How Close To The Truth Is Elizabeth Warren?

 

Elizabeth Warren has an op-ed in the Boston Globe decrying Scott Brown's support of a conscience exception for employer-sponsored health care coverage.  I am not a lawyer, but this strikes me as overheated:

Washington is so out of touch with what’s happening to families across this country that the Senate is about to vote on an amendment that would allow any insurance company or any employer to claim a vague “moral conviction’’ as an excuse to deny you health care coverage. Here’s the really astonishing news: Senator Scott Brown is not only voting for this amendment, he is fighting to get it passed.

What does this mean? If you are married and your employer doesn’t believe married couples should use birth control, then you could lose coverage for contraception. If you’re a pregnant woman who is single, and your employer doesn’t like it, you could be denied maternity care. This bill is about how to cut coverage for basic health care services for women.

Scott Brown is co-sponsoring the Blunt amendment (and the related House version), described by the Senator here.

Now Blunt claims that this bill simply restores the state of play that prevailed prior to ObamaCare.  So, my questions:

1.  Back in the day an amployer could simply not offer health insurance at all.  But could an employer offer health insurance without maternity coverage, or would that run afoul of obvious sex-discrimination laws (not to mention public policy, which routinely is pro-family)? [Answer in UPDATE, but a spoiler alert - it invokes the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.]

2.  If employers previously were able to deny maternity coverage, how many actually exercised that right?  Why does Ms. Warren think that more employers will do so now? 

FWIW, Brown claims Kennedy was on his side and cites a letter from the dying Ted Kennedy to the Pope:

Brown, who favors giving employers and health insurers broad moral and religious exemptions in health care coverage, has repeatedly quoted a letter that Kennedy, dying from brain cancer, asked President Barack Obama to hand-deliver to Pope Benedict XVI in Rome in 2009.

In the letter, Kennedy admitted to "human failings" and asked for the pope’s prayers.

But Brown has seized on a portion of the letter in which the prominent Catholic politician tells the Pope that he believes "in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field." Kennedy made the comments in the context of the fight over Obama’s health care overhaul bill.

Lacking a Ouija board, who knows?

UPDATE:  As to the issue of maternity leave for unwed mothers, the Blunt Amendment simply unwrites the impact of the 2010 Affordable Care Act.  That rolls back the clock to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which is quite clear and applies to companies with fifteen or more employees; from the EEOC summary:

• Health Insurance

  Any health insurance provided by an employer must cover expenses for pregnancy-related conditions on the same basis as costs for other medical conditions. An employer need not provide health insurance for expenses arising from abortion, except where the life of the mother is endangered.

  Pregnancy-related expenses should be reimbursed exactly as those incurred for other medical conditions, whether payment is on a fixed basis or a percentage of reasonable-and-customary-charge basis.

  The amounts payable by the insurance provider can be limited only to the same extent as amounts payable for other conditions. No additional, increased, or larger deductible can be imposed.

  Employers must provide the same level of health benefits for spouses of male employees as they do for spouses of female employees.

Elizabeth Warren is not a lawyer, and apparently not a researcher.  Now, if she wants to claim that Messrs. Blunt and Brown may create a crisis for employees of very small companies, well, was that a crisis resolved by ObamaCare?

Comments

[Extraneus]

I hope the rest of us aren't supposed to give a shit what Ted Kennedy wrote to the Pope right before descending.

[Neo]

But there will need to be cuts some where ...

Medical costs for enrollees in the health-care law’s high-risk insurance pools are expected to more than double initial predictions, the Obama administration said Thursday in a report on the new program.

[Extraneus]

I meant carp.

[Ignatz]

--1. Back in the day an amployer could simply not offer health insurance at all. But could an employer offer health insurance without maternity coverage, or would that run afoul of obvious sex-discrimination laws (not to mention public policy, which routinely is pro-family)?

2. If employers previously were able to deny maternity coverage, how many actually exercised that right? Why does Ms. Warren think that more employers will do so now?--

Answering these questions would require hard facts.
Ms Warren exists in a realm of soft assertion.

[Cecil Turner]

Well, this part is just plain wrong:

President Obama has already made sure religious institutions will not be forced to cover contraception - at the same time that he has made sure women can get the health care they need directly from their health care insurers.

And the rest of it is moronic. Claiming a right to someone else's money to cover your expenses of whatever sort is hardly a personal liberty issue.

Luckily, the solution is obvious. Repeal Obamacare and this problem just goes away.

[Extraneus]

Repeal Obamacare and this problem just goes away.

Does this problem go away?

Alinsky-tied group awarded $56 million federal loan for health insurance project

The federal loans announced this week were worth a total of nearly $640 million. Six other organizations in seven states received them. The money is meant for the creation of so-called Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, which will serve as nonprofit, cooperative-style insurance groups which will offer an alternative to other private plans. The goal is to eventually fund one of these groups in every state and the District of Columbia.

[Thomas Collins]

I love the references to Thomas Jefferson in the preamble to the Blunt amendment. It's the progs who usually use Jefferson when arguing church-state issues. In any event, the Blunt amendment to ObamaCare provides in part that:

"`(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS- A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because-- `(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or `(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage."

Does anyone know whether "moral convictions" is typically used in insurance regulations? Figuring out the scope of this term in the context of the amendment would answer the question of whether this restores the law prior to the 2012 Obama/Sebelius regulation.

