Obama vs. Catholic Church

[Wry Catcher]

On topic: Perhaps Obama should not have dragged the Catholic Church into his political bullshit in the first place. When he needed the Church's support, he went begging - and promised Cardinal Dolan that he would ensure that the bill did not conflict with the Church's doctrine. He lied to the Cardinal, to Catholics, and to millions of Christians across this country. Hence the "We're All Catholic Now" campaign. Obama will regret the day he took on the Church.

I was baptized and confirmed in the RC Church and consider the actions of the Bishops disgusting. You might consiider my post above for my reasoning, though I suspect you will continue to ignore it for it challenges you and offer your usual reason:

Most people believe my claim.
Therefore, my claim is true.

Most people believe it so that makes it 'true'? No wonder you struggle with basic things like reality.

It was Obama who dragged the Catholic Church into the healthcare debacle. The Church did not go to him, he called them... Cardinal Dolan. He invited the Cardinal to the White House to discuss his proposed bill, and promised Cardinal Dolan that his concerns regarding birth control etc would be addressed and gave his word that the Church - if it supported the bill - would have nothing to worry about regarding its doctrine. He lied to the Cardinal... he lied to the Catholic Church and to all Christians. Regardless of what you 'believe', he started this fight... not the Catholic Church.

If he is now unhappy with the Church, that's tough shit for him.

Did you take notes at the meeting? Your recall is so clear, you must have.

As for your initial attack on me, I don't believe what most people believe makes it true. You seem to, as do Muslims and Christians, and others who believe in the surernatural. I question authority, and there is no evidence that men wearing the robes of any religion have any greater insight into God's existence then did Spinoza. Or Einstein who wrote:

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not to be a wiseass but why is this not covered under the "separation of church and state"?

It really isn't that simple. Simply because a religious organization owns something, it does not mean that something is itself religious. It comes down to the basic question of "what is a church?". Is a hospital a church just because the owner is? Is a supermarket? Can I, as the owner of a business with a primarily secular purpose, impose my religious beliefs upon my employees? I think that is what it comes down to.

The Supreme Court has already held that a religious organization can impose religious standards upon religious employees - those people whose purpose is to represent the faith. Ministers, priests, teachers, etc. But how is a janitor a religious employee?

If a religious organization chooses to employee non-religious employees, then why should they be exempt from the rules applied to any other employer?

The Catholic Church is arguing this is an imposition upon their freedom of religion. I think it is rather an imposition upon their ability to impose their religious belief upon others.

Whatever one's position might be upon the basic requirement, once a church decides to expand beyond the purely religion and take part in secular business, there is no reason why it should be given any special consideration.

BTW.... churches are not tax free because they are churches. They are tax free because they are non-profits. If they do not have 501c status, they are taxed like anyone else.

why should the responsibility fall upon the employer and not the employee.....?

why should the employee get abortion/pill coverage when she KNOWS she applied for a job at a Catholic school or hospital.....?

she has the freedom and CHOICE to apply for a job elsewhere....

 

[California Girl]

I was baptized and confirmed in the RC Church and consider the actions of the Bishops disgusting. You might consiider my post above for my reasoning, though I suspect you will continue to ignore it for it challenges you and offer your usual reason:

Most people believe my claim.
Therefore, my claim is true.

Most people believe it so that makes it 'true'? No wonder you struggle with basic things like reality.

It was Obama who dragged the Catholic Church into the healthcare debacle. The Church did not go to him, he called them... Cardinal Dolan. He invited the Cardinal to the White House to discuss his proposed bill, and promised Cardinal Dolan that his concerns regarding birth control etc would be addressed and gave his word that the Church - if it supported the bill - would have nothing to worry about regarding its doctrine. He lied to the Cardinal... he lied to the Catholic Church and to all Christians. Regardless of what you 'believe', he started this fight... not the Catholic Church.

If he is now unhappy with the Church, that's tough shit for him.

