How will healthcare providers sort it out if Hobby Lobby wins?

[Ilsa]

How will hospitals, doctors, psychologists, counselors, etc know if they'll get reimbursed if Joe comes in for depression, but his insurance is a group plan from a company owned by a scientologist?

How will a therapist know that counseling for a newly married woman won't be covered because the company owner is a fundamentalist?

Or a doctor get reimbursed if the company owner is a christian scientist?

Or a hospital get reimbursed for life-saving blood transfusions if the owner is s jehovahs witness?

How will healthcare companies make sense of convoluted coverage?

[uppityperson]

1. Same as always. Bill the insurance co and then the pt for what ins co says you can

If insurance does not pay, it is the pt's responsibility, just like it has been.

[Ilsa]

2. But if it is something expensive,

they'll want prepayment or guarantees first.

It still creates a swiss cheese of coverage to sort through.

[uppityperson]

10. In which case the facility has someone in their financial office who routinely calls ins co's

to see if the person has insurance, if it is active, what the terms are including services covered, amount allowed, copays or %, deductible with if it has been met/how much remains.

Just like they do now.

Having done ins billing, you quickly learn that just because 2 people may have the same company in no way means they have the same details in coverage.

[YarnAddict]

3. You might be getting just a bit ahead of yourself

This is one very narrow case, concerning only certain kinds of birth control.

BTW, do you really think fundies don't believe in marriage counseling???

[Ilsa]

4. Not all of them.

The Man of the family rules; the Woman does what she's told. End of conflict.

Yeah, I've heard this from fundies.

[YarnAddict]

9. That may be what you've heard

but it isn't what most 21st century "fundies" believe. Don't therapists/marriage counselors have to be licensed in order to charge fees? If so, I doubt that they could get licensed unless they were well-trained to be a little more open-minded.

[Ilsa]

14. I think you misunderstood me.

I'm not saying a word about the counselors' training, licensing, or ability to be openminded. Their prior experience with the same large insurance company might have had their services covered.

I'm saying that the Fundie Men I've known would never seek counseling or agree to let the barefoot wife out for it, even if she was on the verge of killing her kids. But their employees might desire it, but discover it isn't covered because of the Fundie boss.

[YarnAddict]

17. I don't know how many you've known,

but I understand the "language." I was raised in that kind of environment, and many of my friends are Bible-believing, Christian evangelical fundies. And--any man who would treat his wife (or his daughters) that way are not following Biblical principles. The wife is told to "submit" to the husband, but the husband is to love his wife "as Christ loved the church." Most of the fundies I know take that to mean that the husband actually has a much greater burden to bear. When you talk about men slapping their wives around, or not allowing them to seek counseling, well those men are only using their Christianity as a cover for sociopathic behavior.

I have a friend who was (very unhappily) married to a man with Asperger's. It was very cold, unhappy marriage. She was lonely and unfulfilled, even though, outwardly, it appeared to many of her secular friends as a very good marriage. As a friend of hers told her, "He doesn't hit you, he doesn't drink, he holds a steady job. What's not to like?"

Her pastor, a fundamentalist Baptist pastor, listened to her, and told her he would support her no matter what she decided--as long as she didn't leave her husband for another man. Seems to me that's a very compassionate, 21st century response.

The birth control thing is actually about "life." The drugs the Greens object to are abortifacients. I think there is a legitimate philosophical disagreement about when life begins. Even the President, when asked his opinion on when life begins, said it was above his pay-grade.

Since there is no "life" issue as far as counseling is concerned, I don't think it would EVER be an issue.

This really isn't about a religious family forcing their beliefs on their employees. It is about conscience. It is about being complicit in something they see as the taking of a life. Their employees are not being forbidden from using any form of birth control they want; it's just a matter of who pays the $15/month. They don't discriminate on employees based on their use of birth control, or abortion.

[Ilsa]

18. So you are saying that you hope the SCOTUS finds for Hobby Lobby

and other companies who get to dictate the details of medical coverage based on their religious beliefs (not conscience), no matter what? I think you should make your position clear, here and now.

