MOBILE
Smart Bombs: Too many dogs in this fight
February 19, 2012 - Updated: 4:42 a.m.
On Feb. 10, more than 250 people crammed into a Boise hearing room to listen to lawmakers discuss a bill that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and sexual identity. The “Add the Words” campaign sought to expand Idaho’s Human Rights Act beyond the categories of race, religion and gender.
It took five minutes for the Senate State Affairs Committee to kill their hopes, with all but two members voting against the introduction and printing of a bill, despite an emotional plea from Minority Leader Edgar Malepeai. So, Idaho landlords and employers can still legally discriminate against gay and lesbian renters and workers.
If the “Add the Words” advocates wanted to witness a debate on discrimination, they should’ve returned on the following Monday and headed over to the House State Affairs Committee to witness lawmakers go back and forth on whether the blue heeler should be named the state dog. The pros and cons sounded like they could’ve come from a human rights debate (in another state, of course).
Rep. JoAn Wood, R-Rigby, said, “I’m bringing to you a piece of legislation this family had brought to me and have asked for several years that we take a look at.”
Similarly, gay rights proponents have tried for several years to expand Idaho’s Human Rights Act but have never gotten out of the starting gate.
Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, said of the blue heeler bill, “I appreciate the presentation here and the history that’s contained here, but I guess I always have trouble with these kinds of bills. There’s lots of dog lovers in the state, and they have lots of kinds of dogs that they love, and I hate to discriminate one over another.”
Yeah, wouldn’t want to give blue heelers “special rights” or discriminate against other dog lovers. Perhaps dog lovers should be added to the Human Rights Act.
Rep. Ken Andrus, R-Lava Hot Springs, wasn’t feeling the love for these Aussie cattle dogs: “The worst dogs to get in sheep, and from my experience, I’ve lost thousands and thousands of dollars. … German shepherds and black labs and blue heelers are the worst.”
So, in the end, the blue heelers were defeated on an 11-8 vote. But their advocates did get more support than gay and lesbian citizens and the courtesy of an actual debate.
Rip Van Winkles. A question for those who want the contraceptives coverage requirement rescinded for all health care plans: “Did you enjoy that long nap?”
The original federal ruling that put birth control prescriptions on a level playing field with Viagra, and set the stage for the Obama administration’s recent actions, was issued a dozen years ago. Twenty-eight states have passed laws that require insurers to include contraceptives in their health care plans. In Washington state, some Catholic-affiliated institutions with secular missions sought waivers but were denied.
In an editorial from 10 years ago, I wrote: “The groundwork for the state’s ruling was laid when the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in December 2000 that omitting birth control coverage would be in violation of the Civil Rights Act. Following that decision, a federal judge ruled that Bartell Drugs, a Seattle-based chain, was discriminating against its female employees for not offering contraceptives in its drug plan for non-union workers.”
After the EEOC ruling, President George W. Bush was inaugurated, Republicans took control of Congress and the ruling was … left alone.
Maybe you remember that awkward moment when The Spokesman-Review reported that Providence Health & Services added the coverage in 2004 but left its workers in the dark for two years. The company ended up reimbursing employees who had paid for birth control.
Or maybe you don’t remember that, because it wasn’t the subject of around-the-clock outrage. Seems odd that the defenders of religious liberty would’ve all nodded off at the same time. What isn’t odd is their awakening in an election year.
See no evil. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff noted that while Christian Science advocates spiritual remedies over medical ones, the Christian Science Monitor offers a standard health care plan for employees.
Associate Editor Gary Crooks can be reached at garyc@spokesman.com or (509) 459-5026. Follow him on Twitter at @GaryCrooks.
Birth control, something so important yet not important enough to pay an f-ing copay?
How about paying in full with no insurance period for Atrovent? Rand, LOL! at the age of 57 going on 58 I am no longer in a position to have to worry about contraceptives.
However, if you want your Viagra covered by insurance, then women most certainly should get contraceptives covered as well.
Arch_druid wrote,
“However, if you want your Viagra covered by insurance, then women most certainly should get contraceptives covered as well.”