Did you take notes at the meeting? You're recall is so clear, you must have.

As for your initial attack on me, I don't believe what most people believe makes it true. You seem to, as do Muslims and Christians, and others who believe in the surernatural. I question authority, and there is no evidence that men wearing the robes of any religion have any greater insight into God's existence then did Spinoza. Or Einstein who wrote:

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."

I have not the slightest interest in what you believe. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. As are the rest of us. What you aren't entitled to do is spin facts for your own convenience... which is what Obama is doing. He lied to the Cardinal. He lied to Catholics and he lied to Christians. Payback is a bitch.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Most people believe it so that makes it 'true'? No wonder you struggle with basic things like reality.

It was Obama who dragged the Catholic Church into the healthcare debacle. The Church did not go to him, he called them... Cardinal Dolan. He invited the Cardinal to the White House to discuss his proposed bill, and promised Cardinal Dolan that his concerns regarding birth control etc would be addressed and gave his word that the Church - if it supported the bill - would have nothing to worry about regarding its doctrine. He lied to the Cardinal... he lied to the Catholic Church and to all Christians. Regardless of what you 'believe', he started this fight... not the Catholic Church.

If he is now unhappy with the Church, that's tough shit for him.

Did you take notes at the meeting? You're recall is so clear, you must have.

As for your initial attack on me, I don't believe what most people believe makes it true. You seem to, as do Muslims and Christians, and others who believe in the surernatural. I question authority, and there is no evidence that men wearing the robes of any religion have any greater insight into God's existence then did Spinoza. Or Einstein who wrote:

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."

I have not the slightest interest in what you believe. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. As are the rest of us. What you aren't entitled to do is spin facts for your own convenience... which is what Obama is doing. He lied to the Cardinal. He lied to Catholics and he lied to Christians. Payback is a bitch.

How do you KNOW he lied? What evidence do you have? Share it and I'll evaluate its probative value of your allegations.

 

[California Girl]

Did you take notes at the meeting? You're recall is so clear, you must have.

As for your initial attack on me, I don't believe what most people believe makes it true. You seem to, as do Muslims and Christians, and others who believe in the surernatural. I question authority, and there is no evidence that men wearing the robes of any religion have any greater insight into God's existence then did Spinoza. Or Einstein who wrote:

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."

I have not the slightest interest in what you believe. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. As are the rest of us. What you aren't entitled to do is spin facts for your own convenience... which is what Obama is doing. He lied to the Cardinal. He lied to Catholics and he lied to Christians. Payback is a bitch.

How do you KNOW he lied? What evidence do you have? Share it and I'll evaluate its probative value of your allegations.

I know because the Church has made public the details of that meeting. It did so only after the Obama Administration denied that the meeting took place. You just need to look a tad further than your left wing hack sources and you'll find it. It disgusts me that Obama treated the Church with such disrespect... and I would say likewise whatever Church was involved.

It is, of course, quite convenient, that the Mormon Church has stood in solidarity with the Catholic Church on this subject.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have not the slightest interest in what you believe. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. As are the rest of us. What you aren't entitled to do is spin facts for your own convenience... which is what Obama is doing. He lied to the Cardinal. He lied to Catholics and he lied to Christians. Payback is a bitch.

How do you KNOW he lied? What evidence do you have? Share it and I'll evaluate its probative value of your allegations.

I know because the Church has made public the details of that meeting. It did so only after the Obama Administration denied that the meeting took place. You just need to look a tad further than your left wing hack sources and you'll find it. It disgusts me that Obama treated the Church with such disrespect... and I would say likewise whatever Church was involved.

It is, of course, quite convenient, that the Mormon Church has stood in solidarity with the Catholic Church on this subject.

Oh, The Authority said it, it must be true. What did they say about the recent convictions in Philadelphia? Maybe we have a Wag the Dog situation?

It disgust me that the church disprespects the elected President of the United States. Who elected them?

