A different way of looking at things...

124

Comments

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    disagree ... this is using an issue that very much has to do with religion and health care to further promote the agenda that gov't intervention is bad ...
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    polaris_x wrote:
    disagree ... this is using an issue that very much has to do with religion and health care to further promote the agenda that gov't intervention is bad ...


    or good....

    And that's the point. Thank you.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • maj4e
    maj4e Posts: 605
    Health care is pretty much unaffordable if you're not on a group plan through an employer. That's why I see it as an issue. If we had affordable healthcare to anyone, not tied to an employer this would be a no-brainer.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    or good....

    And that's the point. Thank you.

    uhh ... it's pretty obvious that inlet believes it is bad ... trying to imply that the context of religion or health care is irrelevant in this discussion is off the mark completely ... context is everything ...
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,470
    this is just a symptom of the blanket, dronelike, opposition to anything obama is trying to do. if obama wants to do it, it MUST be illegal...

    if we look at this issue logically we will see that women have the right to have this covered by insurance. the catholic church is against birth control, yet >90% of all women in the catholic church are on it. the church must either enforce this within their parish populations, or shut up. they can not claim to oppose this on religious grounds if they will not enforce this within their own church population. if the church wants to make an issue out of this then they can get their own house in order before denying this coverage for women who work for the church.

    and if we want to get technical, limbaugh called fluke a slut because she wants insurance to cover her birth control pills. so, if any of our moms had been on the pill and it was covered by insurance, are all of our mother's sluts?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    maj4e wrote:
    Health care is pretty much unaffordable if you're not on a group plan through an employer. That's why I see it as an issue. If we had affordable healthcare to anyone, not tied to an employer this would be a no-brainer.

    See? You've taken the bait.

    Your point may be valid. But, if so, then why ADD cost to the equation? And, we are getting off track here, again.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • maj4e
    maj4e Posts: 605
    I can't believe I didn't think of it before and it may have been mentioned but, they could simply give a flex account worth a certain amount per year. Many employers do it already to cover child care, recurring medications. If they do this, then the Catholic Church isn't providing contraception, they're simply providing an FSA account.
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    polaris_x wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    or good....

    And that's the point. Thank you.

    uhh ... it's pretty obvious that inlet believes it is bad ... trying to imply that the context of religion or health care is irrelevant in this discussion is off the mark completely ... context is everything ...

    Yes. I know. Didn't think I need to explain that both sides have their motives and are misusing the argument. You said bad, so I said good to make that point.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • maj4e
    maj4e Posts: 605
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    maj4e wrote:
    Health care is pretty much unaffordable if you're not on a group plan through an employer. That's why I see it as an issue. If we had affordable healthcare to anyone, not tied to an employer this would be a no-brainer.

    See? You've taken the bait.

    Your point may be valid. But, if so, then why ADD cost to the equation? And, we are getting off track here, again.

    As have you...

    It was mentioned previously in this long thread that the cost was 40/year. Next.
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    this is just a symptom of the blanket, dronelike, opposition to anything obama is trying to do. if obama wants to do it, it MUST be illegal...

    if we look at this issue logically we will see that women have the right to have this covered by insurance. the catholic church is against birth control, yet >90% of all women in the catholic church are on it. the church must either enforce this within their parish populations, or shut up. they can not claim to oppose this on religious grounds if they will not enforce this within their own church population. if the church wants to make an issue out of this then they can get their own house in order before denying this coverage for women who work for the church.

    and if we want to get technical, limbaugh called fluke a slut because she wants insurance to cover her birth control pills. so, if any of our moms had been on the pill and it was covered by insurance, are all of our mother's sluts?

    Who said anything about illegal? Ha, ha. I guess I'm the kettle.

    And again - beautiful ending. :clap: I don't think anyone found what Rush said acceptable. Now, can we get back to the point?

    I also was not aware that insurance covering birth control was a RIGHT. I'll have to re-read the founding documents on that one. I thought it was life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I didn't realize that includes insurance covering birth control. Interesting.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    maj4e wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    maj4e wrote:
    Health care is pretty much unaffordable if you're not on a group plan through an employer. That's why I see it as an issue. If we had affordable healthcare to anyone, not tied to an employer this would be a no-brainer.

    See? You've taken the bait.

    Your point may be valid. But, if so, then why ADD cost to the equation? And, we are getting off track here, again.

    As have you...

    It was mentioned previously in this long thread that the cost was 40/year. Next.

    Agreed that is besides the point. But, that's so silly. Where's the line in what's accpetable? That being said - if it's an INSURABLE coverage, it should certainly be insured against. Being as this is not an INSURABLE coverage (neither risk nor cost is unknown), it shouldn't be INSURED against. That last part is only if you want to discuss why the red herring is moot as well.

