|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
If a guy has a wife and 3 girlfriends, and they all agree to the situation, they the law is fine with that. if he wants to marry the 3 girlfriends, and keep his wife though, well, then that's illegal.
Who cares? I don't. It won't effect me in the least. if the country winds up going the rest of the way to hell in the next 50 years ..... well, odds are that I won't be around to see it anyway ...... and if I am, I probably won't care one bit.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
j/c
Okay, so Obama apparently just changed the rules. Religiously affiliated schools and hospitals will not be required/forced, to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees. BUT, insurance companies will be forced to offer contraceptive coverage at no cost to women that work for any of those organizations.
How does that work? The president can just make the rules? I don't get it. The president can just tell insurance companies what they will cover, and mandate that the users don't have to pay any extra?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
The dictator can dictate what he wants. 
Election time is creeping up on the big 0 and he knows that if this stood, separation of church and state would bite him in the arse. This isn't reconsidering anything as far as ideology / socialist ideals. Its about votes and having to answer this question time and time again against the Republican nominee. This is akin to the criminal who apologizes not because he is sorry for the crime, but because he is sorry he got caught.
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
JC..
What I don't get is what is the purpose of this? Do they think it's going to help unwanted pregnancy? I highly doubt that, as I doubt those that are truly concerned with an unwanted preganacy are choosing not to use birth control due to cost.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
JC
I don't care who screws who. If you get preggers, thats your problem not mine. I won't pay to bail you out.
Hmm EDIT.. IF my money gets used in taxpayer funds for abortion, there isn't much I can do about that except vote accordingly.
Last edited by SaintDawg; 02/10/12 04:53 PM.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
what about taxes that go to paying government assistance to families where the parents weren't financially prepared to care for children on their own?
Contraception is a good thing. especially in countries that are "12% to 15% overpopulated."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Quote:
Quote:
Catholic agencies employ a good number of non-Catholics. Should non-Catholic employees be shut out of contraception benefits?
Yes. Without a doubt. The culture of the business should dictate what benefits they offer and the government should stay the heck out of it.
So long as Catholic organizations remain not-for-profit, the government has every right to impose rules upon them. If they want to forfeit not-for-profit status, then this argument has merit.
Quote:
If I went to work for the Athiest Society of America and everybody got 8 days vacation a year and I needed an extra week off in the summer to do the work of the Lord and go on a mission trip to Nigeria, should they be forced to let me go?
Of course not. ... and in my original post, I agreed that religious organizations shouldn't have to PAY to provide contraception benefits. I merely suggested that permitting insurance companies to offer them a la carte at the consumer's expense seemed like a decent compromise.
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
Why should ANYONE *HAVE* to pay for contraception benefits????
This is the part that I can't get over. Why the hell is ANYONE having to do this????
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
Of course not. ... and in my original post, I agreed that religious organizations shouldn't have to PAY to provide contraception benefits. I merely suggested that permitting insurance companies to offer them a la carte at the consumer's expense seemed like a decent compromise.
I liked this idea. Because it seems to me that religious organizations will just be paying indirectly through higher premiums..........
With this "Concession" that the government made, it's like putting some newspaper over dog dookie. You can't see it, but you know it's still there
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I'm not sure I understand why the government should get to mandate insurance policy to an organization just because it's non-profit or tax exempt... How are those 2 things related?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Why do organizations pay for benefits at all? Because they would be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring. Contraceptive coverage is a microcosm of that idea. As the percentage of women in the workforce increased, it was almost inevitable that the vast majority of healthcare plans would eventually offer these benefits.
You'll notice that coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs was almost instantaneous once they became available. Why? Because millions of men in the workforce who were middle-aged and beyond wanted access to them.
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
Yeah, that's great as a choice.... WHY is it being FORCED on companies?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
ED drugs should absolutely not be covered by insurance. That is ludicrous.
If an old man can't get his willy up, then why should I have to help pay him to do it? He should consider it an "entertainment" expense not a medical one.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
ED drugs should absolutely not be covered by insurance. That is ludicrous.