 

[PratchettFan]

If a religious organization chooses to employee non-religious employees, then why should they be exempt from the rules applied to any other employer?


why should the responsibility fall upon the employer and not the employee.....?

why should the employee get abortion/pill coverage when she KNOWS she applied for a job at a Catholic school or hospital.....?

she has the freedom and CHOICE to apply for a job elsewhere....[/QUOTE]

An entirely different issue. My point was that there is no reason for a church to be treated any differently than any other secular employer.

So let me use your own argument. Why should the RCC be allowed to deny medical care to their employees when it knows that such care is considered the norm in this society? If its moral standards are so out of sync with this society, it should close its doors and move out. It has the freedom of CHOICE to leave.

But we run into the primary difference between the RCC and the janitor. The RCC wields enormous political power and the janitor does not. The janitor may realistically not have the option of getting a job elsewhere. Of course, the one thing we don't want to happen is for the government to stand up for those who are without power. Better to pretend they have freedom of choice and pander to those with power.

 

[California Girl]

How do you KNOW he lied? What evidence do you have? Share it and I'll evaluate its probative value of your allegations.

I know because the Church has made public the details of that meeting. It did so only after the Obama Administration denied that the meeting took place. You just need to look a tad further than your left wing hack sources and you'll find it. It disgusts me that Obama treated the Church with such disrespect... and I would say likewise whatever Church was involved.

It is, of course, quite convenient, that the Mormon Church has stood in solidarity with the Catholic Church on this subject.

Oh, The Authority said it, it must be true. What did they say about the recent convictions in Philadelphia? Maybe we have a Wag the Dog situation?

It disgust me that the church disprespects the elected President of the United States. Who elected them?

Even the fucking Administration does not deny it, hack. He called them... he fucking said so... the Church does not respect the office of President, the President disrespects the Church.

You are an apologist for your messiah. I expect no honesty from you.

 

[California Girl]

If a religious organization chooses to employee non-religious employees, then why should they be exempt from the rules applied to any other employer?


why should the responsibility fall upon the employer and not the employee.....?

why should the employee get abortion/pill coverage when she KNOWS she applied for a job at a Catholic school or hospital.....?

she has the freedom and CHOICE to apply for a job elsewhere....

An entirely different issue. My point was that there is no reason for a church to be treated any differently than any other secular employer.

So let me use your own argument. Why should the RCC be allowed to deny medical care to their employees when it knows that such care is considered the norm in this society? If its moral standards are so out of sync with this society, it should close its doors and move out. It has the freedom of CHOICE to leave.

But we run into the primary difference between the RCC and the janitor. The RCC wields enormous political power and the janitor does not. The janitor may realistically not have the option of getting a job elsewhere. Of course, the one thing we don't want to happen is for the government to stand up for those who are without power. Better to pretend they have freedom of choice and pander to those with power.

So you are saying that Churches should discriminate against people outside their faith? How very stupid of you.

 

[PratchettFan]

If a religious organization chooses to employee non-religious employees, then why should they be exempt from the rules applied to any other employer?


why should the responsibility fall upon the employer and not the employee.....?

why should the employee get abortion/pill coverage when she KNOWS she applied for a job at a Catholic school or hospital.....?

she has the freedom and CHOICE to apply for a job elsewhere....

An entirely different issue. My point was that there is no reason for a church to be treated any differently than any other secular employer.

So let me use your own argument. Why should the RCC be allowed to deny medical care to their employees when it knows that such care is considered the norm in this society? If its moral standards are so out of sync with this society, it should close its doors and move out. It has the freedom of CHOICE to leave.

But we run into the primary difference between the RCC and the janitor. The RCC wields enormous political power and the janitor does not. The janitor may realistically not have the option of getting a job elsewhere. Of course, the one thing we don't want to happen is for the government to stand up for those who are without power. Better to pretend they have freedom of choice and pander to those with power.

So you are saying that Churches should discriminate against people outside their faith? How very stupid of you.

