a reducir el n?mero de embarazos no deseados y de abortos, si un objetivo que todos compartimos.”

    Bien, pero ?qu? tiene que ver con el seguro?

    “Planificaci?n familiar adecuada a trav?s de resultados de control de natalidad en madres y ni?os sanos, todo lo cual beneficia a todos nosotros.”

    Bien, pero ?qu? tiene que ver con el seguro?

    “Nos ahorra dinero tambi?n ….”

    Bien, pero ?qu? tiene que ver con el seguro?

    “Se puede llegar a costar $ 600 al a?o para la prescripci?n de anticonceptivos.” (Esto es una estimaci?n de gama alta, hay opciones de menor costo, incluyendo Planned Parenthood para mujeres de bajos ingresos.)

    Bien, pero ?qu? tiene que ver con el seguro?

    “Aproximadamente el 99% de las mujeres en los EE.UU. que son sexualmente activas o tener la pierna en alg?n momento de sus vidas tienen control de la natalidad en exceso, incluido el 98% de las mujeres cat?licas, seg?n el Instituto Guttmacher.”

    Bien, pero ?qu? tiene que ver con, ?oh no importa. Me voy a contestar: No tiene nada que ver con los seguros.

    La mancomunaci?n de riesgos

    Seguros para las personas surgi? como una manera de compartir los riesgos, o alg?n low-probability/high-cost Su desgracia cayendo encima de ellos. No deber?a ser necesario se?alarlo, pero la mayor?a de edad de procrear y la decisi?n de utilizar un m?todo anticonceptivo no es un evento asegurable. Se trata de un acto volitivo. Puede tener buenas consecuencias para la persona que toma la acci?n y la sociedad en general, pero todav?a es un acto volitivo. No tiene sentido hablar de asegurarse contra la eventualidad de que una persona determinada a utilizar la anticoncepci?n. En sentido estricto, la anticoncepci?n no tiene nada que ver con los seguros.

    Por desgracia, no hablamos estrictamente de seguro de salud. Una de las razones que hacemos es el c?digo tributario. Desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial la compensaci?n de mano de obra en forma de seguro de salud basado en el empleo no cuenta como ingreso gravable. (Dinero que se gasta de forma independiente en seguros de salud no cuenta.) El c?digo de impuestos Galanthus crea incentivos perversos a 1) dependen de un empleador de un seguro m?dico, 2) los ingresos cambio de liquidar en efectivo a los beneficios del seguro restringidas, y 3) definir los eventos no asegurables como asegurable. ?Podr?a alguien explicar c?mo cuidar del ni?o sano puede ser asegurable?

    As? que tenemos que dar las gracias a los impuestos de otra caracter?stica del mundo moderno: la corrupci?n del lenguaje. En el pulm?n ?mbito m?dico, el seguro no tiene seguro.

    En su lugar, es un juego por todo lo que se obtiene de otras personas para pagar cosas. Bueno, eso no es del todo exacto. En realidad es un juego en el que pretendemos que la gente paga por eso. Mira, la anticoncepci?n, mamograf?as, colonoscopias, y el cuidado del ni?o sano no son libres. (V?ase mi “No hay tal cosa como una mamograf?a gratis”). Los requerimientos de trabajo y los recursos para todos, que los propietarios desean-no-ser pose?do injustificadamente compensado. Alguien tiene que pagar. Si el empleador est? nominalmente, est?n obligados a pagar por la cobertura, ?alguien serias dudas de que los empleados realmente se paga a trav?s de los salarios en efectivo m?s bajos? Los empleadores no son organizaciones de caridad. As? que incluso sin un co-pago, todos sabemos profundamente que nosotros, como los trabajadores pagan por la cobertura. (Que por cierto es probable que sea m?s caro que los servicios ser?an liberados en un mercado, ya que las compa??as de seguros cobran m?s por encima y su problema. Tambi?n la demanda de subsidios eleva los precios.) Sin embargo, la verdad est? tan oscurecido que la gente pueda pretender que van a obtener algo gratis.

    As? que el sistema de gobierno generado por nos trata como los ni?os, y por desgracia la mayor?a de nosotros felices de ser tratado parecer de esa manera.

    Obama “compromiso”

    Bajo presi?n, el gobierno de Obama se espera que anuncie un “compromiso” Todos los que eximen a los empleadores en virtud de cat?licos no tendr?an que pagar por la cobertura de la anticoncepci?n. EN SU LUGAR, las compa??as de seguros la providencia de la cobertura directamente a los empleados. Puesto que conforme a las normas de Salud y Servicios Humanos, esta cobertura debe ser libre, el gobierno de Obama est? en vigor la direcci?n de las aseguradoras para comer el costo. Pero las aseguradoras son empresas con fines de lucro, y no instituciones de beneficencia, por lo que puede esperar para pasar el costo a otra persona. Pero a qui?n? S?lo hay una posibilidad: el empleador no exentos, lo que significa en los empleados no exentos de hecho o empresas. As? que el gran compromiso traslada el costo de una peque?a minor?a de los empleados para determinar la Mayor?a – todo en nombre de la libertad religiosa. Todos los trabajadores no exentos en empresas e instituciones tendr?n un recorte salarial.

  44. Utata yanaendelea juu ya utawala wa Obama wa iliyopendekezwa (na baadaye mara iliyopita)-Ikiwa ni pamoja na mamlaka ya mwajiri Kwamba kila hospitali ya kikatoliki na vyuo vikuu ni pamoja na free-uzazi wa mpango katika mfanyakazi wao wa sera za bima ya afya. Katoliki maafisa kitu tangu kwamba Kanisa lao inakataza za mpango wa uzazi, amri linakiuka ulinzi Marekebisho ya kwanza ya uhuru wa dini. Wengine wamejiunga katika maandamano, busara Hiyo Akitarajia hii kukiuka uhuru wa dhamiri Could kuenea kwa mambo mengine na imani nyingine.

    Wale kuongeza pingamizi na kesi mpate kuonekana bila hatia. watangulizi kuweka katika inaonekana masanduku zaidi ya mbili Kwamba Tayari mataifa ya kuwa na mamlaka sawa ni lisilo na maana. Nini mbaya haina kuwa maadili tu na historia. kanuni kwamba hakuna mtu ilazimishwe kufadhili kwamba wote ambao yeye anaona adui wa mawazo ni sauti. Kwa kweli, yanapaswa kutekelezwa gene mkutano wa hadhara.

    Kubadilisha Subject

    Watetezi wa amri ni nzuri kabisa katika kubadilisha somo. Kozi ya Wao Je, – Walipata nini kingine? Kuwasikiliza wao, utaweza kufikiria mtu ambaye alipendekeza kwamba mpango wa uzazi kuwa marufuku. (Naam, Rick Santorum Hiyo haina wanaonekana neema, lakini ni kiasi pretty peke yake.) Obamacare mabingwa wangeweza kuamini utata ni kuhusu “kupata” kwa bidhaa na huduma fulani. Amri yote gani, wanasema, ni majaliwa ya bima ya chanjo kwa ajili ya, na kupata nguvu hiyo, kwa mpango wa uzazi bure (alongwith nyingine ya kuzuia huduma) kwa ajili ya wanawake ambao wanataka. Lakini Hiyo unaongeza tu swali jingine:

    Ni nini hii got kufanya na bima?