If an old man can't get his willy up, then why should I have to help pay him to do it? He should consider it an "entertainment" expense not a medical one.
Man, are you an elderly bigot or what?
If anyone should get free stuff in this country it's our elderly folks.
I say, UP WITH WILLY'S!
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
I'm kinda concerned that you are so interested in elderly mens' willys ........  
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
What? Maybe I should have said, "Free Willys!"
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
Well I doubt that anyone was gonna pay for it.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
I must admit I'm a bit biased. In a couple of more years I'll be eligible for that 10% off the creamed corn surprise at my local iHop! So I'm all in for elderly causes... 
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,561 |
Quote:
what about taxes that go to paying government assistance to families where the parents weren't financially prepared to care for children on their own?
Contraception is a good thing. especially in countries that are "12% to 15% overpopulated."
I agree, but the 12%-15% who overpopulate the country would receive less in food stamps.
If you can't support the children you mare they should be removed from the house an be put up for adoption.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
NRTU, Good piece from Yglesias on how offering cheap birth control is a no-brainer for insurance companies (much much cheaper than abortions, natal care, or having to cover a child under the employers own health care plan) http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/10/the_economics_of_birth_control_subsidies.htmlQuote:
The Catholic view that helping women control their own reproduction constitutes "material cooperation with evil" is, I suppose, outside the scope of the Moneybox beat but the fusionist view that even secular people should endorse Catholic obscurantism on broadly libertarian grounds is on the inside. This strikes me as simply one of those cases where a strong form of libertarian opposition to subsidizing anything at all just ends up flying in the face of the common sense view that public policy should aim to make things better. Here Ben Smith quotes a study (PDF) from the Business Group on Health which argues that "Unintended pregnancies result in substantial excess direct medical claims costs and indirect costs such as disability, employee replacement costs, lost productivity, and presenteeism."
The point here is simple. While birth control costs more than nothing, it costs less than an abortion and much less than having a baby. From a social point of view, unless we're not going to subsidize consumption of health care services at all (which would be a really drastic change from the status quo) then it makes a ton of sense to heavily subsidize contraceptives. Now of course sometimes the economically rational course of action (kill everyone in Alberta and steal their oil) is immoral (killing is wrong) and therefore we don't do it. But just on the dollars and cents subsidizing birth control is a no-brainer. The unfortunate thing is that under the American setup the subsidies tend to be passed through the employer, which has set the stage for this controversy.
Another point worth making is that this is one of these issues where the actual incidence of the costs of a policy and the legislative incidence are going to be quite different. Liberals often like making "employers" pay for things as an alternative to taxing people. But in practice, employers are making a tradeoff between health care spending and wages. If your employer shifts from not subsidizing contraceptives to subsidizing them, what happens is that the workers who don't use contraceptives are providing cross-subsidy to those who do. It's in effect the same as financing a free birth control policy through a tiny increase in the payroll tax, which seems to me like a totally reasonable course of action, but like it or not employers are only bearing uhe cost in a very formalistic sense.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404 |
I'm a devout Catholic. I agree with you Petey. I do feel like we get beaten on a lot, but it doesn't really make me that upset. I roll with the punches and I laugh about the jokes people make about the church because you need to have a sense of humor.
The only thing that really bothers me is the "double standard." It irks me how it's become funny to make fun of Catholicism (such as on SNL), but people still walk on eggshells when it comes to other certain religions. I'll give Family Guy some credit because they're pretty even across the board.
Back to the subject, my whole view on this law is that it is flawed because I really don't see where the federal government has the power to mandate health insurance at all. I can't seem to find anything in the Constitution that really gives it the power to do so. However, it seems pretty trendy lately to disregard anything the Constitution says.
This argument is all made without even approaching the First Amendment argument, which is put at the forefront of this whole mess.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Yeah, I don't get the "free" part (well, I do since it's the government, but that's a separate issue...). I'd be OK with insurance companies offering contraceptive coverage at the negotiated rates they can make available to their customers (often there's a co-pay of $5 or less). Telling insurance companies they have to provide it free of charge only pushes the expense back to the church-based organization in the form of higher premiums. Makes no sense.