Are you saying the RCC can't require their priests to be catholic? Otherwise, there is no way you could have gotten that conclusion from my post.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If a religious organization chooses to employee non-religious employees, then why should they be exempt from the rules applied to any other employer?

why should the responsibility fall upon the employer and not the employee.....?

why should the employee get abortion/pill coverage when she KNOWS she applied for a job at a Catholic school or hospital.....?

she has the freedom and CHOICE to apply for a job elsewhere....

An entirely different issue. My point was that there is no reason for a church to be treated any differently than any other secular employer.

So let me use your own argument. Why should the RCC be allowed to deny medical care to their employees when it knows that such care is considered the norm in this society? If its moral standards are so out of sync with this society, it should close its doors and move out. It has the freedom of CHOICE to leave.

But we run into the primary difference between the RCC and the janitor. The RCC wields enormous political power and the janitor does not. The janitor may realistically not have the option of getting a job elsewhere. Of course, the one thing we don't want to happen is for the government to stand up for those who are without power. Better to pretend they have freedom of choice and pander to those with power.

i see you are new here....welcome.....you need to learn to quote people properly....do this by hitting the 'quote' button on my post, then type your answer below it, then hit 'preview post' to see it and correct anything you wrote if needed, then hit 'submit reply'.

a church institution has always been treated differently than a secular institution.... the "norm" of this society has always been to allow for religious freedom....that was the main reason people came to America in the first place....

religion is protected under our Constitution....religious employers are not the same as secular employers.....churches are employers who employ people to work within their religious institutions......would you hire a Buddhist to do the work of a Catholic priest....? would you hire a Muslim to teach children in a typical Catholic school.....? of course not.....there would be too much religious conflict....

Catholic non-profits are tax-exempt because they are institutions providing community services without the purpose to profit as a normal business would do.....they are there to help and serve people as Jesus taught Christians to do....i.e., they are RELIGIOUS in nature....they have crosses upon their walls and priests and nuns to teach the students and aid the sick....whoever they might be....you are not forced to attend their schools or go to their hospitals....

if a janitor wishes to work for that religious institution he should respect their religious beliefs....and not demand that they change their beliefs to accomodate him....if he wants abortion/pill coverage so much he should buy it on the free market or else go work for a secular institution that provides it....

isn't this a perfect example of what liberals call "separation of church and state".......?

 

[PratchettFan]

why should the responsibility fall upon the employer and not the employee.....?

why should the employee get abortion/pill coverage when she KNOWS she applied for a job at a Catholic school or hospital.....?

she has the freedom and CHOICE to apply for a job elsewhere....

An entirely different issue. My point was that there is no reason for a church to be treated any differently than any other secular employer.

So let me use your own argument. Why should the RCC be allowed to deny medical care to their employees when it knows that such care is considered the norm in this society? If its moral standards are so out of sync with this society, it should close its doors and move out. It has the freedom of CHOICE to leave.

But we run into the primary difference between the RCC and the janitor. The RCC wields enormous political power and the janitor does not. The janitor may realistically not have the option of getting a job elsewhere. Of course, the one thing we don't want to happen is for the government to stand up for those who are without power. Better to pretend they have freedom of choice and pander to those with power.

i see you are new here....welcome.....you need to learn to quote people properly....do this by hitting the 'quote' button on my post, then type your answer below it, then hit 'preview post' to see it and correct anything you wrote if needed, then hit 'submit reply'.

a church institution has always been treated differently than a secular institution.... the "norm" of this society has always been to allow for religious freedom....that was the main reason people came to America in the first place....

religion is protected under our Constitution....religious employers are not the same as secular employers.....churches are employers who employ people to work within their religious institutions......would you hire a Buddhist to do the work of a Catholic priest....? would you hire a Muslim to teach children in a typical Catholic school.....? of course not.....there would be too much religious conflict....