    Upatikanaji hautegemei chanjo. Sisi kupata mambo mengi ya muhimu si kufunikwa na bima. Weirdly, wengine wanasema amri ya kweli zinathibitisha uhuru wa dini. Jinsi gani hivyo? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, na Patty Murray Explained katika Wall Street Journal: “. [T] yeye mamilioni ya wanawake wa Marekani ambao kuchagua kutumia mpango wa uzazi Je, si kulazimishwa kufuata mafundisho ya dini, iwe Katoliki au yasiyo ya Katoliki”

    Kwa maneno mengine, ukosefu wa bima ya chanjo kwa ajili ya mpango wa uzazi ni sawa na si kulazimishwa kutumia mpango wa uzazi. Hayo ni baadhi ya hoja ya ajabu, lakini ni nini tumekuwa kuja wanatarajia kutoka kwa wajumbe wa “mwili dunia kubwa zaidi taamali.”

    Vizuri?

    Hivyo swali linabakia kama: Nini hii got kufanya na bima?

    “Upatikanaji wa kudhibiti uzazi ni moja kwa moja wanaohusishwa na kupungua kwa vifo vya wajawazito na watoto wachanga, unaweza kupunguza hatari ya kansa ya ovari, na ni wanaohusishwa na matokeo ya jumla nzuri za afya,” Sens. Boxer, Shaheen, na Murray kuandika.

    Mzuri, lakini nini ni got kufanya na bima?

    “[B] barabara kutafsiri upatikanaji wa kudhibiti uzazi itasaidia kupunguza idadi ya mimba zisizotarajiwa na utoaji mimba, Je lengo sisi wote kushiriki.”

    Mzuri, lakini nini ni got kufanya na bima?

    “Sahihi ya uzazi wa mpango kwa njia ya matokeo ya uzazi kwa mama na afya njema na watoto, yote ambayo faida yetu sote.”

    Mzuri, lakini nini ni got kufanya na bima?

    “Ni tuokoa fedha pia ….”

    Mzuri, lakini nini ni got kufanya na bima?

    “Ni anaweza gharama $ 600 kwa mwaka kwa ajili ya uzazi wa mpango dawa.” (Hiyo ni makadirio ya juu-mwisho, kuna gharama ya chini chaguzi, Ikiwa ni pamoja na Parenthood Planned kwa ajili ya wanawake wa kipato cha chini.)

    Mzuri, lakini nini ni got kufanya na bima?

    “Baadhi ya 99% ya wanawake nchini Marekani na ngono au kuwa na mguu wakati fulani katika maisha yao overused kudhibiti uzazi, ikiwa ni pamoja na 98% ya wanawake Katoliki, kulingana na Taasisi ya Guttmacher.”

    Mzuri, lakini nini ni got kufanya na-oh Nevermind. Mimi itabidi kujibu mwenyewe: Ni got kitu cha kufanya na bima.

    Hatari kushiriki

    Bima kwa ajili ya Watu binafsi akaondoka kama njia ya hatari pool, au baadhi ya low-probability/high-cost misiba yao befalling yao. Ni Lazima kuwa muhimu kwa uhakika jambo hili, lakini ujio wa umri wa mtoto kuzaa na kuchagua kutumia mpango wa uzazi ni tukio insurable. Ni kitendo hiari. Inaweza kuwa na matokeo mazuri kwa ajili ya mtu kuchukua hatua na jamii kwa ujumla, lakini bado ni kitendo hiari. Hakuna mantiki kwa majadiliano juu ya insuring dhidi ya eventuality Mtu pekee kutumia mpango wa uzazi. Strictly kuzungumza, mpango wa uzazi ina kitu cha kufanya na bima.

    Kwa bahati mbaya, hatuwezi kusema madhubuti kuhusu bima ya afya. Moja ya sababu ya sisi kufanya ni code kodi. Tangu Vita Kuu ya Pili ya Dunia fidia kwa ajili ya kazi katika mfumo wa bima ya afya ya ajira yenye makao yake haina kuhesabu kama skattskyldiga mapato. (Fedha alitumia Oberoende juu ya bima ya afya gani kuhesabu.) Kificho kodi Galanthus inajenga motisha kwa ukaidi 1) wanategemea mwajiri wa mtu kwa bima ya matibabu, 2) mabadiliko ya mapato kutoka liquidating fedha kwa faida vikwazo bima, na 3) kufafanua matukio uninsurable kama insurable. Je, mtu huduma ya kueleza jinsi vizuri mtoto huduma inaweza kuwa insurable?

    Hivyo kuwa na ushuru wa kuwashukuru kwa kipengele mwingine wa dunia ya kisasa: rushwa ya lugha. Uvimbe wa matibabu eneo Means bima hakuna bima.

    Badala yake ni mchezo kwa wote ambayo sisi kupata watu wengine kulipa kwa ajili ya mambo ya ajabu. Naam, hii siyo sahihi kabisa. Ni kweli mchezo ambayo sisi kujifanya kuwa watu wengine kulipa kwa ajili ya mambo ya ajabu. Kuangalia, mpango wa uzazi, mammograms, colonoscopies, na vizuri huduma ya mtoto si bure. (Angalia yangu “Kuna Hakuna kama Thing kama mammogram Bure.”) Wao kazi mahitaji na rasilimali kwa Wote ambayo wamiliki unataka-si-kumilikiwa unreasonably fidia. Mtu ana kulipa. Kama mwajiri husemwa wanapolazimika kulipa kwa ajili ya chanjo, haina mtu yeyote umakini shaka kwamba wafanyakazi kwa kweli kwa njia ya kulipa mishahara ya chini ya fedha? Waajiri si misaada. Hivyo hata bila copayment, sisi wote kujua kirefu chini Kwamba sisi kama wafanyakazi wa kulipa kwa ajili ya chanjo. (Ambayo kwa njia kuna uwezekano kuwa ghali zaidi kuliko huduma itakuwa huru katika soko, tangu makampuni ya bima kutoza fedha zaidi kwa ajili ya uendeshaji na matatizo yao. Pia mahitaji ya ruzuku huwafufua bei.) Hata hivyo, ukweli ni hivyo haipo dhahiri kwamba watu wanaweza kujifanya ni kupata kitu kwa bure.

    Hivyo mfumo wa serikali-generated siye kama watoto, na ole wengi wetu na furaha na kutibiwa kuonekana kuwa njia.

    Obama “maelewano”

    Chini ya shinikizo, utawala wa Obama alikuwa anatarajiwa kutangaza “maelewano” All ambayo wanaopata chini ya Waajiri Katoliki bila kulipa kwa ajili ya chanjo za mpango wa uzazi. Badala yake, makampuni ya bima ingekuwa riziki chanjo moja kwa moja na wafanyakazi. Tangu chini ya sheria ya Afya na Huduma za Binadamu, chanjo hii ni lazima kuwa huru, utawala wa Obama ni athari kuongoza bima kula gharama. Lakini bima ni faida maamuzi ya makampuni, si misaada, ili tupate wao wanatarajia kupitisha gharama kwa mtu mwingine. Lakini ambaye? Kuna mmoja tu Uwezekano: nonexempt wa mwajiri, ambayo ina maana katika wafanyakazi nonexempt ukweli au makampuni. Hivyo maelewano grand mabadiliko ya gharama kutoka asilimia ndogo ya wafanyakazi kuamua Wengi – yote katika jina la uhuru wa dini. Wafanyakazi wote nonexempt katika makampuni na Taasisi itachukua kukata kulipa.