Although no insurer or their customers should be compelled to pay for either, your analogy is false. Erectile dysfunction (as the name implies), is an abnormal health condition. Menstruation and pregnancy are not. They are not “dysfunctions” and thus not insurable risks.
Spoken like a man. Well said Mr. Testosterone.
It’s so nice for you guys to care so much that you are willing to spend other peoples money. Wow way to sacrifice. Also Arch when did I say I wanted Viagra covered? Also who is forcing insurance to cover Viagra?
Rand, what would it matter to us males right? What sort of regular medications and screenings do we need until we are older? Make those women pay for everything themselves, serves them right for having been born with ovaries! Right Rand?
jdspokanewa wrote,
“What sort of regular medications and screenings do we need until we are older?”
Clue: birth control pills are not “medications.” They are not treatments for a disease, any more than are condoms.
“Make those women pay for everything themselves, serves them right for having been born with ovaries!”
No. Serves them right for being free, independent, autonomous moral agents. As such they are responsible for providing for themselves, just as are the males of the species. Their fellow citizens are not responsible for facilitating their sex lives, any more than they are responsible for feeding them, housing them, paying for their health care, or raising their kids.
Securing what you deem to be the necessities of life is your responsibility, whether you are male or female.
Typical clueless male who thinks he knows what is best for women. Well Dr. gmorton, I have news for you, “birth control” is often prescribed for more than contraception and if you ask me, pregnancy is a medical condition…but you know how best to dictate what happens within a woman’s uterus.
You will lose this debate…I’m guessing you’re single.
Here’s an idea. Let’s support shifting the tax deductibility from businesses to individuals. If we all bought our own policy we would not have to deal with this argument about what should be covered by an insurance plan. That should be a private affair between you and your insurance company.
Obamacare moves us in the wrong direction.
HSA’s and private health insurance is the only answer. IMHO
Having individual coverage will lower medical cost and we could quit jobs without fear of loosing insurance coverage.
jdspokanewa wrote,
” … but you know how best to dictate what happens within a woman’s uterus.”
Er, what “dictate” was that?
I have utterly no interest in what happens in any woman’s uterus. That is entirely her business. What is in my wallet and where that money goes, on the other hand, is my business.
You might try sticking to the subject, rather than trotting out straw men.
jdspokanewa wrote,
“Typical clueless male who thinks he knows what is best for women.”
I made no comment about “what is best for women.” That is not the subject of the discussion. They should do whatever they think best for themselves – and pay for it themselves.
gmorton, you’ve clearly stated that women are on their own when it comes to medical care, the problem is you look at women as though they choose everything in life and it is their responsibility to suffer the consequences of having a uterus.
You don’t want your money paying for “birth control” even if that birth control has another medical reason aside from contraception.
You don’t want your money being used to cover medical expenses arriving from any female health concern I’m sure either since you’re so opposed to anyone reaching into your pocket so logic should dictate that in your world women should pay far more in health insurance and I agree, Why should they be included in my risk pool since it is highly unlikely that I will give birth or need papsmears or mammograms but that’s not how it works sir.
You don’t want your money used to help raise these children whose mothers you’ve denied birth control to, they’ve made their choice to be fornicators and that’s their problem.
None of these are medical conditions, you clearly stated as much earlier. I’m sure there are some of those females of which you think so little of roaming these topics that can tell you otherwise but as a man, I can only tell you that your world vision is very outdated and is in my opinion a bit chauvinistic.
jdspokanewa wrote,
” … you’ve clearly stated that women are on their own when it comes to medical care . . .”
I’ve stated no such thing. They are perfectly free to join a risk pool with willing others who present similar risks.
“You don’t want your money paying for “birth control” even if that birth control has another medical reason aside from contraception.”
I didn’t say that either. If contraceptive tablets are prescribed for a bonafide medical condition, rather than for mere pregnancy control, then that expense would be an insurable risk and coverable.
“You don’t want your money being used to cover medical expenses arriving from any female health concern . . .”
And yet another brazen attempt to put words in my mouth. I said no such thing.
” … in your world women should pay far more in health insurance . . .”
They should pay according to the risks they present, as should men.
“You don’t want your money used to help raise these children whose mothers you’ve denied birth control to . . .”