Catholic non-profits are tax-exempt because they are institutions providing community services without the purpose to profit as a normal business would do.....they are there to help and serve people as Jesus taught Christians to do....i.e., they are RELIGIOUS in nature....they have crosses upon their walls and priests and nuns to teach the students and aid the sick....whoever they might be....you are not forced to attend their schools or go to their hospitals....

if a janitor wishes to work for that religious institution he should respect their religious beliefs....and not demand that they change their beliefs to accomodate him....if he wants abortion/pill coverage so much he should buy it on the free market or else go work for a secular institution that provides it....

isn't this a perfect example of what liberals call "separation of church and state".......?

Yes. My apologies for the quote issue. I'll get the hang of it.

I would agree with you that a religious institution is different as a religious institution. But where is the line? When does a religious institution stop being a religious institution? If a Baptist church buys the bank you have a mortgage with, should you be forced to go to church or have your mortgage called in? Would they have the right to question you on your personal life to make sure you met their standards? At that point, are they a bank or a church?

This concept of a "free market" is a myth. It does not exist and has never existed. Those times we came close it proved a disastor. Like it or not, the market - like any other human endeavor - requires some degree of control or it turns into a justification for repression.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

An entirely different issue. My point was that there is no reason for a church to be treated any differently than any other secular employer.

So let me use your own argument. Why should the RCC be allowed to deny medical care to their employees when it knows that such care is considered the norm in this society? If its moral standards are so out of sync with this society, it should close its doors and move out. It has the freedom of CHOICE to leave.

But we run into the primary difference between the RCC and the janitor. The RCC wields enormous political power and the janitor does not. The janitor may realistically not have the option of getting a job elsewhere. Of course, the one thing we don't want to happen is for the government to stand up for those who are without power. Better to pretend they have freedom of choice and pander to those with power.

i see you are new here....welcome.....you need to learn to quote people properly....do this by hitting the 'quote' button on my post, then type your answer below it, then hit 'preview post' to see it and correct anything you wrote if needed, then hit 'submit reply'.

a church institution has always been treated differently than a secular institution.... the "norm" of this society has always been to allow for religious freedom....that was the main reason people came to America in the first place....

religion is protected under our Constitution....religious employers are not the same as secular employers.....churches are employers who employ people to work within their religious institutions......would you hire a Buddhist to do the work of a Catholic priest....? would you hire a Muslim to teach children in a typical Catholic school.....? of course not.....there would be too much religious conflict....

Catholic non-profits are tax-exempt because they are institutions providing community services without the purpose to profit as a normal business would do.....they are there to help and serve people as Jesus taught Christians to do....i.e., they are RELIGIOUS in nature....they have crosses upon their walls and priests and nuns to teach the students and aid the sick....whoever they might be....you are not forced to attend their schools or go to their hospitals....

if a janitor wishes to work for that religious institution he should respect their religious beliefs....and not demand that they change their beliefs to accomodate him....if he wants abortion/pill coverage so much he should buy it on the free market or else go work for a secular institution that provides it....

isn't this a perfect example of what liberals call "separation of church and state".......?

Yes. My apologies for the quote issue. I'll get the hang of it.

I would agree with you that a religious institution is different as a religious institution. But where is the line? When does a religious institution stop being a religious institution? If a Baptist church buys the bank you have a mortgage with, should you be forced to go to church or have your mortgage called in? Would they have the right to question you on your personal life to make sure you met their standards? At that point, are they a bank or a church?

This concept of a "free market" is a myth. It does not exist and has never existed. Those times we came close it proved a disastor. Like it or not, the market - like any other human endeavor - requires some degree of control or it turns into a justification for repression.

i believe "the line" is where a religious institution is no longer religious in nature and primarily pursues profits like most other businesses....however Catholic schools and hospitals have never been "for profit" types of institutions as they have always helped the poor and needy....