  45. Kontroverser rasar ?ver Obama-administrationens f?resl?s (och senare modifierat)-inklusive arbetsgivaravgifter mandat som alla katolska sjukhus och universitet ing?r fria preventivmedel f?r f?rs?kring anst?lldas h?lso-och sjukv?rdspolitiken. Katolska tj?nstem?n objekt eftersom det Deras kyrka f?rbjuder preventivmedel, bryter dekretet F?rsta r?ttelse: s skydd av religionsfriheten. Andra har g?tt med i protesten, f?rsiktigt som man kan f?rutse denna kr?nkning av samvetsfriheten kan sprida sig till andra fr?gor och andra religioner.

    De h?ja inv?ndningen har en oantastlig fall. Det prejudikat i tydligen mer ?n tv? rutor som redan stater har liknande mandat ?r irrelevant. Vad ?r omoraliskt inte blir moraliskt bara genom prejudikat. Principen att ingen ska tvingas att finansiera detta allt som han eller hon finner motbjudande ?r sund. I sj?lva verket b?r det till?mpas gen rally.

    ?ndra ?mne

    F?rsvarare av dekretet ?r ganska bra p? att ?ndra ?mnet. Naturligtvis ?r de – De har f?tt vad annars? Att h?ra dem, skulle du tror att n?gon har f?reslagit att preventivmedel f?rbjudas. (Ja, Rick Santorum Det verkar att gynna, men han ?r ganska mycket ensam.) Obamacare m?starna skulle f? oss att tro kontroversen handlar om “tillg?ng” till “vissa produkter och tj?nster. Alla dekretet g?r, s?ger de, ?r f?rsynen f?rs?kringsskydd f?r, och f? tillg?ng kraftfulla d?rf?r, till fritt Contraception (alongwith andra f?rebyggande tj?nster) f?r kvinnor som vill ha det. Men det v?cker bara ?nnu en fr?ga:

    Vad har detta att g?ra med f?rs?kring?

    Tillg?ng ?r inte beroende av t?ckning. Vi har tillg?ng till m?nga viktiga saker som inte t?cks av f?rs?kring. Konstigt, vissa s?ger dekretet faktiskt bekr?ftar religionsfrihet. Hur s?? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, och Patty Murray f?rklaras i Wall Street Journal: “. [D] et miljoner amerikanska kvinnor som v?ljer att anv?nda preventivmedel b?r inte tvingas att f?lja religi?sa doktriner, vare sig katolsk eller icke-katolska”

    Med andra ord ?r brist p? f?rs?kringsskydd som preventivmedel inte motsvarar tvingas anv?nda preventivmedel. Det ?r n?gra konstiga argument, men det ?r vad vi kommit att f?rv?nta fr?n medlemmar i “v?rldens st?rsta r?dgivande organ.”

    N??

    S? fr?gan kvarst?r: Vad har detta att g?ra med f?rs?kring?

    “Tillg?ng till preventivmedel ?r direkt kopplad till nedg?ngar i m?dra-och barnad?dlighet, kan minska risken f?r ?ggstockscancer, och ?r kopplat till allm?n h?lsa resultat,” Sens Boxer, Shaheen, och Murray skriver.

    Bra, men vad det blev att g?ra med f?rs?kring?

    “[B] v?gen ning tillg?ng till preventivmedel bidrar till att minska antalet o?nskade graviditeter och aborter b?r ett m?l som vi alla delar.”

    Bra, men vad det blev att g?ra med f?rs?kring?

    “R?tt familjeplanering genom resultaten piller i friskare m?drar och barn, Alla som gynnar oss alla.”

    Bra, men vad det blev att g?ra med f?rs?kring?

    “Det sparar oss pengar ocks? ….”

    Bra, men vad det blev att g?ra med f?rs?kring?

    “Det kan kosta $ 600 per ?r f?r receptbelagda preventivmedel.” (Det ?r en high-end uppskattning finns det billigare alternativ, inklusive planerade f?r?ldraskap f?r kvinnor med l?g inkomst.)

    Bra, men vad det blev att g?ra med f?rs?kring?

    “N?gra 99% av kvinnor i USA som ?r sexuellt aktiva eller har benet vid n?got tillf?lle i livet har ?verutnyttjas preventivmedel, inklusive 98% av katolska kvinnor Enligt Guttmacher Institute.”

    Bra, men vad det blev att g?ra med-oh Nevermind. Jag svarar mig sj?lv: Det har inget att g?ra med f?rs?kringar.

    Risk Pooling

    F?rs?kring f?r Individer uppstod ett s?tt att samla risk eller n?gon low-probability/high-cost Deras olycka drabbar dem. Det b?r inte vara n?dv?ndigt att p?peka detta, men kom i fertil ?lder och v?ljer att anv?nda preventivmedel inte ?r ett f?rs?kringsbara h?ndelse. Det ?r en viljem?ssiga handling. Det kan ha goda konsekvenser f?r den som vidtagit ?tg?rden och samh?llet i stort, men det ?r fortfarande en viljem?ssiga handling. Det ?r ingen mening att tala om att f?rs?kra sig mot ett eventuellt att en viss person kommer att anv?nda preventivmedel. Str?ngt taget har Contraception ingenting att g?ra med f?rs?kringar.

    Tyv?rr talar vi inte strikt om sjukf?rs?kring. En anledning vi g?r ?r att skattelagstiftningen. Sedan andra v?rldskriget ers?ttning f?r arbete i form av arbetsrelaterade sjukf?rs?kring r?knas inte som skattepliktig inkomst. (Pengar som spenderas sj?lvst?ndigt sjukf?rs?kring r?knas.) Skattelagstiftningen Galanthus Skapar perversa incitament f?r att 1) ???r beroende av en arbetsgivare f?r sjukf?rs?kring, 2) shift int?kter fr?n likvidation pengar till begr?nsade f?rs?kringsf?rm?ner, och 3) definierar f?rs?kra h?ndelser som f?rs?kringsbara. Skulle n?gon lust att f?rklara hur v?l barnet v?rd kan vara m?jligt att f?rs?kra?

    S? vi m?ste beskattningen att tacka f?r ?nnu en del av den moderna v?rlden: korruption av spr?ket. I den medicinska sf?ren lungan: en f?rs?kring n?gon f?rs?kring.

    Ist?llet ?r ett spel genom att alla som vi f?r andra m?nniskor att betala f?r saker. Tja, det ?r inte helt korrekt. Det ?r faktiskt ett spel d?r vi l?tsas att andra m?nniskor att betala f?r saker. Titta, Contraception, mammografi, koloskopier, och v?l sp?dbarnsv?rd ?r inte gratis. (Se min “Det finns inget s?dant som en gratis mammografi.”) De arbetsbehov och resurser f?r alla som ?garna ?nskar-inte-vara besatt orimligt kompenseras. N?gon m?ste betala. Om arbetsgivaren ?r nominellt tvingas betala f?r t?ckning, inte n?gon som tvivlar p? allvar att de anst?llda verkligen kommer att betala genom l?gre penningl?n? Arbetsgivarna ?r inte v?lg?renhetsorganisationer. S? ?ven utan en copayment vet vi alla innerst inne att vi som arbetare betalar f?r t?ckning. (Vilket f?r ?vrigt ?r sannolikt dyrare ?n de tj?nster skulle frig?ras p? en marknad, eftersom f?rs?kringsbolagen kommer att ta mer betalt f?r omkostnader och deras problem. Ocks? subventionerad efterfr?gan h?jer priser.) ?nd? ?r sanningen s? Obscured att m?nniskor kan l?tsas att de ?r f? n?got gratis.

    S? regeringen genererade systemet behandlar oss som barn, och tyv?rr de flesta av oss glada att bli behandlad verkar s?.