I’ve “denied” birth control to someone? Surely you are not equating declining to pay for someone’s birth control with “denying” them birth control. If you refuse to pay for my big screen teevee, have you denied me a big screen teevee?
Try to avoid the Newspeak and hyperbole, hmmm?
“I’m sure there are some of those females of which you think so little of . . .”
I admit to having a low opinion of parasites, whether they are male or female.
gmorton, you have a response for everything but you forget
” Clue: birth control pills are not “medications.” They are not treatments for a disease, any more than are condoms.”
Once you deny any health benefit of a medication other than your view of what that medications single purpose is in your opinion, you’ve lost the argument and shown your lack of knowledge. I have not needed to put words into your mouth gmorton, I’ve read many of your posts and what I’ve stated about you in this topic is a culmination of months of postings I’ve read from you. If you want to back-peddle, that’s fine but your opinions are usually “don’t steal from me you free lunchers!”
Being that type of person is fine, we can disagree on ideological basis but if you don’t want to even research the medications you claim to know so much about then I suggest you stay out of the female reproductive system entirely because its not just women you will upset, you will upset forward thinking 21st century type men such as myself who respect women far more than most Republican/libertarian/tea partiers.
1. That works if society, as Dr. Paul suggested in a debate, would allow people who don’t purchase to suffer the consequences. Seeing no serious effort to repeal that federal law, the problem of paying for the uninsured would still exist. In addition, single payer would also extract us from this argument.
2. Why is the insurance model preferred? It’s not insurance. It’s a medical benefits package.
jdspokanewa wrote (quoting),
”’Clue: birth control pills are not “medications.” They are not treatments for a disease, any more than are condoms.’
“Once you deny any health benefit of a medication other than your view of what that medications single purpose is . . .”
I have not “denied” any such thing. The statement you quoted refers to their usual purpose, which is the subject under discussion. You cannot justify them as a free lunch 100% of the time merely because they have a medical use 1% of the time.
In fact, you cannot defend them as a free lunch even for that 1% of the time. In that case they are an insurable risk, but the insurance customer must pay for covering that risk, just as he or she must pay for covering any other risk.
“I suggest you stay out of the female reproductive system entirely . . .”
Just can’t focus on the real subject, can you? No one here is threatening to enter the female reproductive system uninvited. The only threats are to enter other people’s pockets uninvited, and they are coming from you and your fellow travelers.
garyc wrote,
“2. Why is the insurance model preferred?”
Because it is a time-honored method for people to reduce their risks of casualty losses – voluntarily. It involves no coercion. For some of us that counts for something.
” … the problem of paying for the uninsured would still exist.”
Yes, it would. Just as does the problem of paying for food, shelter, entertainment, travel, and all the other necessities and desirables of life. That is a ubiquitous, universal problem faced by every living organism on the planet. Humans have developed two broad strategies for solving that problem – producing the needed goods, or stealing them from someone else.
As always gmorton explains things very well and most either aren’t smart enough to get it or just don’t want to.
Rand, you can remove your lips from gmorton’s posterior now.
Let’s talk about free lunches gmorton, do you have children?
jdspokanewa wrote,
“Let’s talk about free lunches gmorton, do you have children?”
How is that relevant to the arguments made?
So you don’t want to discuss the free lunches you’ve been enjoying out of my wallet?
I understand your frustrations of women and children and “those people” getting things but I’m betting you’ve gotten some free lunches from me too but I don’t call you names and put you down for those free lunches, I support your right to enjoy them also.
Arguing that 3+3 may equal 6 doesn’t change the fact that 1+1=2. If you are dumb enough to believe that having to pay for your own birth control pills is akin to dictating women’s health then their is no reasoning with you. You are too far gone. I wish I could divorce myself from reality as easily as you seem to.
Rand, maybe some of us are tired of footing the bill for your reckless procreation. In my eyes, I’d rather spend a few dollars a month if a woman WANTS birth control rather than spending tens of thousands for child birth, then all those immunizations and doctors visits for 18+ years for your children. If you want to talk math, there’s your math!
Divorced from reality indeed!
jdspokanewa wrote,
“So you don’t want to discuss the free lunches you’ve been enjoying out of my wallet?”
