it really shouldnt matter how any of us feel about. it's a matter of what's right and wrong.
the majority of people don't support gay marriage but that doesnt mean banning gay marriage is the right thing to do.
You wont hear me complaining about individual states doing such a thing because I believe state governments can better assess their needs than the federal government. 50 states could adopt the policy but I still wouldnt support the fed mandate.
I'd also like to note that the mandate doesnt force anyone to use contraception. That is correct. The mandate does require some catholics to pay for it. Example, Avera McKennen is a Catholic based hospital in my home town and the second largest hospital in the state. The people who own that company are Catholics. The policy mandates that money comes out of those pockets to provide something that is inherently against their beliefs.
I believe EVERYONE - employer and employee - already had choice. This policy eliminates choice for the employer ... and employers are people, whether it's one person or a hundred.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.
So, while I agree that employers are people, They are participating in a commercial activity as a matter of choice, their religious beliefs and conduct shouldn't be imposed on their employees.
For the record,I was raised catholic, and I strongly disagree with the church on this issue.
Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.
So, while I agree that employers are people, They are participating in a commercial activity as a matter of choice, their religious beliefs and conduct shouldn't be imposed on their employees.
For the record,I was raised catholic, and I strongly disagree with the church on this issue.
do you not agree EVERYONE already had choice?
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Want I want to know from all you people who think random individuals should be able to dictate the health care of all the people who work for businesses they own or manage is:
Does this supposed right of theirs apply to life-saving medical care? Do I have a right to deny you access to life-saving medical care based on my own personal beliefs??
I think HIPAA covers that
So you don't think that violates employer rights to refuse to cover whatever their personal beliefs dictate?
And how exactly does HIPAA cover that? :?
And, if it does, then all employers - the actual church included - need to be required to cover birth control in those situations.
Half of all Americans say they oppose the Obama administration's new policy concerning employer-provided health insurance plans and their coverage of contraceptive services for female employees including those at religiously affiliated institutions, according to a new national survey out today.
Are you actually submitting that as a valid, scientific poll? Regardless, you left out the most important part of the question: "Based on what you have read or heard..." So, even if it were valid, the poll only indicates that (not more than) half of the people surveyed have succumbed to the bullshit they've heard on TV. It's an assessment of the media propaganda, not the actual policy.
They can deny treatment? Yes? They can deny any part of their health coverage. Haven't we been telling them for years they need to accept treatments? So its allowable for them to deny any part of health care or whatever based on their religious beliefs.
The same goes for contraceptives. You have to offer the pethora of services to everyone its up to an individual to use or not to use. You cannot take away the freedom choice away because one person says we have to or you are infringing.
I think Jehovah's Witnesses are an excellent example. According to the policy that the Republicans are trying to enact, anyone employed by a Jehovah's witness can be denied coverage of things like blood transfusions.
I just absolutely can't believe that any educated and rational person could think it's okay for random company owners to be able to dictate the medical care received by others, simply due to their own personal beliefs. How about if I took over Wal-Mart or some other huge corporation and decided that hospital births won't be covered since I only believe in home birth? (That's not my belief, by the way.) Do people not understand what they're saying here - especially those who purport to support freedom?? :?
Half of all Americans say they oppose the Obama administration's new policy concerning employer-provided health insurance plans and their coverage of contraceptive services for female employees including those at religiously affiliated institutions, according to a new national survey out today.
Keep spewing your trash statistics with headlines ONLY reads.
Its a 50/50 poll with the intelligent people supporting and the other half not ... READ the fine lines on the CNN Poll. With the majority of the American people uneducated about the whole situation as a whole. AND I QUOTE:
"According to the survey, 50% of the public disapproves of the Obama administration policy, with 44% saying they approve of the plan. The margin is right at the edge of the poll's sampling error.
Surveys on this topic tell a mixed story because many Americans know little about the issue. Recent CBS and Fox polls indicate support for the new policy, using questions that describe the new policy in some detail. But in the CNN poll, when asked their opinion of the Obama policy with no details spelled out, support was much less and a large partisan divide emerged. A recent Pew poll also suggests Americans are closely divided, and that poll may hold the key to the differences. Nearly four in ten Americans say they have heard nothing at all about this controversy."
yep, exactly, when people know the details of the plan, they tend to disagree with it.
"Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
I don't believe this law is to restrict religious beliefs, but to provide more affordable preventative services to women. If you are catholic and don't believe in contraception, then you don't have to use it.
Yeah, this law has absolutely nothing to do with religion. And actual religious employers are exempt from it anyway.
Funny that there wasn't such an uproar when half the states enacted similar laws during the Bush administration. The opposition to this law has nothing to do with anything other than partisan politics, trying to discredit Obama at election time. The idea that it is about religious freedom is a fucking joke.
we have a fundamental difference in ideology i suppose. Companies funded, owned and operated by Jehovah's shouldnt have to offer coverage plans that violate their beliefs....sorry.
When you choose to work for one of those companies, you can opt out of the plans they offer and purchase an individual plan that best suits there need. if that company restricted opting out, then i'd be pissed.
and before you flip out, i agree, someone's healthcare shouldn't hinge on what their employer's beliefs are. And the reality is, it doesn't. Again, we already had choice.
I say lets hold private and religious companies to the same standard. Employers shouldnt have to provide any benefits other than a break every few hours and decent working conditions. Id hold them both to that standard. When did a job become a right?
Yes, a job's a necessity and I agree, unless you inherit wealth, you need a job to be able to survive in our society and that's a fact.
But please realize I never suggested people don't need a job. But, i do believe an employer should be able to set the terms of working there as long as the terms are reasonable.
I think we're arguing what's reasonable or not - that's OK. Since the beginning of time wise people have debated what is reasonable and what isn't and I'm honored to carry on the tradition with you all - granted you truly are wise .
I understand women's frustration about an all male panel dictating this conversation in Washington DC. I don't know what it's like to be a woman but I respect the difficulties every woman goes through.
But this conversation is about religious freedom, not contraception.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
it really shouldnt matter how any of us feel about. it's a matter of what's right and wrong.
the majority of people don't support gay marriage but that doesnt mean banning gay marriage is the right thing to do.
You wont hear me complaining about individual states doing such a thing because I believe state governments can better assess their needs than the federal government. 50 states could adopt the policy but I still wouldnt support the fed mandate.
I'd also like to note that the mandate doesnt force anyone to use contraception. That is correct. The mandate does require some catholics to pay for it. Example, Avera McKennen is a Catholic based hospital in my home town and the second largest hospital in the state. The people who own that company are Catholics. The policy mandates that money comes out of those pockets to provide something that is inherently against their beliefs.
I believe EVERYONE - employer and employee - already had choice. This policy eliminates choice for the employer ... and employers are people, whether it's one person or a hundred.
I feel like much of what you said here contradicts your previous arguments, but whatever. :?
My question is: Is it REALLY money from the pockets of the people who own that hospital that is going to fund contraception coverage? Does the hospital have shareholders? Does it receive public funds? Is the amount they pay for insurance going to increase specifically because of contraception? I would argue that business finances and personal financed are different, and so the individuals who own the hospital are not really paying for anything.
Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.
So, while I agree that employers are people, They are participating in a commercial activity as a matter of choice, their religious beliefs and conduct shouldn't be imposed on their employees.
For the record,I was raised catholic, and I strongly disagree with the church on this issue.
it really shouldnt matter how any of us feel about. it's a matter of what's right and wrong.
the majority of people don't support gay marriage but that doesnt mean banning gay marriage is the right thing to do.
You wont hear me complaining about individual states doing such a thing because I believe state governments can better assess their needs than the federal government. 50 states could adopt the policy but I still wouldnt support the fed mandate.
I'd also like to note that the mandate doesnt force anyone to use contraception. That is correct. The mandate does require some catholics to pay for it. Example, Avera McKennen is a Catholic based hospital in my home town and the second largest hospital in the state. The people who own that company are Catholics. The policy mandates that money comes out of those pockets to provide something that is inherently against their beliefs.
I believe EVERYONE - employer and employee - already had choice. This policy eliminates choice for the employer ... and employers are people, whether it's one person or a hundred.
I feel like much of what you said here contradicts your previous arguments, but whatever. :?