    But, again - I should not have mentioned cost. You are right. INSURANCE should not start with the argument of cost. And, as I tried pointing out, was beside Inlet's main point.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    For the record - I am not against health insurance covering birth control (despite my INSURABLE coverage commentary). I am against said coverage being mandated. And it has nothing to do with that specific item or religion (as I am not a big fan of religion, either).
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • maj4e
    maj4e Posts: 605
    I really don't get that worked up over anything. I can't believe you guys are so passionate about some things.

    Anyway the FSA answer I provided is the best bet. Not mandated, people can spend it on anything that's on the approved list by the feds.
  • Monster Rain
    Monster Rain Posts: 1,415
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    this is just a symptom of the blanket, dronelike, opposition to anything obama is trying to do. if obama wants to do it, it MUST be illegal...

    if we look at this issue logically we will see that women have the right to have this covered by insurance. the catholic church is against birth control, yet >90% of all women in the catholic church are on it. the church must either enforce this within their parish populations, or shut up. they can not claim to oppose this on religious grounds if they will not enforce this within their own church population. if the church wants to make an issue out of this then they can get their own house in order before denying this coverage for women who work for the church.

    and if we want to get technical, limbaugh called fluke a slut because she wants insurance to cover her birth control pills. so, if any of our moms had been on the pill and it was covered by insurance, are all of our mother's sluts?

    The Constitution grants us the freedom of religion. There has not been an amendment made to it that says we have religious freedom except when it comes to birth control. Since that hasn't happened, forcing churches to violate their beliefs would violate their Constituional right to practice their religion and would, therefore, be illegal. There's nothing drone-like about it. It's spelled out very clearly in the laws established when the country was formed. The church doesn't kidnap people and force them to work for them or attend their schools, so anyone who wants health coverage for something the church opposes should seek employment elsewhere or apply to other schools. Don't go to a Catholic school and ask the government to force them to cater to your way of living.

    Also, how would the church enforce its views on birth control amongts its parishoners. Would they storm people's homes and search for pills and condoms? Would they force women to take blood tests or urine samples to see if they can detect the presence of the pills in their systems and take swabs of the men to see if there is any latex residue?

    As for Limbaugh--he's an idiot who ran his mouth the way he always does and said things that he shouldn't have said.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Monster Rain wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    this is just a symptom of the blanket, dronelike, opposition to anything obama is trying to do. if obama wants to do it, it MUST be illegal...

    if we look at this issue logically we will see that women have the right to have this covered by insurance. the catholic church is against birth control, yet >90% of all women in the catholic church are on it. the church must either enforce this within their parish populations, or shut up. they can not claim to oppose this on religious grounds if they will not enforce this within their own church population. if the church wants to make an issue out of this then they can get their own house in order before denying this coverage for women who work for the church.

    and if we want to get technical, limbaugh called fluke a slut because she wants insurance to cover her birth control pills. so, if any of our moms had been on the pill and it was covered by insurance, are all of our mother's sluts?

    The Constitution grants us the freedom of religion. There has not been an amendment made to it that says we have religious freedom except when it comes to birth control. Since that hasn't happened, forcing churches to violate their beliefs would violate their Constituional right to practice their religion and would, therefore, be illegal. There's nothing drone-like about it. It's spelled out very clearly in the laws established when the country was formed. The church doesn't kidnap people and force them to work for them or attend their schools, so anyone who wants health coverage for something the church opposes should seek employment elsewhere or apply to other schools. Don't go to a Catholic school and ask the government to force them to cater to your way of living.

    Also, how would the church enforce its views on birth control amongts its parishoners. Would they storm people's homes and search for pills and condoms? Would they force women to take blood tests or urine samples to see if they can detect the presence of the pills in their systems and take swabs of the men to see if there is any latex residue?

    As for Limbaugh--he's an idiot who ran his mouth the way he always does and said things that he shouldn't have said.


    I'm not sure how this mandate prevents anyone from personally practicing their religion...folks can still go to a church of their choice, therefore, I don't understand the religious freedom angle of this argument...
  • Monster Rain
    Monster Rain Posts: 1,415
    Freedom of religion doesn't just mean that people can go to the church they choose (or choose not to go a church at all), it means that the government cannot tell religions how to practice, what rules to have, etc. Forcing churches to offer something they believe is a sin would be telling those religions how to practice. If the situation was reversed and churches were pressuring the government to ban all forms of birth control for everyone, people would be up in arms arguing that there has to be a separation fo church and state (and rightfully so).
    inmytree wrote:
    Monster Rain wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    this is just a symptom of the blanket, dronelike, opposition to anything obama is trying to do. if obama wants to do it, it MUST be illegal...

    if we look at this issue logically we will see that women have the right to have this covered by insurance. the catholic church is against birth control, yet >90% of all women in the catholic church are on it. the church must either enforce this within their parish populations, or shut up. they can not claim to oppose this on religious grounds if they will not enforce this within their own church population. if the church wants to make an issue out of this then they can get their own house in order before denying this coverage for women who work for the church.

    and if we want to get technical, limbaugh called fluke a slut because she wants insurance to cover her birth control pills. so, if any of our moms had been on the pill and it was covered by insurance, are all of our mother's sluts?

