Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill

Prince Of Dorkness · January 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

what i meant is, if your are getting paid to do a service, you cant tell your employer "how it is." They can, however, tell you "how it is." If you dont like it, you can quit. So i guess i should have said, while your on the clock, your employer owns you, or is renting you....however you'd like to put it.

Fine, but my job doesn't include going to a doctor.

I also don't allow my employer to tell me how to spend my paycheck.

WaveRyder · January 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ9WOqJG ... e=youtu.be

aerial · January 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i agree with the administration on this.

additionally, these pharmacies that refuse to fill scripts for the pill or the morning after pill on moral or religious grounds should be forced to. it is not the pharmacist's responsiblilty to dictate whether or not the patient gets the prescribed medications. it is their job to carry out the doctor's orders, and by doing so, fill and dispense the damn prescription..

rant over....

The Government should not be dictating religious beliefs.

gimmesometruth27 · January 2012

aerial wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i agree with the administration on this.

additionally, these pharmacies that refuse to fill scripts for the pill or the morning after pill on moral or religious grounds should be forced to. it is not the pharmacist's responsiblilty to dictate whether or not the patient gets the prescribed medications. it is their job to carry out the doctor's orders, and by doing so, fill and dispense the damn prescription..

rant over....

The Government should not be dictating religious beliefs.

religions should not be dictating medical care.

religion should be saving souls, let the doctors and scientists encourage health and save lives...

iamica · January 2012

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Birth control and the morning after pill are NOT the same thing as RU486, the abortion pill.

Prince Of Dorkness · January 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ9WOqJG-2s&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4qI6iZmN20

Prince Of Dorkness · January 2012

aerial wrote:

The Government should not be dictating religious beliefs.

they're not. You're allowed to believe whatever you want.

Religion should keep it's nose out of my personal health care decisions.

WaveRyder · January 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

aerial wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i agree with the administration on this.

additionally, these pharmacies that refuse to fill scripts for the pill or the morning after pill on moral or religious grounds should be forced to. it is not the pharmacist's responsiblilty to dictate whether or not the patient gets the prescribed medications. it is their job to carry out the doctor's orders, and by doing so, fill and dispense the damn prescription..

rant over....

The Government should not be dictating religious beliefs.

religions should not be dictating medical care.

religion should be saving souls, let the doctors and scientists encourage health and save lives...

religion isnt dictating medical care. they are however dictating what they will cover. If you dont like the plan your employer offers, youre free to work for a company that offers coverage that better suits you. By saying you have a right to healthcare coverage of any type from an employer is like saying you are guaranteed a job....youre not.

Prince Of Dorkness · January 2012

Luckily, most people don't agree with Waverider.

I would never tell my employees what procedures they can have.

America was built by people who came to escape religious persecution.

bgivens33 · January 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Luckily, most people don't agree with Waverider.

I would never tell my employees what procedures they can have.

America was built by people who came to escape religious persecution.

Nobody is telling anybody what procedures they can and can't have.

gimmesometruth27 · January 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Luckily, most people don't agree with Waverider.

I would never tell my employees what procedures they can have.

America was built by people who came to escape religious persecution.

+1

i completely disagree with waveryder at every turn....

religion should have no bearing over reproductive health. and should have no say in health care at all...period...

that would be like me saying as an oncologist that i can not treat you until it has been proven that god has forsaken you....

WaveRyder · January 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Luckily, most people don't agree with Waverider.

I would never tell my employees what procedures they can have.

America was built by people who came to escape religious persecution.

+1

i completely disagree with waveryder at every turn....

religion should have no bearing over reproductive health. and should have no say in health care at all...period...

that would be like me saying as an oncologist that i can not treat you until it has been proven that god has forsaken you....

you are missing the point. Forcing a private employer to offer a specific type of coverage is denying that company property rights. Religion is not a big deal to me. I am pro choice. I am pro choice when it comes to everything and the govt should not be telling individuals or businesses how to go about there day to day lives and operations. The choice for coverage types still lies in the hands of individuals.

Somebody posted earlier that employers should have nothing to do with insurance at all and tahts why the system is fundamentally flawed.....I agree. But the way it is now, I will always error on the side of choice.....for all.

Most people just pick and choose when they want to apply the principles of freedom and choice. I however cant and will not decipher.....its a slippery slope. I want to protect liberty for all.

WaveRyder · January 2012

and id venture to guess not many of you have political science degrees. if ppl would study the founders and the constitution, this wouldnt even be a debate. It's gross how little people know about the American legal code and the bill of rights then they turn around and vote. What you people have been arguing are not American ideals........forcing private companies to provide a service ..... whether its cost effective or not ...... it strangles the idea of freedom. Life liberty and property (yeah, Jefferson switched property with happiness at the last minute) look it up.

_ · January 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

_ wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

but doing so defies the idea of property rights. Why should the govt be protecting one group's religious freedom over another? if it were a govt employer, youd be absolutely right. Its private employers, so, according to the Constitution, youre absolutely wrong. We must respect peoples rights to their own property. Always.

You can choose where you work.

