Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

If providing contraceptives helps insurers lower costs, why would the government need to tell the insurance company to provide it?

First, because some businesses do dumb stuff. Surely you must realize that.

Next, because insurers don't all bear those costs equally. If the consequence of not providing contraceptives is a covered medical cost, the insurer is gonna eat it. If it's something else, somebody else is gonna eat it -- most likely either another insurer or the taxpayers.

Third, because government has an interest in correcting the problem now. While the overall trend among insurance companies has been towards providing contraceptive coverage, and while "market forces" might eventually act on all insurers to induce them to provide more comprehensive contraceptive coverage, the economic and social costs of waiting for the market to self-correct are enormous. If the house is on fire, you don't wait for water to go on sale.

...

We have taken Darwinism out of society

"Darwinism" has never had a proper place in social science theory. To the extent that "Social Darwinism" has been used as a label for different social philosophies, some of its most common applications have included the ideologies of the 19th and 20th century fascists, that of the eugenics movement, and the ethos of racial and cultural imperialism.

Really, man, if you don't know what something is, please review the Wikipedia entry on it before you post about it. You will find the Wikipedia entry on "Social Darwinism" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

...

People feel entitled to other people's money. They think the world owes them.

First and foremost, I'd like you to explain how that statement relates at all to the topic of contraception coverage.

Next, since you object so strenuously to "entitlements," I would like you to itemize each and every instance in which you or your family have availed yourself of an "entitlement" to "other people's money" and I would like you to justify each occurrence.

Please begin by justifying each and every occurrence in which you or your family has used a government program to avail yourselves of "other people's money." This would include the purchase of any food or other good containing any subsidized agricultural products (corn, soy, wheat, rice, meat); the use of any subsidized commercial or industrial product (gas and oil); the use of any government-underwritten service (student loans, home loans, subsidized housing, student housing); the use of any government-funded service (roads, public schools and state universities, libraries, police and fire, post office, public transportation, trash pick-up); any commerce you have transacted with any business or other entity that has received government funds or special legal treatment in order to sustain itself in the market (non-exhaustive list includes any purchase of automobiles or automobile components, any use of airlines or railroads, and any transaction with any of the following: Citigroup/Citicorp, Bank of America, Merrill-Lynch, Chase-Manhattan/Bear-Sterns, AIG/Farmer's Insurance/21st Century Insurance, and any home or business utility provider such as electric, gas, and water/sewage); the receipt of any government benefit (social security, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, VA benefits); and any and all claims you have ever made to a tax credit that is part of an entitlement program (earned income tax credit, child tax credit, education tax credit).

Next, I would like you to justify each and every occurrence in which you or your family has used a private company such as an insurer to in order to take "other people's money" for yourself. Please justify the use of monies collected from other people's premiums to provide pay-outs on each of your claims, and also justify the risk you created of a raise to other people's premiums by filing insurance claims. This would include any and all instances in which you have made use of health insurance, car insurance, homeowner's or renter's insurance, fire insurance, and any other insurance or risk-management pool in which you have participated.

Now, I would like you to present your strategy for providing for the needs of yourself and your family absent any such entitlements to other people's money. Please identify, by specific percentage amount or dollar range, the estimated cost increase that you would incur in each of the following categories were it not for your use of "other people's money," and explain how you will pay for these increases: food, gasoline, housing, utility services, transportation/travel, education, health care. Be sure to also explain how your family will pay for the health care and retirement living needs of aging parents or grandparents.

I'm not being facetious. I really want you to do this stuff -- even if you don't post it in full. I want you to explain exactly how your personal budget is impacted by "entitlements" and exactly how it would change if those "entitlements" were gone, and how that change is an improvement.

In other words, I'd like you to make argument and back it up. Because frankly, if you can't do that, you're just talking out of your keister.

...