Obama has no good reason to insist on his abortion/pill "health" requirements other than to satisfy his pro-abortion base and increase his secular power over the religious.....like all marxists attempt to do.....

i agree with you that the "free market" needs some degree of control to ensure fairness and an equal playing field...

 

[Lovebears65]

probably not going to matter after next week when the mandate is struck down. Without the mandate there is not Obamacare .. Just saying

 

[PratchettFan]

i see you are new here....welcome.....you need to learn to quote people properly....do this by hitting the 'quote' button on my post, then type your answer below it, then hit 'preview post' to see it and correct anything you wrote if needed, then hit 'submit reply'.

a church institution has always been treated differently than a secular institution.... the "norm" of this society has always been to allow for religious freedom....that was the main reason people came to America in the first place....

religion is protected under our Constitution....religious employers are not the same as secular employers.....churches are employers who employ people to work within their religious institutions......would you hire a Buddhist to do the work of a Catholic priest....? would you hire a Muslim to teach children in a typical Catholic school.....? of course not.....there would be too much religious conflict....

Catholic non-profits are tax-exempt because they are institutions providing community services without the purpose to profit as a normal business would do.....they are there to help and serve people as Jesus taught Christians to do....i.e., they are RELIGIOUS in nature....they have crosses upon their walls and priests and nuns to teach the students and aid the sick....whoever they might be....you are not forced to attend their schools or go to their hospitals....

if a janitor wishes to work for that religious institution he should respect their religious beliefs....and not demand that they change their beliefs to accomodate him....if he wants abortion/pill coverage so much he should buy it on the free market or else go work for a secular institution that provides it....

isn't this a perfect example of what liberals call "separation of church and state".......?

Yes. My apologies for the quote issue. I'll get the hang of it.

I would agree with you that a religious institution is different as a religious institution. But where is the line? When does a religious institution stop being a religious institution? If a Baptist church buys the bank you have a mortgage with, should you be forced to go to church or have your mortgage called in? Would they have the right to question you on your personal life to make sure you met their standards? At that point, are they a bank or a church?

This concept of a "free market" is a myth. It does not exist and has never existed. Those times we came close it proved a disastor. Like it or not, the market - like any other human endeavor - requires some degree of control or it turns into a justification for repression.

i believe "the line" is where a religious institution is no longer religious in nature and primarily pursues profits like most other businesses....however Catholic schools and hospitals have never been "for profit" types of institutions as they have always helped the poor and needy....

Obama has no good reason to insist on his abortion/pill "health" requirements other than to satisfy his pro-abortion base and increase his secular power over the religious.....like all marxists attempt to do.....

i agree with you that the "free market" needs some degree of control to ensure fairness and an equal playing field...

There is nothing in the constituion which talks about the rights of non-profits. If mere non-profit status makes an organization a religion, then Planned Parenthood qualifies. Which means they are protected under the 1st amendment.

I would counter that a school or hospital is not a church regardless of ownership. No church is controlled by the government or must meet governmental standards to operate. However, schools and hospitals are subject to the same standards whether operated by a religious or secular organization. Aside from ownership, there is no difference in their purpose or methods. There is no valid reason to treat them differently than similar entites under secular control.

Evil, since you brought it up, is in the eyes of the beholder. I consider the RCC's attempt to impose its own outdated and blatantly immoral stance on the ability of individuals to make their own decisions as to reproduction to be evil. And, frankly, between the two the RCC is far more marxist than Obama.

 

[PratchettFan]

probably not going to matter after next week when the mandate is struck down. Without the mandate there is not Obamacare .. Just saying

I doubt it will have any impact upon this question. The mandate you are referring to is the requirement for individuals to buy insurance. If this issue is also found unconstitutional, there are any number of existing laws which will also be stricken. I know of at least a half dozen current laws in my state which requires insurance companies provide specific types of coverage in all health policies. If this requirement is unconstitutional, then so are they.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

probably not going to matter after next week when the mandate is struck down. Without the mandate there is not Obamacare .. Just saying

I doubt it will have any impact upon this question. The mandate you are referring to is the requirement for individuals to buy insurance. If this issue is also found unconstitutional, there are any number of existing laws which will also be stricken. I know of at least a half dozen current laws in my state which requires insurance companies provide specific types of coverage in all health policies. If this requirement is unconstitutional, then so are they.

government could provide minimum guidelines and/or ratings services for types of coverages to guide people in their healthcare purchases instead of just mandating whatever they feel best at the moment.....but that isn't the real point of liberal "government medicine"...is it....?