If people can get birth control at no charge, I want my maintenance drugs that I need to keep me going for free as well. Birth control pills are not a life and death situation and they are being forced to provide them free of charge. I want my medication, which is a life and death situation for free as well.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
If people can get birth control at no charge, I want my maintenance drugs that I need to keep me going for free as well. Birth control pills are not a life and death situation and they are being forced to provide them free of charge. I want my medication, which is a life and death situation for free as well.
I don't see the "free of charge" part - I think it's supposed to be the normal co-pay?
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
If people can get birth control at no charge, I want my maintenance drugs that I need to keep me going for free as well. Birth control pills are not a life and death situation and they are being forced to provide them free of charge. I want my medication, which is a life and death situation for free as well.
I don't see the "free of charge" part - I think it's supposed to be the normal co-pay?
"Under the new plan, religious employers such as charities, universities and hospitals will not have to offer contraception and will not have to refer their employees to places that provide it. If an employer opts out of the requirement, its insurance company must provide birth control for free in a separate arrangement with workers who want it."
web page
"The move, which would revise a Health and Human Services Department rule by allowing those employees access to free birth control via their employers' insurance companies,"
web page
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
When has an insurance company ever given anything away for "free"? This will bump up insurance costs, because the more thing get paid for, the more insurance will cost. It's a pretty simple formula. Personally I think that a few shots of Crown and a cute blonde every once in a while are good for my health.Can I get those paid for by my insurance company? This is a massive overreach by the Obama administration, and I think that it will bite them squarely in the ass. I see if going to the Supreme Court right after the Obamacare fight.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
When has an insurance company ever given anything away for "free"?
This will bump up insurance costs, because the more thing get paid for, the more insurance will cost. It's a pretty simple formula.
Personally I think that a few shots of Crown and a cute blonde every once in a while are good for my health.Can I get those paid for by my insurance company?
This is a massive overreach by the Obama administration, and I think that it will bite them squarely in the ass. I see if going to the Supreme Court right after the Obamacare fight.
Not if the insurance companies find that contraceptive care lowers cost (as the cite I posted above reasoned) - sure maybe cost increases in the short run "hey, we're providing this so we will charge more", but given competition, a lower equilibrium should be established.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
Quote:
Quote:
When has an insurance company ever given anything away for "free"?
This will bump up insurance costs, because the more thing get paid for, the more insurance will cost. It's a pretty simple formula.
Personally I think that a few shots of Crown and a cute blonde every once in a while are good for my health.Can I get those paid for by my insurance company?
This is a massive overreach by the Obama administration, and I think that it will bite them squarely in the ass. I see if going to the Supreme Court right after the Obamacare fight.
Not if the insurance companies find that contraceptive care lowers cost (as the cite I posted above reasoned) - sure maybe cost increases in the short run "hey, we're providing this so we will charge more", but given competition, a lower equilibrium should be established.
I almost want to laugh ...... because I cannot ever, ever remember my insurance costs going down.
Not once.
Has your health insurance cost gone down in the past decade or 2?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
jc
My wife works as an RN at a "Catholic" hospital. Here is the reality (maybe specific to her hospital, but I suspect this is a common model, since there is no way that the collection plate is paying for all the Catholic hospitals in the US). I'm almost positive that they get a lot of their money from non-Catholic institutions (Medicare, Medicaid, some cash flows and insurance from Cleveland Clinic, patient payments from non-Catholics), they serve a wide community of all faiths, and they employ a vast majority of non-Catholics. Employees already pay a good chunk of their own insurance premiums out of their own pocket.
Speaking as a practicing Catholic, not allowing contraception to be covered is clearly an overreach on the part of the Church. Until they account for the majority of the money, serve only Catholics (which would be illegal), and pay 100% of an employee's health insurance, then they don't get to impose their beliefs on the majority at that institution IMO.