My question is: Is it REALLY money from the pockets of the people who own that hospital that is going to fund contraception coverage? Does the hospital have shareholders? Does it receive public funds? Is the amount they pay for insurance going to increase specifically because of contraception? I would argue that business finances and personal financed are different, and so the individuals who own the hospital are not really paying for anything.
to your first point, maybe i wasnt making myself clear but i dont see how any of that post is contradictory.
Secondly, business finances have an impact on personal finances. share holders personal finances are impacted by business finances. and yes, the amount an employer pays for insurance will increase if they have to offer insurance that covers contraception. if you dont realize this, then you have no grasp on how business works.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
it really shouldnt matter how any of us feel about. it's a matter of what's right and wrong.
the majority of people don't support gay marriage but that doesnt mean banning gay marriage is the right thing to do.
You wont hear me complaining about individual states doing such a thing because I believe state governments can better assess their needs than the federal government. 50 states could adopt the policy but I still wouldnt support the fed mandate.
I'd also like to note that the mandate doesnt force anyone to use contraception. That is correct. The mandate does require some catholics to pay for it. Example, Avera McKennen is a Catholic based hospital in my home town and the second largest hospital in the state. The people who own that company are Catholics. The policy mandates that money comes out of those pockets to provide something that is inherently against their beliefs.
I believe EVERYONE - employer and employee - already had choice. This policy eliminates choice for the employer ... and employers are people, whether it's one person or a hundred.
I feel like much of what you said here contradicts your previous arguments, but whatever. :?
My question is: Is it REALLY money from the pockets of the people who own that hospital that is going to fund contraception coverage? Does the hospital have shareholders? Does it receive public funds? Is the amount they pay for insurance going to increase specifically because of contraception? I would argue that business finances and personal financed are different, and so the individuals who own the hospital are not really paying for anything.
to your first point, maybe i wasnt making myself clear but i dont see how any of that post is contradictory.
Secondly, business finances have an impact on personal finances. share holders personal finances are impacted by business finances. and yes, the amount an employer pays for insurance will increase if they have to offer insurance that covers contraception. if you dont realize this, then you have no grasp on how business works.
Oh fer fuck's sake - again with the insults, huh? :roll:
Contraception saves money, and if you don't understand this, then you have no grasp on how human reproduction works.
Anyway... So if shareholders' personal finances are impacted by business finances, then no company with a single Catholic shareholder should ever cover contraception either, right?
Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.
So, while I agree that employers are people, They are participating in a commercial activity as a matter of choice, their religious beliefs and conduct shouldn't be imposed on their employees.
For the record,I was raised catholic, and I strongly disagree with the church on this issue.
do you not agree EVERYONE already had choice?
Sure, people can choose where they work, employers can choose what to cover, but the employees choices are limited and dictated by the beliefs of their employer. Sure, they can purchase coverage on the market, but the alternatives are costly. Women who want to use contraception who work at a Catholic hospital or school can pay out of pocket for the contraception, but the cost is so high that it isn't feasible for some. I pay $70 a month for my contraception and that is WITH healthcare that does cover contraceptives.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
You're just as bad as any flip flopping GOP and the freedom you say you protect. You have no clue what you stand for. Youre just happy when the world feeds somekind of BS into your microchipped brain. Honestly. Its like a horrible joke. Wake up. Get your head out your butt. Youre all worried about being "sheeple" but I see you as the biggest offenders sucking the nipple juice off their so called freedom wave and cow towing to their dog whistles.
Comments
the majority of people don't support gay marriage but that doesnt mean banning gay marriage is the right thing to do.
You wont hear me complaining about individual states doing such a thing because I believe state governments can better assess their needs than the federal government. 50 states could adopt the policy but I still wouldnt support the fed mandate.
I'd also like to note that the mandate doesnt force anyone to use contraception. That is correct. The mandate does require some catholics to pay for it. Example, Avera McKennen is a Catholic based hospital in my home town and the second largest hospital in the state. The people who own that company are Catholics. The policy mandates that money comes out of those pockets to provide something that is inherently against their beliefs.
I believe EVERYONE - employer and employee - already had choice. This policy eliminates choice for the employer ... and employers are people, whether it's one person or a hundred.
Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.
So, while I agree that employers are people, They are participating in a commercial activity as a matter of choice, their religious beliefs and conduct shouldn't be imposed on their employees.