Look, no offense here, but so far you haven't given me any indication that you have any idea at all what you're talking about. You've just spouted a bunch of buzzwords that you heard on TV, and I don't think you even know what most of them mean. This is supposed to be a debate forum. Why don't you try making an argument -- like one with major premises and supporting evidence leading to a conclusion? Better yet, why not try making an argument for or against the issue you presented in this forum -- the contraception coverage requirement?

If you think that utilizing health insurance coverage is a failure to stand "on your own two feet," then the answer for you is very simple -- don't buy health insurance.

So is that really what you believe -- that you are failing to stand on your own two feet every time your insurance pays for a percentage of your pap smear, your mammogram, your antibiotics, your annual physical, your blood culture, your emergency medical procedure, etc.? Because "you can't have it both ways, honey."

1. My primary "goal" in posting on this thread has been to participate in debate about the TOPIC, which is the contraception coverage requirement. My secondary goal has been to provide some discussion of how Constitutional law applies to the issue of contraception coverage requirements whenever you respond to one of my posts with an incorrect assertion on that subject. I didn't really expect to change your mind, especially given that you led off by noting that you hadn't actually bothered to read my argument and that you didn't really give a crap about the arguments for and against contraception coverage anyway.

...

2. As for the whole rest of your first paragraph, that's all ducky for you, but none of those things are the debate topic that you posted here. If you'd like to debate any or all of those issues, you are entirely welcome to create new debate threads for each of them (and frankly I'd be interested to see if you even know what "Obamacare" does), but those things aren't the topic of this debate. The topic (and you should know it; you posted it) is the contraception coverage requirement.

...

3. Your second paragraph is a rather remarkable combination of the straw man fallacy, the appeal to popularity, and plain old brute force. The topic isn't whether government should "get in the business of telling insurance companies how to run their business." The topic is the much more narrow issue of whether insurance companies should be required to provide contraception coverage, and even more specifically whether they should be required to provide it to individuals insured under a plan offered by a school or hospital that is affiliated with a religion.

Also, claiming that your friends agree with you (on a straw man position) has nothing at all to do with whether or not your arguments are logically sound or rhetorically persuasive.

As for the bit about "I have the power" . . . c'mon, seriously? What are you, She-Ra? I thought this was a site for debate. Please show me that you're better and more intelligent than that. Besides, the ability to delete a debate that you posted from this site does not mean that you "own" it or that you have any particular power. It merely means that the site administrators have set up the site so that whoever creates a given debate page can also delete it. You have the exact same amount of "power" as any other site user. Also, the site TOS says that all posted user content is under a Creative Commons license that entitles them (and anyone else) to use and/or reproduce user content for any lawful purpose. So no, you actually don't "own" this thread.

...

4. "Faith-based institution" is neither legally nor factually the same as "church." Hospitals aren't churches. Schools aren't churches. Soup kitchens aren't churches. Thrift stores aren't churches. Churches are churches. That's really not hard to understand. As my original post explains, there is a difference between an organization with a religious affiliation and one with a religious mission. Organizations with a religious mission, like churches and synagogues, are exempt from a number of provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including those that deal with contraception. Organizations with a religious affiliation, like Catholic or Jewish hospitals, are not exempt. This is because they aren't "churches," they're businesses. Their primary mission isn't to spread a religion or celebrate religious rituals; their primary mission is to provide patient care. You don't get special treatment under the law for being affiliated with a church, or agreeing with a church, or being a member of a church, or going to church, or having the same name as a church. You get special treatment for being a church.

It is most assuredly empowered to regulate commerce among the states

YES!!! But a religious organization that is solely based in one state does NOT fall under that clause.

1) Health care providers and insurers are not "religious organizations"; and

2) A business does not have to operate in multiple states to affect commerce "among the states" in such a way that Congress can successfully invoke the Commerce Clause to regulate it. As an example, Congress has successfully invoked the Commerce Clause as its authority for prohibiting people from growing dope in their homes for 100% personal use -- because that affects local dope prices, which affects state dope prices, which affects interstate dope prices, which affects commerce among the states. (Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).) The Commerce Clause is that far-reaching.