 

[PratchettFan]

probably not going to matter after next week when the mandate is struck down. Without the mandate there is not Obamacare .. Just saying

I doubt it will have any impact upon this question. The mandate you are referring to is the requirement for individuals to buy insurance. If this issue is also found unconstitutional, there are any number of existing laws which will also be stricken. I know of at least a half dozen current laws in my state which requires insurance companies provide specific types of coverage in all health policies. If this requirement is unconstitutional, then so are they.

government could provide minimum guidelines and/or ratings services for types of coverages to guide people in their healthcare purchases instead of just mandating whatever they feel best at the moment.....but that isn't the real point of liberal "government medicine"...is it....?

The government can and does. It has done so for quite a few decades now. Each time it has happened it has been whatever they felt best at the moment. This has been by both liberals and conservatives. In fact, the person in my state who pushes this kind of thing most often is extremely conservative. I live in Virginia and his name is Bob Marshall. Look him up.

The real point of "government medicine" is to resolve the problem of people not having adequate medical care. I find it amazing that people who would not think twice about agreeing it is appropriate for the government to take on the maintenance of roadways or sewers balk at the maintenance of human beings. How can any society call itself civilized if it is unconcerned with the health and welfare of its people?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I doubt it will have any impact upon this question. The mandate you are referring to is the requirement for individuals to buy insurance. If this issue is also found unconstitutional, there are any number of existing laws which will also be stricken. I know of at least a half dozen current laws in my state which requires insurance companies provide specific types of coverage in all health policies. If this requirement is unconstitutional, then so are they.

government could provide minimum guidelines and/or ratings services for types of coverages to guide people in their healthcare purchases instead of just mandating whatever they feel best at the moment.....but that isn't the real point of liberal "government medicine"...is it....?

The government can and does. It has done so for quite a few decades now. Each time it has happened it has been whatever they felt best at the moment. This has been by both liberals and conservatives. In fact, the person in my state who pushes this kind of thing most often is extremely conservative. I live in Virginia and his name is Bob Marshall. Look him up.

The real point of "government medicine" is to resolve the problem of people not having adequate medical care. I find it amazing that people who would not think twice about agreeing it is appropriate for the government to take on the maintenance of roadways or sewers balk at the maintenance of human beings. How can any society call itself civilized if it is unconcerned with the health and welfare of its people?

....so you think the roadways and sewers are in great shape........?

...and if the government cannot even balance its own yearly budget in what world do you think it is going to lower our healthcare costs while maintaining/increasing quality.....?

talk about "amazing"....

 

[waltky]

Judge Lets Catholic Firm Cut Contraception Coverage...

Catholic business owners score win against ObamaCare mandate
July 27, 2012 - The Catholic family that owns a Colorado-based company won a court victory in their battle to stop the Obama administration from requiring them to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, a mandate they say violates their religious beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Hercules Industries, a Denver-based heating ventilation and air conditioning manufacturer that employs nearly 300 full-time workers, got an injunction in federal court which stops enforcement of the controversial ObamaCare mandate. The company's lawyers said they needed the injunction immediately because if the mandate is enforced, it must begin immediately making changes to its health plan, which renews on Nov. 1. The case is similar to ones brought by Catholic-based colleges that have refused to provide employee insurance with such coverage, except this time, it is a secular corporation. In his order, Colorado District Judge John Kane said that the government’s arguments “are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion."