    Obamas “kompromiss”

    Under tryck, var Obama-administrationen f?rv?ntas tillk?nnage en “kompromiss” Alla som undantagen fr?n skatteplikt enligt katolska Arbetsgivare skulle inte beh?va betala f?r preventivmedel t?ckning. I ST?LLET f?rs?kringsbolagen skulle f?rsynen t?ckningen direkt till de anst?llda. Eftersom enligt H?lso-och Human Services regler m?ste detta t?ckningen vara fri, ?r Obama-administrationen i praktiken styra f?rs?kringsbolagen att ?ta kostnaden. Men F?rs?kringsgivare ?r vinstdrivande f?retag, inte v?lg?renhetsorganisationer, s? att vi kan f?rv?nta oss att passera kostnaden till n?gon annan. Men f?r vem? Det finns bara en m?jlighet: nonexempt arbetsgivarens, vilket inneb?r att anst?llda sj?lva verket nonexempt eller f?retag. S? stora kompromissen skiftar kostnaden fr?n en liten minoritet av de anst?llda att best?mma majoriteten – allt i namn av religionsfrihet. Alla nonexempt arbetstagare i f?retag och institutioner kommer att ta en l?neminskning.

  46. Obama y?netiminin ?zerinde tart??malara ?fkeleniyor ?nerilen (ve daha sonra modifiye) oldu-dahil t?m Katolik hastaneler ve ?niversiteler Onlar?n ?al??an sa?l?k sigortas? politikalar? serbest Kontrasepsiyon dahil Yani i?verenin g?revi. Onlar?n kilise Kontrasepsiyon yasaklamaktad?r O beri Katolik yetkililer nesne, kararname din ?zg?rl??? First Amendment korumas? ihlal ediyor. Di?erleri vicdan ?zg?rl???, bu ihlali ?ng?r?lmesi di?er hususlar ve di?er dinlere yay?lan misiniz Yani ihtiyatl?, protesto kat?ld?.

    Itirazda olanlar bir su?lanamaz durum var. Zaten devletlerin benzer g?rev var bu g?r?n??e fazla iki kutu belirlenen emsal ilgisizdir. Ne Ahlaks?z var sadece emsal olarak ahlak haline gelmez. Hi? kimse o i?ren? buldu?u t?m ses Yani finanse etmek zorunda olmal?d?r Bu prensibi. Asl?nda, gen ralli uygulanmal?d?r.

    Konu de?i?tirme

    Kararname savunucular? konuyu de?i?tirerek de olduk?a iyidir. Onlar m? Dersin – Onlar ba?ka ne var? Bunlar? duymak, birinin Kontrasepsiyon yasaklanmas?n? ?nerdi d???nmek istiyorum. (Eh, Rick Santorum lehine SEEM ger?ekle?mez, ama hemen hemen tek ba??na var.) Obamacare ?ampiyon bizi tart??malara ‘belirli ?r?n ve hizmetleri i?in “eri?im” ile ilgili oldu?una inan?yorum olurdu. T?m kararname diyorlar, i?in ihtiyat sigortas? kapsam? oldu?unu ve isteyen kad?nlar i?in ?cretsiz Kontrasepsiyon (alongwith di?er koruyucu hizmetler) i?in, Bu nedenle g??l? bir eri?im yok. Ama bu sadece ba?ka bir soruyu akla getiriyor:

    Ne bu sigorta ile alakas? var?

    Eri?im kapsama ba?l? de?ildir. Biz sigorta kapsam? d???nda kalan bir?ok ?nemli ?eylere ula?abilirler. Weirdly, baz? kararname asl?nda din ?zg?rl??? do?ruluyor s?yl?yorlar. Nas?l yani? Sens Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, ve Patty Murray Wall Street Journal’da A??klamas?: “. [T] he Kontrasepsiyon kullanmay? tercih Amerikan milyonlarca kad?n?n, dini doktrini takip etmek zorunda b?rak?lmamal?d?r Katolik veya non-Katolik olsun”

    Di?er bir deyi?le, Kontrasepsiyon i?in sigorta eksikli?i Kontrasepsiyon kullanmak zorunda olan e?de?er de?ildir. Bu garip arg?man, ancak biz ?yelerinden bekledi?iniz nedir “d?nyan?n en b?y?k m?zakereci v?cut.”

    Peki?

    Yani soru olarak kal?r: bu sigorta ile alakas? var ne?

    “Do?um kontrol eri?im do?rudan anne ve bebek ?l?mlerinin d????ler ba?lant?l?d?r, yumurtal?k kanseri riskini azaltabilir ve genel sa?l?k sonu?lar?na ba?l?,” Sens Boxer, Shaheen ve Murray yazmak.

    G?zel, fakat ne sigortas? ile ilgisi var?

    “[B] do?um kontrol etmek i?in yol lation eri?im, istenmeyen gebelik ve d???kler say?s?n? azaltmaya yard?mc? olacak m?y?m bir gol hepimizin pay?.”

    G?zel, fakat ne sigortas? ile ilgisi var?

    “Sa?l?kl? anneler ve ?ocuklar, hepimizin yarar?na olan t?m do?um kontrol sonu?lar? ?zerinden Uygun aile planlamas?.”

    G?zel, fakat ne sigortas? ile ilgisi var?

    “Bu da bize para kazand?r?r ….”

    G?zel, fakat ne sigortas? ile ilgisi var?

    “Bu re?ete kontraseptifler i?in $ 600 y?ll?k mal olabilir.” (Bu bir high-end tahmini var, d???k gelirli kad?nlar i?in Planlanan Parenthood dahil daha d???k maliyetli se?enek vard?r.)

    G?zel, fakat ne sigortas? ile ilgisi var?

    “Cinsel olarak aktif olan veya Their Lives bir noktada bacak sahip ABD’de kad?nlar?n baz?lar?% 99 Guttmacher Kurumu’na g?re, Katolik kad?nlar?n% 98 dahil, gereksiz yere do?um kontrol var.”

    G?zel, ama ne onunla-oh bo?ver ilgisi var. Kendime cevap olacak: Bu sigorta ile ilgisi var.

    Risk Havuzlama

    Bireyler i?in sigorta havuzu riski i?in bir yol ya da baz? low-probability/high-cost Onlar?n talihsizli?i befalling onlar? Arose. Bu i?aret etmek gerekli olmayabilir, ancak ?ocuk do?urma ya? geliyor ve Kontrasepsiyon kullanmay? se?erek bir sigortalanabilir olay de?il mi. Bu istemli hareket var. Bu geni? eylem ve toplumun alan ki?i i?in iyi sonu?lar? olabilir, ama yine de iradi bir eylemdir. Bu Belirli Bir ki?i Kontrasepsiyon kullanacak Bu olas?l??a kar?? sigortalanmas? hakk?nda konu?mak i?in hi?bir mant?kl?. Kesin anlamda Kontrasepsiyon sigortas? ile hi?bir ilgisi yoktur.

    Ne yaz?k ki sa?l?k sigortas? hakk?nda kesinlikle konu?maz. Yapt???m?z bir nedeni vergi kodudur. Istihdama dayal? sa?l?k sigortas? ?eklinde emek i?in ?kinci D?nya Sava??’ndan bu yana tazminat Vergiye tabi gelir olarak say?lmaz. K?s?tl? sigortas? yard?mlar? i?in nakit paraya itibaren) vergi kodu Galanthus sa?l?k sigortas?, 2 ki?inin i?veren ba?l?d?r) 1 ters te?vikler olu?turur vardiya gelir (Para say?m? yapar. Sa?l?k sigortas? ile ilgili ba??ms?z harcanan) ve 3) sigortal? olarak sigorta edilemez olaylar? tan?mlamak. Birisi iyi bebek bak?m? sigortalanabilir olabilir nas?l a??klamak ister misiniz?