For the record,I was raised catholic, and I strongly disagree with the church on this issue.
do you not agree EVERYONE already had choice?
So you don't think that violates employer rights to refuse to cover whatever their personal beliefs dictate?
And how exactly does HIPAA cover that? :?
And, if it does, then all employers - the actual church included - need to be required to cover birth control in those situations.
Are you actually submitting that as a valid, scientific poll? Regardless, you left out the most important part of the question: "Based on what you have read or heard..." So, even if it were valid, the poll only indicates that (not more than) half of the people surveyed have succumbed to the bullshit they've heard on TV. It's an assessment of the media propaganda, not the actual policy.
I think Jehovah's Witnesses are an excellent example. According to the policy that the Republicans are trying to enact, anyone employed by a Jehovah's witness can be denied coverage of things like blood transfusions.
I just absolutely can't believe that any educated and rational person could think it's okay for random company owners to be able to dictate the medical care received by others, simply due to their own personal beliefs. How about if I took over Wal-Mart or some other huge corporation and decided that hospital births won't be covered since I only believe in home birth? (That's not my belief, by the way.) Do people not understand what they're saying here - especially those who purport to support freedom?? :?
Where do you get that from?? :?
Yeah, this law has absolutely nothing to do with religion. And actual religious employers are exempt from it anyway.
Funny that there wasn't such an uproar when half the states enacted similar laws during the Bush administration. The opposition to this law has nothing to do with anything other than partisan politics, trying to discredit Obama at election time. The idea that it is about religious freedom is a fucking joke.
When you choose to work for one of those companies, you can opt out of the plans they offer and purchase an individual plan that best suits there need. if that company restricted opting out, then i'd be pissed.
and before you flip out, i agree, someone's healthcare shouldn't hinge on what their employer's beliefs are. And the reality is, it doesn't. Again, we already had choice.
I say lets hold private and religious companies to the same standard. Employers shouldnt have to provide any benefits other than a break every few hours and decent working conditions. Id hold them both to that standard. When did a job become a right?
Yes, a job's a necessity and I agree, unless you inherit wealth, you need a job to be able to survive in our society and that's a fact.
But please realize I never suggested people don't need a job. But, i do believe an employer should be able to set the terms of working there as long as the terms are reasonable.
I think we're arguing what's reasonable or not - that's OK. Since the beginning of time wise people have debated what is reasonable and what isn't and I'm honored to carry on the tradition with you all - granted you truly are wise
I understand women's frustration about an all male panel dictating this conversation in Washington DC. I don't know what it's like to be a woman but I respect the difficulties every woman goes through.
But this conversation is about religious freedom, not contraception.
I feel like much of what you said here contradicts your previous arguments, but whatever. :?
My question is: Is it REALLY money from the pockets of the people who own that hospital that is going to fund contraception coverage? Does the hospital have shareholders? Does it receive public funds? Is the amount they pay for insurance going to increase specifically because of contraception? I would argue that business finances and personal financed are different, and so the individuals who own the hospital are not really paying for anything.
Very well said. :thumbup:
to your first point, maybe i wasnt making myself clear but i dont see how any of that post is contradictory.
Secondly, business finances have an impact on personal finances. share holders personal finances are impacted by business finances. and yes, the amount an employer pays for insurance will increase if they have to offer insurance that covers contraception. if you dont realize this, then you have no grasp on how business works.
Oh fer fuck's sake - again with the insults, huh? :roll:
Contraception saves money, and if you don't understand this, then you have no grasp on how human reproduction works.
Anyway... So if shareholders' personal finances are impacted by business finances, then no company with a single Catholic shareholder should ever cover contraception either, right?
Sure, people can choose where they work, employers can choose what to cover, but the employees choices are limited and dictated by the beliefs of their employer. Sure, they can purchase coverage on the market, but the alternatives are costly. Women who want to use contraception who work at a Catholic hospital or school can pay out of pocket for the contraception, but the cost is so high that it isn't feasible for some. I pay $70 a month for my contraception and that is WITH healthcare that does cover contraceptives.
OH wait a second. Fuck the public , they have to maximize their profit for their shareholders.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Understand freedom or not ...its your choice.