    The Constitution grants us the freedom of religion. There has not been an amendment made to it that says we have religious freedom except when it comes to birth control. Since that hasn't happened, forcing churches to violate their beliefs would violate their Constituional right to practice their religion and would, therefore, be illegal. There's nothing drone-like about it. It's spelled out very clearly in the laws established when the country was formed. The church doesn't kidnap people and force them to work for them or attend their schools, so anyone who wants health coverage for something the church opposes should seek employment elsewhere or apply to other schools. Don't go to a Catholic school and ask the government to force them to cater to your way of living.

    Also, how would the church enforce its views on birth control amongts its parishoners. Would they storm people's homes and search for pills and condoms? Would they force women to take blood tests or urine samples to see if they can detect the presence of the pills in their systems and take swabs of the men to see if there is any latex residue?

    As for Limbaugh--he's an idiot who ran his mouth the way he always does and said things that he shouldn't have said.


    I'm not sure how this mandate prevents anyone from personally practicing their religion...folks can still go to a church of their choice, therefore, I don't understand the religious freedom angle of this argument...
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Freedom of religion doesn't just mean that people can go to the church they choose (or choose not to go a church at all), it means that the government cannot tell religions how to practice, what rules to have, etc. Forcing churches to offer something they believe is a sin would be telling those religions how to practice. If the situation was reversed and churches were pressuring the government to ban all forms of birth control for everyone, people would be up in arms arguing that there has to be a separation fo church and state (and rightfully so).

    I think you're stretching here...your stance doesn't fit with this...

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    the mandate to cover BC does not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
  • Monster Rain
    Monster Rain Posts: 1,415
    inmytree wrote:
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Freedom of religion doesn't just mean that people can go to the church they choose (or choose not to go a church at all), it means that the government cannot tell religions how to practice, what rules to have, etc. Forcing churches to offer something they believe is a sin would be telling those religions how to practice. If the situation was reversed and churches were pressuring the government to ban all forms of birth control for everyone, people would be up in arms arguing that there has to be a separation fo church and state (and rightfully so).

    I think you're stretching here...your stance doesn't fit with this...

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    the mandate to cover BC does not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

    It absolutely prohibits the free exercise of religion. Churches being forced to supply birth control when their religion prohibits it is forcing them to support something they believe is a sin.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Monster Rain wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Freedom of religion doesn't just mean that people can go to the church they choose (or choose not to go a church at all), it means that the government cannot tell religions how to practice, what rules to have, etc. Forcing churches to offer something they believe is a sin would be telling those religions how to practice. If the situation was reversed and churches were pressuring the government to ban all forms of birth control for everyone, people would be up in arms arguing that there has to be a separation fo church and state (and rightfully so).

    I think you're stretching here...your stance doesn't fit with this...

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    the mandate to cover BC does not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

    It absolutely prohibits the free exercise of religion. Churches being forced to supply birth control when their religion prohibits it is forcing them to support something they believe is a sin.

    the church is not "supporting" anything here...they are being mandated and they can opt out from what I understand...

    and the "sin" argument is silly and totally subjective...

    for me, health trumps religion...
  • Monster Rain
    Monster Rain Posts: 1,415
    inmytree wrote:
    the church is not "supporting" anything here...they are being mandated and they can opt out from what I understand...

    and the "sin" argument is silly and totally subjective...

    for me, health trumps religion...

    They can opt out of it now, but it was originally going to be mandated with no exceptions until there was an outcry about it. You think the sin argument is silly because it's not your religion but to many Catholics it is a serious issue--especially to those within the church itself. To them, artificially and intentionally taking steps to prevent pregnancy other than abstinence is a sin. You and I may not believe it, but it's not up to any of us to tell them what to believe. Why should they have to pay for someone to do something they consider a sin just to save that person $9 or $10 per month? I wouldn't ask the church to pay for my condoms so why would I expect them to pay for someone else's birth control pills?

    Also, this isn't a health issue (in terms of illness) as much as it is a convenience issue. In this case, insurance would cover birth control if it was prescribed for a medical reason beyond simply not wanting to get pregnant (and there are situations where that happens), so women working for churches wouldn't be denied medical treatment for an illness or other medical issue if birth control is what the doctor prescribes as treatment. For example, a women suffering from ovarian cysts who is not on birth control might be prescribed birth control pills in order to help treat the condition. I know women who have been in that situation and it's a situation that would be covered by any health insurance plan regardless of whether or not birth control pills were normally covered under that plan.

Categories