    Dilin bozulmas?: Bu y?zden modern d?nyan?n bir ba?ka ?zelli?i i?in te?ekk?r vergilendirme var. T?bbi alanda akci?er sigortas? olmamas? sigortas? anlam?na geliyor.

    YER?NE biz di?er insanlar ?eyler i?in ?deme almak hangi B?t?n bir oyun. Eh, bu olduk?a do?ru de?il. Asl?nda biz di?er insanlar ?eyler i?in ?deme Yani Pretend hangi bir oyun. Bak, Kontrasepsiyon, mamografi, kolonoskopi ve iyi bebek bak?m? serbest de?ildir. (Benim “?cretsiz Mamografi gibi B?yle ?ey Yok yok.” Bak?n) Onlar sahipleri diliyorum-olmad???-sahip olmas? mant?ks?z telafi hangi Herkes i?in i? g?c? ihtiyac? ve kaynaklar?. Birileri ?demek zorundad?r. I?veren s?zde kapsama ?demek zorunda b?rak?l?yor oluyor, herkes ciddi ?al??anlar?n asl?nda daha d???k nakit ?cretleri ?zerinden ?deyecek Yani ??phe yok? ??verenler hay?r de?ildir. Yani bile katk? pay? olmadan, hepimiz derin a?a?? i??i olarak biz kapsama alan? i?in ?deme olmad???n? bilirim. (Bu arada sigorta ?irketleri giderleri ve Onlar?n sorun i?in daha fazla ?cret ??nk?. Ayr?ca s?bvanse talebi fiyatlar? y?kseltir, hizmetleri bir pazarda serbest b?rak?lacak daha pahal? olmas? muhtemeldir Hangi.) Bununla birlikte, ger?e?in ?yle karart?lm?? olan insanlar olabilir Bu paras?z bir ?ey al?yoruz yap?yorum.

    Yani h?k?met taraf?ndan olu?turulan sistem ?ocuklar gibi bize davran?r ve tedavi edilmesi ne yaz?k ki ?o?umuz mutlu bu ?ekilde G?R?N?YOR.

    Obama’n?n “Uzla?ma”

    Bas?n? alt?nda, Obama y?netimi Katolik ??verenler alt?nda muaf olan t?m Kontrasepsiyon kapsama alan? i?in ?demek zorunda de?ildir, bir “uzla?ma” a??klamas? bekleniyordu. YER?NE, sigorta ?irketleri ihtiyat do?rudan ?al??anlara kapsama olur. Sa?l?k ve ?nsan Hizmetleri kurallar? ?er?evesinde, bu kapsama ar?nd?r?lm?? olmal?d?r bu yana, Obama y?netiminin maliyet yemek Sigortac?lar y?netmenlik etkilidir. Ama Sigortac?lar kar amac? g?den ?irketler de?il, hay?r, bu y?zden biz onlar? ba?kas?na maliyet ge?mek i?in bekleyebilir. Ama Kime? Tek imkan? var: nonexempt i?verenin, hangi ger?e?i nonexempt ?al??anlar? veya ?irketlerde Means. Yani b?y?k uzla?ma ?o?unluk belirlemek i?in ?al??an k???k bir az?nl?k maliyet vardiya – b?t?n dini ?zg?rl?k ad?na. ?irketleri ve Kurumlar T?m nonexempt i??iler maa? kesme alacakt?r.

  47. Dal yn bwnc dadlau dros y Gweinyddiaeth Obama wedi Arfaethedig (a addaswyd yn ddiweddarach)-Gan gynnwys mandad cyflogwr Bod yr holl ysbytai Gatholig a phrifysgolion yn cynnwys rhydd-Atal Cenhedlu Yn Eu iechyd cyflogeion polis?au yswiriant. Swyddogion gwrthrych Gatholig ers hynny’n eu gwahardd eglwys cenhedlu, y gorchymyn torri amddiffyn y Diwygiad Cyntaf o ryddid crefyddol. Mae eraill wedi ymuno yn y brotest, yn ddoeth Bod A Rhagweld y groes o ryddid cydwybod lledaenu i faterion eraill a chrefyddau eraill.

    Mae’r rhai codi gwrthwynebiad yn cael achos unimpeachable. Y cynsail a osodwyd yn y mwy na dau yn ?l pob golwg blychau Bod yn barod wladwriaethau mandadau tebyg yn amherthnasol. Beth sydd ddim yn dod Anfoesol moesol syml trwy cynsail. Yr egwyddor na ddylai neb gael ei orfodi i ariannu Bod pob mae ef neu hi yn canfod ffiaidd yn gadarn. Yn wir, dylai fod yn Cymhwysol rali genynnau.

    Newid y Pwnc

    Amddiffynnwr o’r archddyfarniad yn eithaf da am newid y pwnc. Y Cwrs Maent A – Maent wedi cael beth arall? Eu clywed, byddech yn credu bod rhywun wedi Arfaethedig Bod Atal Cenhedlu yn cael ei wahardd. (Wel, Rick Santorum yw’n ymddangos i ffafrio, ond mae’n fwy neu lai yn unig.) Byddai hyrwyddwyr Obamacare i ni gredu y ddadl yn ymwneud ? “mynediad” i ‘cynnyrch a gwasanaethau penodol. Mae pob un o’r archddyfarniad yn, maent yn ei ddweud, mae yswiriant ar gyfer rhagluniaeth, a chael mynediad pwerus Felly, er mwyn atal cenhedlu am ddim (alongwith gwasanaethau ataliol eraill) ar gyfer menywod sydd ei eisiau. Ond Mae hynny’n codi cwestiwn arall:

    Beth sydd wedi wnelo hyn ag yswiriant?

    Nid yw mynediad yn dibynnu ar sylw. Mae gennym fynediad i lawer o bethau pwysig nad ydynt wedi’u cynnwys gan yswiriant. Od, mae rhai yn dweud y dyfarniad mewn gwirionedd yn cadarnhau rhyddid crefyddol. Sut felly? Sens. Barbara Boxer Explained, Jeanne Shaheen, a Patty Murray yn y Wall Street Journal: “. [T] Oni ddylai miliynau o fenywod Americanaidd sy’n dewis defnyddio’r atal cenhedlu yn cael eu gorfodi i ddilyn athrawiaeth grefyddol, boed Gatholig neu nad ydynt yn Gatholigion”

    Mewn geiriau eraill, nid yw diffyg sylw yswiriant ar gyfer atal cenhedlu yn cyfateb i gael eu gorfodi i ddefnyddio Atal Cenhedlu. Dyna rai ddadl rhyfedd, ond mae’n beth rydym wedi dod i’w ddisgwyl gan aelodau o’r “gorau’r byd corff ymgynghorol.”

    Dda?

    Felly, erys y cwestiwn: Beth sydd a wnelo hyn ag yswiriant?

    “Mynediad i atal cenhedlu yn uniongyrchol gysylltiedig ? dirywiad mewn marwolaethau mamau a babanod, yn gallu lleihau’r risg o ganser ofar?aidd, ac mae’n gysylltiedig ? chanlyniadau iechyd dda ar y cyfan,” Sens. Boxer, Shaheen, a Murray ysgrifennu.

    Iawn, ond mae’n beth sy’n rhaid i wneud ag yswiriant?

    “[B] bydd mynediad leidido ffordd i atal cenhedlu helpu i leihau nifer y beichiogrwydd anfwriadol ac erthyliadau, Os bydd nod ni i gyd.”