[Thomas Collins]

Not surprisingly, Warren's talking points piece doesn't address the issue of the scope of the "moral convictions" langauge in the legislation.

[daddy]

"Lacking a Ouija board, who knows?"

Get Bob Woodward to interview Ted Kennedy in the grave for the definitive answer. If he can get answers out of a brain dead Bill Casey, then he ought to be able to get the same from a fully dead Ted Kennedy.

[Jane]

Today I got my renewal notice for my health insurance. It started out with all the stuff that is free - none of which I avail myself of or will have the need to avail myself of in the future. That of course did not prevent the increase in cost - which is only 5% this year, the smallest increase since Romneycare was implemented.

In my dreams I wouldn't have to pay for things I don't use or need. Do men pay for maternity care too?

[Thomas Collins]

"If you are married and your employer doesn’t believe married couples should use birth control, then you could lose coverage for contraception. If you’re a pregnant woman who is single, and your employer doesn’t like it, you could be denied maternity care.

The above is from Warren's talking points piece. If anyone can find the "employer doesn't like it" test anywhere in the Blunt amendment, please let me know. I missed it in my reading.

[Thomas Collins]

Jane, see LUN for a good resource on state health mandates. This is an area out of control. States and the feds impose these mandates without thinking about what mandates do to the overall cost of health insurance.

[Thomas Collins]

Well, I know Wiki is not the be all and end all of research, but I think in this case it does indicate that the "moral convictions" langauge is not new in this area. See LUN.

[Jack is Back!]

And by the way, you just didn't earn religious liberty. The government gave it to you, don't ya know. And it can take it away from you. So there :-j

(emoticon for Chubby:)

[Clarice]

Oh, they do think, TC. Often it's whoever crosses legislators' palms with more money.
I think she's going to lose and I don't think an offer to pose nude is going to make up the margin with Brown.

[DrJ]

If employers previously were able to deny maternity coverage, how many actually exercised that right?

The health plan I offer my employees does not include maternity care. The reason is simple: none of us need it, so why should we all pay for it? That is until CA required that it be covered. Our insurance costs undoubtedly will go up.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Clarice-

I would think that offer would reduce turnout in even the most advantageous of conditions, aka "free ride".

[Captain Hate]

Elizabeth Warren is so annoying she's shifted me from hoping Scottie Centerfold got bounced to now hoping he trounces her badly; all in a relatively short period of time.

[Clarice]

Maybe she'd have a better chance rounding up the Catholic vote if she showed up at rallies on one of those O'Bama four leaf clover T-shirts.

[Walter]

TC, As I read your quoted language, the amendment is restricted to the title under which health insurance is Federally regulated. It would not affect non-discriminination provisons elsewhere in the law.

[NK]

CaptH--- glad to hear that. Brown is one more vote to repeal Obamacare. Warren?, she is a smug prig, isn't she.

[Jane]

Brown seems to be gaining steam, if I am feeling things correctly.

[mojo]

Lacking any respect for Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy, not me.

[Jane]

I would appreciate it if you would all go vote in Howie's poll: 1/2 way down the page.

Here is the question: Do you agree with President Barack Obama that he has 5 more years left?

[Melinda Romanoff]

Jane-

Not sure if my "no" vote even registers in that sampling. (94%-No)

[pagar]

Jane, My guess is that the 6% that voted yes
have in some way benefitted from having Obama in office, while the 94% that voted No have lost from Obama being in office. Probably very close to the actual results of the damage his regime has done to America.

[Jane]

Let us hope Pagar.

It was 95% when I voted, so I'm a little bummed.

[Jane]

Oops, I misread you Pagar, I really don't hope for 94% damage!

[Thomas Collins]

Walter, thanks for bringing that up. I didn't address whether the Blunt amendment would require the states to include conscience opt outs. I've looked back at the Blunt amendment, and I don't think it does. Thus, existing state opt outs would not be affected.

[Thomas Collins]

And existing state law that didn't require opt outs would not be affected.

[bgates]

But could an employer offer health insurance without maternity coverage, or would that run afoul of obvious sex-discrimination laws

I bet I could find some Catholic institutions that would have no need for maternity coverage in their health insurance.

If you are married and your employer doesn’t believe married couples should use birth control, then you could lose coverage for contraception. If you’re a pregnant woman who is single, and your employer doesn’t like it, you could be denied maternity care.

If only there were some way to conduct an economic transaction that did not involve one's employer! Perhaps employees could be provided with tokens - either physical objects or some kind of written or even electronic symbol maintained by an institution dedicated to trafficking in such tokens - in exchange for the service they provide their employers. Then these tokens could be exchanged for yet further services or goods. They would become in effect a "medium of exchange". At that point we'd just need some entity to agree to offer health insurance in exchange for these tokens, and Bob's your uncle/problem solved.

[AliceH]

If only there were some way to conduct an economic transaction that did not involve one's employer!

*Snort*

[Ignatz]

--They would become in effect a "medium of exchange".--

ROFL.
I'm just commenting to bring attention to bgates brilliant comment on a rapidly dying thread.
More people need to see it.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Ig-

But is Denise Milani a "medium of exchange"?

[jimmyk]

Attention brought. Thanks, Iggy, and brilliant, bgates.

[Ignatz]

--Ig-

But is Denise Milani a "medium of exchange"?--

Extra, extra, extra large maybe, but medium no, Mel.

[Clarice]

bgates is always brilliant. He provides me with much of my best material--well, whatever I don't steal from Rick--I usually grab from bgates.