There have to be lines in society. Religion is a great thing for many people. It cannot dictate rules in institutions that serve wider communities of different religions, as that is an impingement on other individual's freedom of religion. Hospitals fall under that category IMO, b/c you can't set up a community hospital that only serves one religion. Churches are another matter altogether, as are universities and schools dedicated solely to Catholic teachings and run solely by Catholic money; those are protected under freedom of religion b/c the vast majority participating are of one religion.
Freedom of religion is about protecting individuals from persecution for religious beliefs they hold that are within the law. It is not about protecting the beliefs of the spirit of an institution that used to be predominantly Catholic at the expense of the majority of non-Catholics it now serves.
On another note, I know there is some way that this could be dealt with on balance sheets. Since so much money comes from non-Catholic sources, can't that money be used for the coverage? I feel like this is more of a wedge issue trying to stir up trouble for the news cycle than a true problem that can't be solved.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
jc...
How do religious employers of Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian and sundry other faiths feel about this plan?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
I almost want to laugh ...... because I cannot ever, ever remember my insurance costs going down.
Not once.
Has your health insurance cost gone down in the past decade or 2?
This is certainly not a big enough shock that insurance costs would go down overall - it's a small decrease against the rising tide of things that send insurance costs up (new treatment techniques, longer lifetimes etc.). You'd need some huge change of laws to actually see the cost change as the consumer.
That doesn't mean that there are never negative shocks in the cost of health insurance - I'm just arguing that this might be one of them.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
jc...
How do religious employers of Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian and sundry other faiths feel about this plan?
I believe muslims were a little upset as well over this, but the others I don't think so much. Catholics are more inclined to have the belief that sex is only for procreation than the others.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
ED drugs should absolutely not be covered by insurance. That is ludicrous.
If an old man can't get his willy up, then why should I have to help pay him to do it? He should consider it an "entertainment" expense not a medical one.
Insurance is not a charity, it's a buisness. You can bet if they offer coverage for Viagra and not for Levitra that Pfizer is paying them big bucks to do so. In fact, it's likely that the fact that they are more of a luxury item that they are being offered as covered by insurance.
The only reasons I can see for birth control not being covered by insurance are:
1) the kinds that women often need are too specific and the many companies that provide them don't all pony up the dough to get them covered
2) they're afraid of backlash from the "abstinence only" crowd... you know, the states like Texas and Arizona which are year after year in the top 5 for teen pregnancies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
jc...
How do religious employers of Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian and sundry other faiths feel about this plan?
I believe muslims were a little upset as well over this, but the others I don't think so much. Catholics are more inclined to have the belief that sex is only for procreation than the others.
Unless it's with little boys......sorry couldn't refuse.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
There are many Jewish retirement/nursing homes near me. Few, if any, employees are Jewish. Many patients are not Jewish. They receive tax dollars for payments.
Do employees have the right to cook bacon in the microwave? Do patients have the right to bring in ham?
Your "they serve the public" argument is specious, in my opinion.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404 |
Quote:
Quote:
jc...
How do religious employers of Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian and sundry other faiths feel about this plan?
I believe muslims were a little upset as well over this, but the others I don't think so much. Catholics are more inclined to have the belief that sex is only for procreation than the others.
Just a point of clarification - it doesn't have to be solely for procreation - the rule is you just always have to be open to procreation. The Church has okayed NFP.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Just a point of clarification - it doesn't have to be solely for procreation - the rule is you just always have to be open to procreation. The Church has okayed NFP.
So basically birth control is ok - so long as it is ineffective?
The all-powerful god could still intervene and make you pregnant via NFP, but can't quite make a condom break?
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 02/12/12 08:49 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404 |
LOL... I believe it has to do with free will there bud and God giving us the choice, but I really didnNt want to create a religious belief argument or bashing thread but discuss what certain faiths Tin this case Catholic) believe and how it affects the law.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
There are many Jewish retirement/nursing homes near me. Few, if any, employees are Jewish. Many patients are not Jewish. They receive tax dollars for payments.
Do employees have the right to cook bacon in the microwave? Do patients have the right to bring in ham?
Your "they serve the public" argument is specious, in my opinion.