You will also find plenty of decisional law that says Congress can set nearly any conditions it pleases on the receipt of federal funding.

YES!!! Which is why those religious organizations should get off federal funding.

1) Health care providers and insurers are not "religious organizations"; and

2) That's not the topic of debate in this forum, but by all means feel free to create another debate concerning the question of whether health care providers should refuse to take Medicare and Medicaid. (I can tell you right now that most health care providers would answer "good God no; we'd go belly-up if we didn't take it.")

And it's really not "YOUR" debate per se

Oh really? ;) Would you like to put that to the test? How about I delete it? That ought to prove who's debate it is ;)

That actually wouldn't prove anything -- except, perhaps, that your position is too weak to withstand debate. ;)

I agree, but it sounds like both birth mom and bio mom were prepared and planned to do that, and perhaps would have done that, except that birth mom effectively "kidnapped" the kid and hightailed it off to Australia. As a practical matter, birth mom did do more parenting than bio mom, but again that's because birth mom ran off with the kid and bio mom didn't have the opportunity to act as a parent. There's no indication that bio mom would not have also loved and nurtured the child if she'd had the chance to do so. So while I agree with your principle, I don't think it answers the question of who should have parental rights in this situation.

Okay. The issues that I spot here are as follows:

1. Is bio mom a "donor," like a sperm donor? (And if so, does that equal no parental rights?)

2. Is birth mom a "surrogate"? (And if so, does that equal no parental rights?)

3. Does it matter that Florida doesn't recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions?

4. Can't they both be mommies anyway?

5. What's best for the kid?

...............

So, in order:

1. Is bio mom a "donor"? Probably not. I didn't find a clear definition of the term under Florida law -- and I'm guessing the trial judge didn't either, or the inquiry would have ended there, and there wouldn't be any news controversy. The relevant law is at Florida Statutes 742.13 and 742.14, which states that absent a preplanned adoption agreement, a donor other than a member of a "commissioning couple" gives up all parental rights; and defines a "commissioning couple" as "the intended mother and father of a child who will be conceived by means of assisted reproductive technology using the eggs or sperm of at least one of the intended parents." Since the definition of a "commissioning couple" refers to mother and father, and "donor" is not defined, it's really not clear how (if at all) this statute would apply, and it's not at all clear that bio mom should be ruled to have given up any possible "parental rights." Nor is it clear that she hasn't given up parental rights -- or that she ever had any parental rights at all. So, not much guidance from the statutory language.

But . . . since it appears from the news articles I scanned that these two women intended to conceive and bear a child using the egg of Woman 1 and the womb of Woman 2, with the intent to raise this child together as co-parents, and then the two women had a break-up -- the thing they look most like is a "commissioning couple" (even though they don't quite meet the legal definition, 'cause they're both ladies), so I'm going to agree with the trial judge and say nope, bio mom is not a donor. So, no real help from Florida law there.

...

2. Is birth mom a "surrogate"? Probably not, because Florida surrogacy law has a lot of lengthy provisions that require a pre-existing surrogacy contract that can only be entered into if a bunch of other conditions are met, and there's no evidence of that. So no help from Florida's surrogacy law on this one.

...

3. Does it matter that Florida doesn't recognize same-sex marriages? The trial dissent seemed to think so, but I think not. If the two women are not donor or surrogate, but are instead two women who intended to co-parent, and their relationship isn't recognized under Florida law, then the situation is most like a child born out-of-wedlock. That doesn't really inform a "baby has two mommies" decision either way. So no help from Florida's marriage laws.

...

4. Can't they both be mommies anyway? Under current Florida law, it looks like the answer is no. Florida Statute 63.032 says that "'Parent' means a woman who gives birth to a child or a man whose consent to the adoption of the child would be required under [other relevant statute] . . . If a child has been legally adopted, the term 'parent' means the adoptive mother or father of the child." (emphasis added). These two ladies don't appear to have completed a legal adoption that would identify them both as mommies, so current law in Florida favors the position that birth mom is a "parent" while bio mom is not.