The case still must be aired out in court, but lawyers representing Hercules savored the temporary victory. “Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith. For the time being, Hercules Industries will be able to do just that,” said Matt Bowman, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, the Arizona-based organization representing the Newlands. “The bottom line is that Congress and the Constitution explicitly protect all religious freedom. They don’t exclude family businesses.” House Speaker John Boehner heralded the court's ruling. "I join millions of my fellow Americans in welcoming this ruling, which is a major victory in the effort to restore the religious liberty that has been demolished by the Obama administration's actions this year," Boehner said.

The Obama administration had argued in a 76-page response that the Newlands’ challenge “rests largely on the theory” that a for-profit, secular corporation can claim to exercise a religion and avoid laws regulating commercial activity. “This cannot be,” the motion reads, citing the 1982 case of United States v. Lee, in which the court held that self-employed Amish workers could be exempt from Social Security taxes, but did not extend the exemption to Amish employers. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that, ‘[w]hen 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.”

The 35-page complaint, Newland v. Sebelius, was filed in April in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and U.S. District Judge John Kane is expected to issue an opinion Friday denying or granting the injunction. Defendants named in the lawsuit include Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Department of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The Newlands argue that the mandate forces them to “violate their deeply held religious beliefs” and unconstitutionally coerces them to violate those Catholic beliefs under threat of fines and penalties, according to court documents. “The mandate also forces the plaintiffs to fund government-dictated speech that is directly at odds with the religious ethics derived from their deeply held religious beliefs and the moral teachings of the Catholic Church that they strive to embody in their business,” the complaint reads. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller could not be reached for comment early Friday.

MORE

See also:

Iran's birth control policy sent birthrate tumbling
July 22, 2012 - The birthrate plunged, helping to usher in social changes, particularly concerning the role of women.

Since the 1980s, Iran has experienced the largest and fastest drop in fertility ever recorded — from about seven births per woman to fewer than two today. "It confounded all conventional wisdom that it could happen in one of the world's few Islamic republics," said Jalal Abbasi-Shavazi, a demographer at the University of Tehran. It happened largely because of the Islamic government. In the late 1980s, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran's supreme leader, issued fatwas making birth control widely available and acceptable to conservative Muslims. Until then, Khomeini had helped foster a baby boom to produce soldiers for the war against Iraq. After the war, he was persuaded that the economy could no longer support a rapidly growing population.

Under the new decrees, contraceptives could be obtained free at government clinics, including thousands of new rural health centers. Health workers promoted contraception as a way to leave more time between births and help reduce maternal and child mortality. Couples intending to marry were required to receive counseling in family planning. The birthrate plunged, helping to usher in social changes, particularly in the role of women. With smaller families, parents could invest more in their children's education, and the idea caught on even in rural areas.

At the same time, educational opportunities were opening up for girls. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Khomeini had resegregated schools by gender in keeping with his strict interpretation of Islam. One result was that even the most conservative families could send girls to school without worrying that family honor would be tarnished by allowing their daughters to mix with males. As women became better educated, their influence within the family grew. Without intending to, Iran's clerical leadership helped to foster "the empowerment of Iranian women," said Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, an Iran expert at Virginia Tech. "The mullahs may be winning the battle on the streets, but women are winning the battle inside the family."

Iranian woman have fewer legal rights than men and are limited in which jobs they can hold and what they can wear. But more of them are attending universities and postponing childbirth. In public universities, female students now outnumber males 65% to 35%, leading to calls in parliament for affirmative action for men. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, has sought to reverse the trend toward smaller families. Doubling the country's population of 75 million would enable Iran to threaten the West, he said. He has denounced the contraceptive program as "a prescription for extinction," called on Iranian girls to marry no later than 16 or 17 and offered bonuses of more than $950 for each child. So far, he has been widely ignored. "Iranian women are not going back," said Sussan Tahmasebi, an Iranian women's rights leader now living in the United States.

MORE