I detailed several reasons why hospitals are public institutions. Do you have any reasons why they aren't?
Cooking bacon in a Jewish nursing home, something that is directly offensive and in the face of patients, is quite different than an employee's personal sex life and/or their personal health problems (as a significant percentage of women need birth control for health problems).
IMO, there is little place for religion in evidence-based medicine. If a person wants to forego medical treatment on religious grounds, they are welcome to do so. They should not be telling other people how they should utilize medical treatments based on their own beliefs. To me it is extremely ironic that not being allowed to dictate to someone how they treat their own body is somehow infringement upon religious rights. In my wife's case, it is absolutely preposterous b/c the Cleveland Clinic provides 80% of the benefits and the employee pays the other 20%. The Church pays 0%, yet gets to state that the coverage can't include birth control.
Some other examples of where religious belief and medicine don't necessarily mix: I went to high school with a person who was a practicing Jehovah's witness. He didn't believe in blood transfusions. Why don't we have Jehovah's witness hospitals that won't cover blood transfusions for its employees? Or imagine if a religious hospital wouldn't cover antibiotics because they don't believe in evolution (you may laugh at this, but I encountered a med student at the school I used to work at who didn't believe in evolution. I never asked her, but I wonder how she thought that antibiotic resistance arises?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
Can anyone at all explain why, other than buying the female vote, this is being required of ANYONE?? Forget the church.... why does Caterpillar or IBM or Bob's Tire and Computers have to do this??
Am I the only one that sees that the entire contraception insurance mandate is dumb as hell (and where the heck does the Pres get the authority to mandate this, anyway)?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
I detailed several reasons why hospitals are public institutions. Do you have any reasons why they aren't?
I didn't claim hospitals are not a public institution. Why don't the same reasons apply to the nursing home? They collect Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and accommodate everyone. What is your perceived difference between the hospital and the nursing home?
Quote:
Cooking bacon in a Jewish nursing home, something that is directly offensive and in the face of patients, is quite different than an employee's personal sex life and/or their personal health problems (as a significant percentage of women need birth control for health problems).
So cooking bacon is offensive to you? Then I frequently offend you. What about bringing in a ham sandwich for lunch, and keeping it in the fridge? Is that OK? The prohibition against pork is just a tenet in Judaism, much like some birth control is to Catholics. I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and had a lay teacher who's wife was on birth control pills for health reasons. It was OK then, and it's OK now.
Again, many if not most of these patients are not Jewish. It is just a Jewish facility. The patients and staff are not allowed to eat a cheeseburger, or drink a glass of milk with that roast beef sandwich, or have cream in their coffee with dinner.
They can buy and consume this stuff outside of the facility with their own money, the same as the Catholic employees can buy birth control with their own money.
Quote:
IMO, there is little place for religion in evidence-based medicine. If a person wants to forego medical treatment on religious grounds, they are welcome to do so. They should not be telling other people how they should utilize medical treatments based on their own beliefs. To me it is extremely ironic that not being allowed to dictate to someone how they treat their own body is somehow infringement upon religious rights. In my wife's case, it is absolutely preposterous b/c the Cleveland Clinic provides 80% of the benefits and the employee pays the other 20%. The Church pays 0%, yet gets to state that the coverage can't include birth control.
This isn't a "we don't offer health insurance" case. The church is providing coverage, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.
The Cleveland Clinic does dictate how people treat their own bodies. Do you have a problem with this or not?
Quote:
Some other examples of where religious belief and medicine don't necessarily mix: I went to high school with a person who was a practicing Jehovah's witness. He didn't believe in blood transfusions. Why don't we have Jehovah's witness hospitals that won't cover blood transfusions for its employees? Or imagine if a religious hospital wouldn't cover antibiotics because they don't believe in evolution (you may laugh at this, but I encountered a med student at the school I used to work at who didn't believe in evolution. I never asked her, but I wonder how she thought that antibiotic resistance arises?)
I don't think the 'no blood transfusion' hospital would be too popular. If you want to open one, knock yourself out.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Catholic Contraception Debate
|
|
