YOUNG PEOPLE NEED HEALTH INSURANCE

I'm amazed that there is so much talk on the injustice to demanding that young people have health insurance because they don't need it.  It is like saying you don't need home owners insurance because your house is unlikely to burn down.

Well, injuries are the second leading health cost cost after heart disease* and youth has plenty of accidents, often with trips to the emergency room, doctors offices, and hospitalization.  Among the many things attributable to youth are falls, skate board accidents, skiing accidents, automobile accidents, rough and tumble accidents, attempted suicides, poisonings, cuts, assaults, etc.  And youth are not immune to illnesses such as diabetes, obesity, drug overdoses, asthma, infected bug bites, severe sun burn, etc. that can lead to visits of the emergency room.*  The demographics of emergency room use is bimodal with one group of frequent users being the age range 25-44 and the other 65+.**  The younger than 25 group may be less frequent users because they are covered by health insurance on the parents policies and may more frequently go to doctors offices and hospitals.

For New South Wales, Australia, the hospitalization costs of drivers peaks in the 15-24 age grouping with male costs three times larger than for females after which the costs taper off  for both.***  New York had 2,825 hospital stays from traffic accidents in the 15-24 age group in 2007 with an average charge per injured person of $33,000-$35,000.***  Emergency room charges were less but still $1,000-$1,400/person with total costs of $25-30 million.***

There is also the aspect that you pay into the health system when young and withdraw from it more when you are old.  I understand that there may be suspicion that the system may not be there when you are old.

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/06/summary-health-costs-and-medical.html
http://www.santacruzhealth.org/phealth/CountyHealthReport/2012/pdfs/26-Non-Fatal%20Injuries%20Chapter.pdf
**http://www.acep.org/uploadedFiles/ACEP/News_Room/NewsMediaResources/Press_Conferences/Annals-FrequentUsersMyths-LaCalle7-2010.pdf
***http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.irmrc.unsw.edu.au/ContentPages/43995543.pdf#page=74 (You may have to register to see this document but it is free.)
http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/prevention/injury_prevention/traffic/new_york_state/nys_age_hosp.pdf
http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/prevention/injury_prevention/traffic/new_york_state/nys_age_ed.pdf

WHERE ARE THE WOMEN AGAINST CONTRACEPTIVES?

The whole argument against some religious faiths rebelling against paying for contraceptives has been, to the best of my knowledge, men. Where are the women against contraceptives being covered in health insurance plans? Even Sarah Palin is for pre-conception contraceptives (http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/sarah-palin/21/abortion-and-birth-control/16/). Better yet, where are the Roman Catholic women against them? I have heard , even from a Catholic Bishop, that 97-98% of Catholic women have used contraceptives at some point in their life (but he felt that made no difference). Rick Santorum says it is not a matter of contraceptives (though he is against them*), but of religious Freedom and economics. Whose freedom is he talking about: the freedom of the Bishops and the Roman Catholic hierarchy or the freedom of women to control their own health.

As to economics, the expenses of pregnancy and child birth are more expensive than the cost of contraceptives and insurance companies will actually save money (by as much as 15%, a figure claimed by some to be too high). No rule says that the Bishops must advocate contraceptives, and no rule says that anyone (nearly all women) must use them. There are many things in my health insurance policy that I have not used (There are those who have been unkind enough to say I should have my head examined.). And even in the original edict by HHS, people working in churches and seminaries and other religious organizations may not be covered by contraceptives. So should non-Catholic women or even Catholic women working in a Catholic hospital be denied contraceptive coverage whereas if they worked in a private hospital or, say, Presbyterian hospital they would be? I think not.

The greater availability of contraceptives has also been credited with the lowering of teenage pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).**

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2011/12/tthe-republican-primaries.html and particularly the reference to http://www.ricksantorum.com/pressrelease/senator-santorum-launches-“faith-family-and-freedom-tour” ("Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans").

**http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html

CHURCH & STATE

Recently two problems have occurred to put into question what is the role of church and state. The major problem is a directive by the Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) that states that church run secular services like health insurance and employees of hospitals, schools, etc. must provide for contraceptives being paid for by their health plan. Mind you, nothing requires the church to cover such matters within the church. It is said that this is interference of the state upon the church. Is this the first instance in the country where the state has interfered with church based operations? I think not. For example the state made the Mormons give up polygamy. One still finds Mormons and others who disobey the law, and the law keepers often overlook disobeying the law, but it is still against the law and occasionally the state takes action.* This controversy continues, pro and con: http://mediamatters.org/research/201202080008

It also occurs to me that Quakers are pacifists, but they are given no exemption from paying the part of their income tax that goes to the military.**

The prohibition of polygamy seems to me particularly relevant ( "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices."). The edict by HHS does not interfere with the belief that contraception is bad. It only refers to the action of prohibiting government payment by churches of contraceptives to non-members in secular operatons. The Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are strongly opposed to providing contraceptives to non-member employees. Often the First Amendment is appealed to,*** to support the Bishops; however, the Mormons also appealed to the First Amendment to justify their permitting polygamy. But it is also possible to object to the HHS edict on the secular basis that one doesn't feel the government should be involved in such things as well as for religious reasons. Some further legal discussions on this matter can be seen at: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/whose-conscience/?nl=opinion&emc=tya1.

The second uproar came from the California where Proposition 8, that prohibits marriage between same sexes, was struck down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.**** The basis of doing this was that a right was being taken from people who had the right, i.e. same sex marriage was legal in California for awhile. The verdict would not apply to other states, only California.

** http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/us/us-sues-quaker-group-over-taxes.html

"In spite of the law, the Mormons continued the practice of polygamy, believing that it was protected by the First Amendment. In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States,^[3] the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Morrill Act, stating: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices."^[2]"

"Quakers were not permitted to bear arms, appear "arrayed in a warlike manner", join the militia, or pay war taxes." (http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~quakers/quakinfo.htm)

*** http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-29/justice/hamilton.polygamy_1_polygamy-marriage-argument?_s=PM:LAW

**** http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/07/BA1H1N3T1H.DTL