I disagree. And are you saying they can they also refuse to provide coverage for ANYTHING?

yes. a private employer doesnt have to offer healthcare insurance at all. Duh. I worked at tace bell in high school. they didnt offer insurance to anybody.

Actually, according to the Affordable Care Act employers of 50 or more people will have to offer health insurance.

Regardless, personal property rights are not absolute; they must be weighed against the harm they cause to others. We all know that real life is not as simple as people just being able to choose we're they work. Choice is relative & many people can't just quit their job every time their company is taken over by someone who doesn't like for other people to use contraception, or get treatment for HIV, or get their newborn circumcised, or receive blood transfusions, or get MMR vaccinations. No one should have the right to step in between a person & his/her doctor and make that person's medical decisions based on his own personal opinion.

_ · January 2012

bgivens33 wrote:

The irony here is something like this will only hurt the employees. An employer comes up with a dollar amount they are willing to pay for an employee. With government mandated health insurance add-ons, that is only going to come out of your salary.

You seem to be forgetting, though, that preventive health care saves money.

_ · January 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

when i was covering the legislative session in my home state. this issue came up. the state tried mandating that employers offering health insurance cover contraceptives. One of the largest employers in the state is Catholic Hospital. The hospitals representatives stated that even with a mandate, they simply wouldnt do it. It goes against freedom of religion.

So this hospital doesn't receive a dime of public funds, then?

And is it not a major provider of health care for its population? If it is, how is it possibly right that a population's primary source of healthcare should be able to deny their patients the preventative care that their doctors say they need?

imposing someone elses beliefs on another should not be ok. and as far as the pharmacy goes, find a different pharmacy. if its a privately run firm, they can choose what products to offer and which ones they dont. Its called free enterprise.

But you're neglecting to recognize that someone is imposing his/her beliefs on another either way here. You're just deciding which person's beliefs get imposed. So since you believe the employer's beliefs should always trump the emploees' beliefs, then you believe pharmacists should be made to prescribe Plan B, etc even if it violates their own religious beliefs, right? So in that sense you agree with gimme?

bgivens33 · January 2012

_ wrote:

bgivens33 wrote:

The irony here is something like this will only hurt the employees. An employer comes up with a dollar amount they are willing to pay for an employee. With government mandated health insurance add-ons, that is only going to come out of your salary.

You seem to be forgetting, though, that preventive health care saves money.

So does eating right and exercise, should we also mandate businesses have to provide a gym membership?

_ · January 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

and id venture to guess not many of you have political science degrees. if ppl would study the founders and the constitution, this wouldnt even be a debate. It's gross how little people know about the American legal code and the bill of rights then they turn around and vote. What you people have been arguing are not American ideals........forcing private companies to provide a service ..... whether its cost effective or not ...... it strangles the idea of freedom. Life liberty and property (yeah, Jefferson switched property with happiness at the last minute) look it up.

Wow, that's kind of condescending. While I totally agree with you that more Americans need to study political science, it's unfounded for you to suggest that the people in this particular conversation have not. I haven't seen anyone say anything that indicates ignorance of the American legal code or the Bill of Rights; we just interpret their applications to this subject differently than you do - as does at least one Harvard-educated former constitutional law professor. So apparently it really is a debate, even among people who have studied the founders & the Constitution. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you're smarter than them. So rather than take your all-knowing word for it, I'll leave it up to the Supreme Court to decide what's constitutional. Or are they grossly uneducated compared to you too? :roll:

WaveRyder · January 2012

_ wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

when i was covering the legislative session in my home state. this issue came up. the state tried mandating that employers offering health insurance cover contraceptives. One of the largest employers in the state is Catholic Hospital. The hospitals representatives stated that even with a mandate, they simply wouldnt do it. It goes against freedom of religion.

So this hospital doesn't receive a dime of public funds, then?

And is it not a major provider of health care for its population? If it is, how is it possibly right that a population's primary source of healthcare should be able to deny their patients the preventative care that their doctors say they need?

imposing someone elses beliefs on another should not be ok. and as far as the pharmacy goes, find a different pharmacy. if its a privately run firm, they can choose what products to offer and which ones they dont. Its called free enterprise.

But you're neglecting to recognize that someone is imposing his/her beliefs on another either way here. You're just deciding which person's beliefs get imposed. So since you believe the employer's beliefs should always trump the emploees' beliefs, then you believe pharmacists should be made to prescribe Plan B, etc even if it violates their own religious beliefs, right? So in that sense you agree with gimme?

Right now, every one has a choice. Under the new law, choice is limited.
ill error on the side of choice - pun intended

_ · January 2012

bgivens33 wrote:

_ wrote:

bgivens33 wrote:

The irony here is something like this will only hurt the employees. An employer comes up with a dollar amount they are willing to pay for an employee. With government mandated health insurance add-ons, that is only going to come out of your salary.

You seem to be forgetting, though, that preventive health care saves money.

So does eating right and exercise, should we also mandate businesses have to provide a gym membership?

That's not relevant to my comment. I didn't say it should be mandated because it saves money. I said that because it saves money, it's not really true that it will necessarily hurt the employees financially.

Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill

Comments

Categories