Should the owner who is Jehovah's Witness eliminate coverage for blood transfusions and bone marrow grafting?

If the owner believes HIV is god's plague and shouldn't be covered, then it's okay with you if your coworker cant get her meds? What if the boss doesn't approve of vaccinations?

Leaving any reasonable coverage out puts another burden on the employee, which isn't a problem for you? These forms of contraception are all legal and medically ethical.

[YarnAddict]

20. You're putting words in my mouth

Never said any of that. Blood transfusions, HIV drugs, vaccinations--none of that is at issue here.

I guess I really don't have an opinion, one way or the other. I don't work for HL. I don't need birth control. I just try to see both sides of an issue.

The Green family started a business in their garage, built it to what it is now, treat their employees very well, and have a minor little issue with one aspect of the ACA. I've read that they might just close their doors if forced to comply with something that is against their conscience. (Yes, it is conscience.) Wouldn't that put a greater burden on the employee than shelling out a few bucks for bc pills?

The stereotyping bothers me. some people here have as wacky opinions of Christians as we think the right does of Muslims. Some of it is just hysteria--"They are FORCING their religious beliefs on their employees!!!!!!! Slippery slope!!!!! No more vaccines!!!!! Faith healing only!!!!!"

[Ilsa]

23. All of that is at issue. Every single item I listed

is at issue, because of the claim for religious exemption. These other religious groups have beliefs about various treatments in healthcare. Scientologists, Christian scientists, Jehovahs Witness, etc.

A religious exemption affects more than just contraception.

Apple was started in a garage too. So what. HL is a company, not a person. A company does not have religious beliefs. The owners can practice their own religious beliefs without carving out exceptions for legal birth control that some women prefer or need which is prescribed by their doctors.

[Squinch]

35. But the slippery slope is real. If a company can, by decree of opinion, say that certain birth

control (that is NOT abortifacient) is not allowed because they personally don't like it, companies can then disallow other medical procedures and medications that they don't like.

[Ilsa]

19. BTW, Hobby Lobby is a corporation, not a person.

HL doesn't attend church or go to confession. It is a legal construct that is regulated and required to follow laws. It is not a person, even if it is not publicly traded.

[YarnAddict]

21. No, but their owners are n/t

[Ilsa]

24. Irrelevant.

Besides, if they were that concerned about abortifacients, they wouldn't buy 95% of their inventory from China, the greatest deliverer of abortions on the planet. HL buys their crap from China to make a bigger profit. They are in the business of making money, not imposing their religious beliefs on employees for whom $25 a month in medication might be a big deal.

[HERVEPA]

26. Simple question. With obviously non-liberal views such as yours, why are you on this site?

[YarnAddict]

27. I may not agree with everyone here

about everything, but I still vote Democratic.

[Squinch]

32. The birth control they are objecting to are NOT abortifacients. They prevent pregnancy.

"Medical Experts Agree: The Morning-After Pill Does Not Prevent Implantation. The National Institutes of Health, the Mayo Clinic, and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics all agree that the morning-after pill does not prevent implantation, the medical beginning of pregnancy"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/what-media-should-know-about-hobby-lobby-and-th/198591

The medical community agrees that these are not abortifacients. THAT is what makes this so troubling. The Hobby Lobby people are saying that their opinion, in contradiction to the medical community - and let's not forget that the extend of their expertise in gynecology is that they own a hobby store - should determine their employees access to medication.

[Freddie]

5. I've heard things about "Christian marriage counseling"

Like the husband is always right. Head of the household, etc. If he smacks you around, what did you do to deserve it?

[YarnAddict]

6. I seriously doubt that any reputable marriage counselor

would endorse such a view.

There MAY be some old hard-line pastors providing "counseling," but I doubt they can charge.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

12. There are plenty of churches doing counseling. And they don't have licenses.

And they get away with it, because they're a church.
It's amazing what sort of bad advice they can get away with dispensing.