...

5. What's best for the kid? This is always supposed to be a major concern (if not the major concern) of the court in a custody decision. Like most states, Florida has a whole bunch of criteria that the court is supposed to consider in determining what's best for the kid and who should be awarded custody in the more common mom-vs.-dad scenario. There's a presumption that joint custody is best for the kid, but it refers to "both parents," which leads back into the question of whether both birth mom and bio mom can be "parents." It seems like it would be in the best interests of the child to apply the usual custody criteria in this situation, just as would be done in a mom-vs.-dad situation. First, though, bio mom is going to have to establish that she should be acknowledged as a "parent," and she's not getting much help there from Florida law.

Ya vo, and I know the Constitution. Please do Google the Commerce Clause, and/or go to Google Scholar and read some Supreme Court opinions concerning Congress' power to regulate commerce. It is most assuredly empowered to regulate commerce among the states by the Constitution, and Supreme Court decisions will affirm that yes, this is a very far-reaching power. In fact, whether the Commerce Clause provides proper authority for the Affordable Care Act has been a major theme of the court cases addressing the Act's legality. There's no doubt at all, however, that the Commerce Clause is in fact part of the Constitution. Again, it's at Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 3.

You will also find plenty of decisional law that says Congress can set nearly any conditions it pleases on the receipt of federal funding. In other words, if you want government money, government gets a whole lot of freedom to tell you what you can and can't do. Most health care providers get government money (most commonly by accepting Medicare and Medicaid, but often via other funding avenues as well). This power to set conditions on the receipt of federal funds falls under the Taxing and Spending Clause, which is in the Constitution at Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 1.

And it's really not "YOUR" debate per se -- this is a public forum. You are the debate creator, though, so I'm sort of surprised at your inability to stick to the topic you posted. This is not a debate about whether the federal government can or should regulate business, it's not a debate about whether government is a good or bad thing, and it's not a list of examples of issues where you think the government is overstepping its bounds. The debate topic you posted is about the contraception coverage requirement. You are of course totally welcome to make new debate topics for these other issues, but what you posted, and what I responded to, is the issue of contraception coverage.

Well first of all, yes it is, because government has established all sorts of interests in how businesses conduct their affairs -- including anti-discrimination law, health and safety law, securities and anti-trust law, RICO and anti-conspiracy law, tax law, wage law, foreign worker employment law, patent and copyright law, child labor law, environmental law, and heaven alone knows what else. Congress also has an express constitutional (and extremely far-reaching) authority to regulate commerce among the states under Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 3 (conventionally called the Commerce Clause). So yeah, in a lot of ways it actually is government's job to tell people how to run their businesses; that's the law.

Second, whether government should "interfere" in business at all is not really the topic. The topic is the contraception coverage requirement. So your "point" is a bit far-reaching given the scope of this topic; in fact, it seems less like an argument for or against contraception coverage, and more like a wholly different debate topic.

I think your response misses the argument. This has nothing to do with civil liberties or the separation of church and state. Health care providers aren't churches.

As noted in my main argument, this is more like an employment situation or a service-providing situation. Restaurants can't refuse to hire or serve blacks, Catholic hospitals can't make employees or patients go to mass, etc. These are businesses, not religious institutions, so all the normal rules of anti-discrimination law apply. In the case of health care providers like hospitals, most of 'em also get government money, which gives government even greater freedom to tell them what they can and cannot do.

Moreover, the constitutional protections on religious freedom are designed to protect individual liberties to believe or not believe -- they don't necessarily provide organizations with a right to act (or not to act). Protection of religious freedom really doesn't have anything to do with either health care or insurance coverage.

Fair 'nuff, but requiring contraceptive coverage does a better job of that than not requiring it.