    Iawn, ond mae’n beth sy’n rhaid i wneud ag yswiriant?

    “Cynllunio teulu Priodol trwy ganlyniadau atal cenhedlu mewn mamau iachach a phlant, sydd o fudd i bob bob un ohonom.”

    Iawn, ond mae’n beth sy’n rhaid i wneud ag yswiriant?

    “Mae’n arbed arian i ni hefyd ….”

    Iawn, ond mae’n beth sy’n rhaid i wneud ag yswiriant?

    “Gall costio $ 600 y flwyddyn ar gyfer atal cenhedlu presgripsiwn.” (Dyna amcangyfrif uchel diwedd, mae yna opsiynau gost is, gan gynnwys yn rhiant a gynlluniwyd ar gyfer incwm isel merched.)

    Iawn, ond mae’n beth sy’n rhaid i wneud ag yswiriant?

    “Mae rhai 99% o fenywod yn yr Unol Daleithiau sy’n cael rhyw neu goes ar ryw adeg yn eu bywydau wedi atal cenhedlu gorddefnyddio, gan gynnwys 98% o fenywod Catholig, Yn ?l I’r Sefydliad Guttmacher.”

    Iawn, ond mae’n beth sy’n rhaid i wneud ?-oh Nevermind. ‘N annhymerus’ ateb fy hun: Mae’n ddim byd i wneud ? yswiriant.

    Risg Cyfuno

    Yswiriant ar gyfer unigolion cododd fel ffordd i risg pwll, neu ryw low-probability/high-cost Mae eu anffawd nhw. Ni ddylai fod yn angenrheidiol tynnu sylw at hyn, ond nid yw dod o blant sy’n dwyn oedran a dewis defnyddio atal cenhedlu yn ddigwyddiad yswiriadwy. Mae’n weithred volitional. Efallai y bydd rhaid Canlyniadau da ar gyfer y person sy’n cymryd y camau a chymdeithas yn gyffredinol, ond mae’n dal i fod yn weithred volitional. Nid yw’n gwneud synnwyr i siarad am yswirio yn erbyn y posibilrwydd hwnnw bydd person penodol yn defnyddio atal cenhedlu. Strictly siarad, atal cenhedlu ddim byd i wneud ? yswiriant.

    Yn anffodus, nid ydym yn siarad yn llym am yswiriant iechyd. Un rheswm rydym yn ei wneud yw cod treth. Nid yw Ers Byd iawndal Ail Ryfel am lafur ar ffurf sy’n seiliedig ar yswiriant iechyd gyflogaeth yn cyfrif fel incwm trethadwy. (Arian a wariwyd yn annibynnol ar yswiriant iechyd yn cyfrif.) Mae’r dreth Galanthus cod Creu cymhellion gwrthnysig i 1) yn dibynnu ar un cyflogwr ar gyfer yswiriant meddygol, 2) incwm newid o datod arian parod i fudd-daliadau yswiriant cyfyngedig, a 3) yn diffinio digwyddiad ellir eu hyswirio fel yswiriadwy. A fyddai rhywun yn gofalu i esbonio sut y gall dda babi gofal fod yswiriadwy?

    Felly mae gennym trethiant i ddiolch am nodwedd arall o’r byd modern: y llygredd o iaith. Yn yr ysgyfaint deyrnas meddygol Means yswiriant heb yswiriant.

    LLE mae’n g?m gan yr holl rydym yn annog pobl eraill i dalu am bethau. Wel, nid yw hynny’n gwbl gywir. Mae’n gwirionedd g?m mewn Pa Rydym Esgus Bod pobl eraill dalu am bethau. Nid Edrychwch, atal cenhedlu, mamogramau, colonosgopi, a lles baban gofal yn rhad ac am ddim. (Gweler fy “Mae ‘Na Peth o’r fath fel Mamogram am ddim.”) Maent yn ofyniad llafur ac adnoddau ar gyfer pob un sy’n dymuno y perchnogion-ni-i gael ei feddiannu iawndal yn afresymol. Rhaid i rywun dalu. Os cyflogwr ei enw yn cael eu gorfodi i dalu am y sylw, oes unrhyw un yn amau ??o ddifrif Y bydd gweithwyr yn ei dalu cyflogau drwy arian parod is? Nid yw cyflogwyr yn elusennau. Felly hyd yn oed heb copayment, rydym i gyd yn gwybod ddwfn i lawr Ein bod ni fel gweithwyr yn talu am y sylw. (Pa gan y ffordd yn debygol o fod yn ddrytach na fyddai’r gwasanaethau yn cael eu rhyddhau mewn marchnad, gan y bydd cwmn?au yswiriant godi mwy am uwchben a Eu drafferth. Hefyd galw chymhorthdal ??yn codi prisiau.) Serch hynny, mae’r gwirionedd yn cael ei guddio er Bod pobl yn gallu esgus eu bod yn cael rhywbeth am ddim.

    Felly y system llywodraeth a gynhyrchir yn ein trin ni fel plant, ac yn anffodus mae’r rhan fwyaf ohonom yn hapus i gael eu trin ymddangos y ffordd.

    Obama “Cyfaddawd”

    O dan bwysau, roedd y weinyddiaeth Obama disgwyl i gyhoeddi “gyfaddawd” Ni fyddai Gyfan sy’n eithrio o dan gyflogwyr Gatholig rhaid i chi dalu am sylw Atal Cenhedlu. LLE, cwmn?au yswiriant fyddai rhagluniaeth y sylw a roddir yn uniongyrchol i weithwyr. Ers o dan reolau Iechyd a Gwasanaethau Dynol, rhaid i hyn fod yn rhydd sylw, y weinyddiaeth Obama mewn gwirionedd gyfeirio Yswirwyr i fwyta y gost. Ond Yswirwyr yn gwmn?au sy’n gwneud elw, nid yw elusennau, felly y gallwn ddisgwyl iddynt i drosglwyddo’r gost i rywun arall. Ond i bwy? Dim ond un Posibilrwydd: cyflogwr yn nonexempt, sy’n golygu mewn gweithwyr nonexempt ffaith neu gwmn?au. Felly y cyfaddawd mawreddog symud y gost o lleiafrif bach o weithwyr i benderfynu ar y Mwyafrif – i gyd yn enw rhyddid crefyddol. Bydd yr holl weithwyr nonexempt mewn cwmn?au a sefydliadau gymryd gostyngiad mewn cyflog.

  48. Editors:

    Please delete the above shit.

    Why not end threaded comments while you’re at it?

    1. What good would that do for that kind of shit?

    2. Someone just discovered Babelfish, apparently.

  49. What a friggin hoot watching Barry tie himself in politically correct knots!!!

  50. Re: Professor Asshat,

    What? No Spanish version?? You fucking racist!

  51. OK seriously , who comes up with all this nonsense??

    http://www.anon-stuff.tk

  52. “Weirdly, some say the decree actually affirms religious freedom. How so? Sens. Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, and Patty Murray explained in the Wall Street Journal: “[T]he millions of American women who choose to use contraception should not be forced to follow religious doctrine, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.””

    It is not merely weird, it is downright Orwellian in the “Freedom is Slavery” sense. Instead of the 1st Amendment’s religious freedom clause preventing the government from interfering in a person’s acting on their religious beliefs, it mandates such intereference. Apparently, because progressives no believe that the 1st amendment protects you from other people acts, not the government’s.

    Progressive idelogy is proving itself an inversion of American ideals.