It also bothers me that lots of people writing books counseling people are NOT licensed psychologists or psychiatrists. People like Dr. Phil's wife, the Osteens (yuck), and lots of people writing advice columns on the internet like Dear Prudence.

Ann Landers was totally nuts in some of her advice, but she did consult with licensed psychologists at times to determine a correct answer.

Unfortunately, in high school they showed us a movie with Ann Landers about how terrible and horrible premarital sex is, if you have sex and you are a girl, you're "damaged goods", etc. All that double standard crap that made lots of kids feel guilty and shameful about their natural sexual urges. She had that smug middle-American attitude about sex being dirty unless you were married, and we, the baby boomer generation, did NOT get accurate sex education--just silence. She hurt a lot of young people with that advice.

Except for the movie they had to show us in the fourth grade about menstruation, so we wouldn't leave bloody trails down the halls. They didn't tell us a damn thing about what males had to do with reproduction.

[YarnAddict]

13. My remarks were

in regard to the OP thinking that "fundies" could refuse coverage to pay for marriage counseling. Totally different from what you are talking about.

I agree that we weren't given enough info in the 60's and 70's, although, truth to tell, I wish my first sexual experiences had been a little later in life, and with a lot more thought put into it. TMI, I know. But at least from that perspective, maybe "Dear Ann Landers" was kind of right . . .

[Ilsa]

15. Some non-professional authors have tried to tell

Parishoners how to raise their babies. The new parents follow their breastfeeding advice and end up killing their kids, or causing severe malnutrition.

[YarnAddict]

22. True,

but that kind of thing isn't limited to churches. The same can be said about any secular author with a strange idea and the ability to get it published.

[Ilsa]

25. It's more problematic with churches due to expectation

of conformity and having "faith" that this person speaks for a diety. There is pressure to accept the authority of a church leader.
Not so with a book you find on the stack at Costco.

[NightWatcher]

7. Corporations are NOT people, they do NOT get to exercise freedom of religion

Corporations are legal entities that are operated by people. If they are able to exhibit the religious preferences that their boardmembers/owners have it will be a mess of what company gets to follow what law and whatnot.

[Ilsa]

16. My hope is that the SCOTUS will agree with you.

I know I do.
I'm just concerned about this swiss cheese approach of religious bosses leaving out so many different treatments that healthcare folk don't know if they'll get reimbursed for something simple that they used to be reimbursed for.

[fencesitter]

29. seems so logical

but this whole thing defies logic.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. the insurance plan will tell the doctors what is covered

and what isn't



Besides the fact that the patient should know going it.


Some people won't find out until they get the bill, but insurance policies not covering things has been the norm for so long that this is a non-issue.


I still have faith that a correct decision will be made, so I am not getting to worked up about it, yet.

[RKP5637]

11. Best way is for employees to steer clear of these creepy outfits! If one works there and

loves it, fine. Others should stay clear, just like one generally tries to do to avoid working for some sh** outfit, and there are plenty in that category.

[fencesitter]

28. Has Hobby Lobby never offered BC coverage..

in the policies offered to their employees, or is this a new thing since the ACA came online? Some health insurance companies have offered BC coverage for the past 30 years, have they had to write a special policy for HL in the past?

[Ilsa]

30. It doesn't even matter what they did in the past.

This is a new exemption which could open the door for all kinds of legal chaos with the ACA from any corporation that could decide that they have religious beliefs that need expressing through the corporation for financial gain.

If HL had a real problem with abortion, they wouldn't do business with China.

[fencesitter]

31. good point

The China connection.

[alc]

33. "21st century medicine rider"

Charge business the same and let them remove anything they want. Then sell individuals a $1 rider to put everything back. Government subsidizes the $1. The way it should have been done in the first place to avoid the loss of support that the ACA will get no matter what the court rules on this case (many will blame the ACA for either loss of forst amendment or not providing birth control)

[FarCenter]

34. It is the patient's responsibility to know what their insurance covers