There are none to discuss. I’ve never:
* Collected an unemployment check, disability check, SSI check, Pell grant, GSL check, food stamps, TANF check, Medicaid payment, rent subsidy, SBA loan, FHA or VA mortgage, FEMA grant, or any other gummint handout.
* I’ve never sent a kid to a public school.
Sorry to rob you of your *ad hominem*, jd.
jdspokanewa wrote,
“In my eyes, I’d rather spend a few dollars a month if a woman WANTS birth control rather than spending tens of thousands for child birth, then all those immunizations and doctors visits for 18+ years for your children. If you want to talk math, there’s your math!”
False dichotomy. You aren’t responsible for paying either. But of course, you’re free to do so if you wish.
So I’m going to assume you’ve opted not to claim exemptions for your children?
Sorry to burst your bubble gmorton but you’re just as guilty as anyone of wanting and accepting handouts and I highly doubt you can claim your children nor yourself have never received any form of subsidy from us taxpayers so you might want to rethink your “free lunch routine.”
As for birth control, I’m paying for people like you who hardly pay a fraction of what you claim in health insurance. I guarantee on a percentage I pay far more than I claim compared to you and your children so assuming we both have the same carrier, I’m paying for your breeding habits.
You are welcome Mr. Handout.
jdspokanewa wrote,
“Sorry to burst your bubble gmorton but you’re just as guilty as anyone of wanting and accepting handouts . . .”
Really? What is your evidence for that claim?
“I highly doubt you can claim your children nor yourself have never received any form of subsidy from us taxpayers . . .”
What is the basis for your doubt?
“I guarantee on a percentage I pay far more than I claim compared to you and your children so assuming we both have the same carrier, I’m paying for your breeding habits.”
Are you speaking here of private insurance? If you believe you are paying more than you should, drop the policy. No one is forcing you to continue it (Obama is trying to force you, but it is doubtful he will succeed).
So you have nothing to reply with other than vague non-responses. You aren’t sticking up for your firm beliefs very well gmorton.
a) Do you or do you not claim your children as dependents, forcing us taxpayers to give you a free lunch? If you do not claim them as dependents, you’re probably lying.
b) I pay for private health insurance because it is an insurance policy, I rarely need to see a doctor because I’m a healthy individual with no children so no matter what, I’m paying for people like you.
I know of no health insurance policies available for people like me, healthy and without children and who will probably not have children.
So basically, your own *ad hominem* attacks by making silly assumptions about my health and my insurance coverage is pointless.
Almost everyone in our country receives help from the gummint in some way or another at some point. Have you put fuel into your vehicle lately? Then you and your children are receiving help from the gummint, unless you’re figuring out the price per gallon without subsidies and sending a check to Uncle Sam, you’re getting a free lunch. But of course I’m sure a man with your strong convictions makes sure not take exemptions for your children and makes sure the gummint gives you absolutely nothing.
I could go on and on but you’re never going to admit you’re sitting with your hand out while complaining about others with their hands out.
If gay means happy then why are you so pissed?
jdspokanewa wrote,
“Do you or do you not claim your children as dependents, forcing us taxpayers to give you a free lunch?”
What children? Clearly you are the one making assumptions here.
“So basically, your own *ad hominem* attacks by making silly assumptions about my health and my insurance coverage is pointless.”
What assumption re: your health or insurance did I make? Can you quote it?
“Have you put fuel into your vehicle lately? Then you and your children are receiving help from the gummint, unless you’re figuring out the price per gallon without subsidies . . .”
The subsidies on oil and gas are minuscule (contrary to the constant misrepresentations of lefties). And you’re probably also confusing use of public services, for which you pay, with subsidies. A “free lunch” is a payment from gummint for which no service has been rendered, or a gummint service for which no payment has been made.
You’re right, though, that many products you buy (many food products, for example) have been subsidized to one extent or another. Those subsidies should all be abolished. But since you have no choice other than to do without them, and you have paid more than enough taxes to cover them, they do not represent free lunches (assuming you are a taxpayer). You become a moocher when the value of the gummint benefits you receive exceeds the taxes you have paid.