    1. These so-called “Catholic” organizations aren’t Catholic at all; they are general health care providers that happened to be linked to the Catholic church in some way. Yes, the decree affirms religious freedoms, because no religious organization should be able to use the power and money of the government to promote its own religious agenda, and that is exactly what the Catholic church is attempting to do when it extends its religiously motivated restrictions to non-Catholics in a health-care setting.

      1. Red herring. The mandate is not predicated on receiving subsidies from the federal government.

        “These so-called “Catholic” organizations aren’t Catholic at all; they are general health care providers that happened to be linked to the Catholic church in some way.”

        That is an untenable logical contortion, it is a distinction without a difference.

        Furthermore, no one is forced to go to go to a Catholic hospital or work for a Catholic run organization. The idea that an employer cannot express their values in their business’ policies is antithetical to freedom of conscience.

        1. “Red herring. The mandate is not predicated on receiving subsidies from the federal government.”

          No, but institutions that spend tax dollars cannot use them to promote their religious agenda, and that is what is happening here.

          “The idea that an employer cannot express their values in their business’ policies is antithetical to freedom of conscience.”

          But these organizations aren’t just private businesses, they have special tax status and receive lots of public funding. Furthermore, atheists are prevented from expressing their values in their business policies (you can’t say “I don’t do business with people who believe in irrational, immoral faiths like Catholicism”).

          “Furthermore, no one is forced to go to go to a Catholic hospital or work for a Catholic run organization”

          If you look at Europe, where your kinds of views prevail, yes they are: because religious hospitals are free from many costly regulations, they have a competitive advantage over businesses and have taken over entire health care systems. As a result, people don’t have a choice. We must avoid that in the US.

          I’m all for a level playing field: eliminate religious non-discrimination laws and eliminate special tax status for religious organizations. But as long as the Catholic church receives these special benefits, it needs to play by the same rules as everybody else.

          1. “No, but institutions that spend tax dollars cannot use them to promote their religious agenda, and that is what is happening here.”

            If the mandate is not tied to federal funding then taking federal funding cannot justify the authority the government assumes in imposing these decisions on not only these organizations but everyone.

          2. “No, but institutions that spend tax dollars cannot use them to promote their religious agenda, and that is what is happening here.” So you admit that you are using control of the tax dollars to subvert people’s ability to even HAVE THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE!!! If you had a conscience of your own you would be much more concerned about searing the consciences of others. It’s like you didn’t know their might be consequences for doing that.

  53. I think Obama’s mandate is economically a bad idea, but it doesn’t infringe religious liberties. Those parts of Catholic organizations that are religiously oriented are already exempted.

    But the organizations we are talking about here, hospitals and other facilities, are operated as charities or businesses. They are paid for by insurance payments and government programs. It is unacceptable for Catholic organizations to control these funds in order to promote their own religious agenda and (twisted and immoral) lifestyle choices. If we allowed this principle to stand, Catholic organizations could increasingly impose their religion on non-Catholics with the benefit of government funding and government tax exemptions.

    So, please argue against the health care mandate on the grounds of general liberty and economic rationales. However, from the point of view of religious liberty, imposing these requirements on so-called Catholic health care organizations is not only justified, it is essential.

    1. Thank you so much for proving my point above. You have abandoned religious liberty as a principle.

    2. “I think Obama’s mandate is economically a bad idea, but it doesn’t infringe religious liberties. Those parts of Catholic organizations that are religiously oriented are already exempted.”

      Except that church run organizations are only the tip the iceberg. There should not have to be exemption for religious organizations, freedom of conscience applies to all.

      “Fourth, and most important, this compromise does absolutely nothing to protect individual religious Americans. To listen to the president and much of the media, the only people who have religious liberty in this country are churches and religiously affiliated institutions. But religious liberty is the inalienable right of all Americans, not just churches. The president’s compromise offers nothing to protect individual religious liberty ? if you own a pharmacy or a doctor’s office or a gas station and you have a religious objection to buying these products, tough luck. Maybe if you wore a collar or a habit the president would respect your religious liberty, but not if you wear a tie, scrubs, or coveralls. Of course this is all entirely contrary to law ? individuals have religious-freedom rights under the First Amendment and under RFRA. And to the extent the president thought he could avoid the First Amendment because of the Smith case, he just blew up his own argument: Try convincing a federal court that your law is “neutral” among religious objectors after you have publicly declared a three-class world ? churches (which maybe don’t have to provide the coverage at all), religiously affiliated institutions (which have to do it by having their insurer staple on a rider), and the rest of us (who apparently have no rights). Obamacare never was neutral or generally applicable, but the president demonstrated it more effectively this afternoon than ever before”

      http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ark-rienzi

      1. “But religious liberty is the inalienable right of all Americans, not just churches. The president’s compromise offers nothing to protect individual religious liberty ? if you own a pharmacy or a doctor’s office or a gas station and you have a religious objection to buying these products, tough luck.”

        A professional title like a medical doctor or pharmacist certifies that you provide a standard, professional level of care. As a patient, I rely on that certification. If your religion prohibits you from living up to those professional standards, you have an easy choice: pick a different profession. Your religious liberty is not infringed by that. But my safety as a patient is infringed if you use your private religious delusions to decide what kinds of medical options to withhold from me.

        Demanding professional standards independent of religion in health care is in your interest as well; if we change it, you may sooner or later face the situation where doctors and the rest of society stops paying for your lifestyle choice–unprotected sex, lack of family planning, and a belief system that amounts to borderline mental illness and creates a higher percentage of dysfunctional children. We disapprove of your lifestyle choices yet we pay for their consequences, and we expect the same of you.

        1. And that is another mistake foisted on us by the state. Trusting that government certification ensures quality or safety. You refuted your own argument.

        2. “Your religious liberty is not infringed by that. But my safety as a patient is infringed if you use your private religious delusions to decide what kinds of medical options to withhold from me.”

          You do not see any value in religious liberty because you are an ant-religious bigot and throwing religious people’s rights under the bus is more important to you than the government imposing its judgement on everyone.

        3. “If you look at Europe, where your kinds of views prevail, yes they are: because religious hospitals are free from many costly regulations, they have a competitive advantage over businesses and have taken over entire health care systems. As a result, people don’t have a choice.”

          “If your religion prohibits you from living up to those professional standards, you have an easy choice: pick a different profession.”

          So no wanting to provide services which are at best fringe related to the profession are mandatory, but not going to an institution that will not cater to your wants is an intolerable restriction on choice?

          That’s insane.

          1. “So no wanting to provide services which are at best fringe related to the profession are mandatory, but not going to an institution that will not cater to your wants is an intolerable restriction on choice?”

            Birth control and abortion are legal procedures that save lives. You can’t call yourself a medical professional and let your irrational beliefs interfere with providing these services. Comparing this to something else is irrelevant.

            But birth control and abortion are not “fringe”, they are a central and essential part of modern society. The Catholic church’s position on this matter is “fringe” (in addition to be deeply immoral); even most Catholics use birth control.

            1. I’m really sick and tired of this institutional bullshit. Our religious freedom is AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, NOT A GROUP RIGHT!!!! The “Catholic Church” has no rights, nor any powers. Catholics, however, have the same rights as anyone else to exercise their religion as they see fit, or not, as they please, and it’s none of your effing beeswax. If you keep fucking with the Catholics, why shouldn’t they hurt you enough to make you go away and leave them alone?

    3. What does “religiously oriented” mean? Are you saying you want religious freedom and freedom of choice limited to individual parishes only?

      What if a parish had nurses on staff? Is that still “religously oriented”? When a parish runs a parochial school, is the school still “religiously oriented” enough for you? What about a soup kitchen? et cetera.

      Are you the kind of atheist who thinks religious liberty stops at the church door?

      1. “Are you the kind of atheist who thinks religious liberty stops at the church door?”

        I’m the kind of atheist who doesn’t want to pay for promoting the immoral, harmful, and irrational ideology that the Catholic church preaches.

        “What if a parish had nurses on staff? Is that still “religously oriented”? When a parish runs a parochial school, is the school still “religiously oriented” enough for you? What about a soup kitchen? et cetera.”

        I didn’t say that _only_ religiously oriented organizations are exempted from the mandate, just that they already are exempted. There may be some non-religious organizations that are as well (soup kitches, parochial schools, etc.). Running schools, soup kitchens etc as businesses is not part of the Catholic religion, so it isn’t intrinsically exempt from secular regulations, although as a matter of public policy, we may still find it useful to give churches some extra latitude; they simply don’t have a constitutional right to be exempted from secular rules for any business whatsoever.

        The question is really where the money comes from and what their choices are. If a “Catholic” business employs non-Catholics and provides insurance, then it should be required to comply with the health care mandate. If a Catholic charity receives tax payer funding, it needs to comply with secular employment rules. Etc. If this doesn’t work for the Catholic church, it can finance its charity from contributions and employ only Catholics.

  54. What freedom loving liberals often forget is what Reagan said: “Government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.” Insurance is just one more link in the chain of entitlement slavery. If it is a right to have others pay for my medical care, then why should I care if they have to take a wall off of my house to transport me, via flat-bed, to the nearest medical establishment. The perverse incentives in free medical care are astoundingly obvious and this latest example is yet further evidence. If others are forced to pay for my “family planning”, then why should I care if I forget to take the pill and have to get an abortion…again. Listening to liberals makes part of me wish that abortion was free and more readily available.

  55. Not alone perform that they change using firming this Discount Dr. Martens juggs, nevertheless the coverall pare surface will be enormously refurbished way too.

  56. If drugs, oils, and also serums, regardless of what from the in abundance section increase solutions you favor,

  57. This was a fantastic article on an absolutely frightening topic. What is more troubling than the fact that our central planners are in favor of such a law is the fact that most people cannot see past the supposed benefits to see the force inherent in the system.

  58. Easy solution – ALL employers find religion so no cost shifting is possible. How about them apples?

    1. Easy solution: move your business outside of the USA.

  59. Let the mandating begin:

    Studies show that prayer aids healing – send those atheists to church

    The selfish ownership of unregulated private breasts leads to the danger and public cost of breast cancer – mandate radical mastectomies for women with a family history of cancer

    Children of single parents have lower outcomes – mandate marriage

  60. Has anyone pointed out the medical necessity of birth control on here yet? For ovarian cysts and regulating periods and whatnot. Most of my friends initially got birth control for medical conditions, not consequence-free sex. If we’re going to have insurance at all (and I understand many readers of reason don’t like any insurance, but that doesn’t seem to be the main issue here), why shouldn’t this vital medicine be covered? Especially when Viagra (for example), an almost completely unnecessary (I’d venture so far as to say recreational) drug, so often IS covered?

    1. Is there a mandate for Viagra to be covered?

      That’s what is being argued against, not that no one should ever have a plan that includes contraceptives, but that the government has no authority to coerce every insurance plan to include it.

      1. No, there’s no mandate for Viagra that I’m aware of. But that was sort of the “nyah nyah” part of my post. I’m more concerned with the fact that y’all are treating birth control like it’s not important. Why, if we’re going to have insurance, would we NOT mandate that it also has to treat women’s medical problems? Especially when there’s someone fighting so hard not to?

        (the rest of the post is expanding my point and responding to some things from the thread in general, not a direct response to you, mj)

        I can understand where you’re coming from in terms of the whole “if she wants insurance to pay for bc, she should quit her catholic-ish job and find one that’ll cover it,” but that is pure fantasy in this economy-we take the jobs we can get. To suggest that if someone has a problem with their job they should just quit and find a new one–where do you live and how can I get a visa?

        Ps lol @ people who think its so cheap and easy to get without insurance. I can’t think of anyone I know who’s never gone off for a while because she couldn’t afford it. That college student up thread for whom the generic brand doesn’t play havoc with her hormones is lucky.

      2. “but that the government has no authority to coerce every insurance plan to include it.”

        There may be many reasons why the government doesn’t have that authority. As I keep saying, I think the mandate is a bad idea.

        But the religious liberty arguments you bring up aren’t part of that argument. If the government has the authority to impose this on employers, then it has the authority to impose it on secular businesses that happen to be associated with the Catholic church in some way.

        And if you think about this as a religious liberty question, what about the religious liberty of everybody else? Strict Catholics don’t want to be forced to pay for abortions and birth control, which they consider immoral. What about my religious liberty? I don’t want to be forced to pay for the consequences of the Catholic church’s immoral and reprehensible teachings on sex and birth control. And those consequences are very real: illegitimate children, child abandonment, HIV disease, etc.

        1. If someone follows the teachings of the Catholic church, that will not result in “illegitimate children, child abandonment, HIV [STDs}, etc.”

          If someone is actually following the teachings of the Church – which includes abstinence before marriage – they will not cost you a cent. Your argument presumes that a hypothetical Catholic cares enough about living up to Catholic morality to avoid any form of birth control, but not enough to be sexually abstinent.

  61. Mandated Butt Plugs, Lube, Vasectomy, Tit Rings, etc. Actually providing “free” contraception will increase promiscuity and have the obvious unintended consequence.

    1. You can’t make a statement as ridiculous as “free contraception will increase promiscuity” without backing it up with sources, mister. And it would actually REDUCE unintended consequences of promiscuity. That’s like half the point of birth control.

      Also there’s nothing inherently wrong with promiscuity, so even if free contraception WOULD increase promiscuity, that’s not a valid reason to make free contraception unavailable.

      1. Is that why since the spread contraception kids born out of wed lock has skyrocketed? Look it up yourself. Contraception is far from foolproof. Just like network/host security a multi-layer approach should be taken, but the idiots are just that. I bet you use MS Outlook too.

        1. For contraception to work, it has to be used.

          Not all out of wedlock pregnancies are unintentional. A good deal of these woman actually want children.

          1. True, just a byproduct of a deluded mind before reality sinks in.

      2. On the contrary: removing stigma against promiscuity simultaneously removes stigma against having children out of wedlock, and thus has encouraged women and girls to have children they’re not necessarily able to care for and provide for on their own.

        Ergo, removing the stigma on promiscuity has increased the consequences of promiscuity. (Not all of which are “unintended.”)

        1. What are your goals for society? A welfare state? If so, then I agree, grant everything to everyone. There is no fight in life and there is a caring god too!

      3. Where is YOUR *source* for your assertion that BC reduces promiscuity? And yeah there is something inherently wrong with promiscuity. If you live like an animal doing it in the street, you’ll die like an animal in the street.

  62. http://www.cheaterville.com/up…..e012_1.jpg Problems with Viagra…

  63. I can see how a person who did not have a conscience would not relate to a person who did have a conscience. The liberals have no conscience, so they assume the normal people who still have a conscience are pulling their leg when they claim that not wanting birth control is a matter of their conscience. Sadly, the persons without conscience are big problem for civilization, are they not?

  64. In an article that is so narrowly focused on one outcome (insurance or not) it is fitting that you forget to mention employers receiving tax breaks for providing health insurance to employees as a benefit. They can happily give it back.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.