So can we all please agree

[auditor0007]

I'm trying to figure out how the catholic church is "forcing" anything upon anyone, when they are being "forced" to provide a service they do not support?

If the Church, in this case, the Catholic Church, is actually paying for any part of the health insurance benefits, then yes, I believe they have a right to dictate what can and cannot be included in the coverage. However, in the case of Georgetown University, it has been made clear that the University does not pay any part of the student's health insurance premiums. Therefore, I do not believe the Church should dictate what is covered and what is not. That is separate of the argument about cost.

 

[koshergrl]

I guess it's better that they not offer their students any insurance at all..and instead force them to provide their own, the way they do in Cali.

 

[Disturbed1]

As for the Catholic Church component to all this mess, parishes and dioceses are not required to offer birth control; just Catholic-run organizations that hire non-Catholics. This ensures that individuals can make their own decisions instead of an organization making decisions for them.

Did the organization decide where they would work?

I cannot understand why conservatives are up in arms about this! It protects the rights of the individual. I thought conservatives were all for individual rights.

We are. We believe in individual rights and...(gasp!) religious freedom! The whole darned Constitution, and not just part of it!



We believe an individual should be free to work wherever they want, and if they knowingly take a job with an organization whose dogma is well known, they should not demand the religious freedom of their employer be violated.

The Constitution protects individual liberty. Obama's plan allows individuals to make a religious choice. Therefore, it protects religious liberty. YOUR plan is to force one particular religious view on people. That's a violation of their constitutional rights.

And this is not forcing contraception on anyone. It forces insurance companies (not the Church!) into OFFERING birth control. Offering is not the same as forcing. The Church's rights are not violated with this law anymore than it gets violated when parish members purchase birth control.

Actually you are incorrect. Because of Obamacare, employers are forced to provide healthcare coverage for their employees or pay a fine (so are individuals who insure themselves but that's another topic). So, A church has to provide healthcare coverage, which they pay a portion of, and this healthcare coverage includes contraception(which includes abortion)which the Church is morally opposed to and goes against their Tenets. In other words they are partially paying for a service which provides something that goes against the religion. Religious institutions should not be forced to go against their tenets (infringing on their religious freedom), people who work for religious institutions, I'm sure, are aware that they are being employed by religious institutions before they even take the job. And let's face it, the Catholic Church's stance on BC and abortion is well known.
No one is trying to force the population in general to not use BC, however this Obamacare crap is forcing religious institutions to pay for and provide an insurance coverage which includes something they are morally opposed to.

 

[Newby]

First, forcing employers to provide a health insurance fringe benefit. Any pretensions about these new government powers driving down costs for everyone are exposed for the lies they are by the permanent institutionalization of this cost amplifier.

There are no ‘new government powers,’ Congress has always had the authority to regulate insurance companies and employee compensation.

Second, forcing religious people to engage in a behavior which is against their morals. Never again can the Left pretend that other people's values are important to them, because they have demonstrated they are as intolerant and immoral as it gets.

No religious person is being ‘forced’ to engage in any activity in violation of a religious tenet – no one is being ‘forced’ to use contraceptives or have an abortion. The health insurance provision concerning contraceptive therapies concerns only the employee, not employer. And it’s appropriate to require a consistent application of health insurance policy, given the fact many Catholic-affiliated employers already provide such coverage.

This issue has nothing to do with availability of contraceptives or how much they cost. The issue is the radical right’s effort to chip away at long-acknowledged civil liberties concerning government restriction and the right to privacy, as conservatives disapprove of the activities protected in the context of those rights.

It is about rightist authoritarianism and the conservative propensity to enforce conformity.

What a complete joke, do you expect to be taken seriously? You are using the force of the federal government to conform to what your opinion is regarding that every health care plan provided to employees in the US provides contraception free of charge. You are the one demanding comformity to your morals. Where do you even get off trying to insinuate that it's the opposite? Employers should be free to choose what healthcare plans they will provide and pay for, not the power of the government? You know, the exact same argument that you people use when promoting abortion? Are you really this dense?

 

[BlindBoo]

A hospital is faith based if it is owned by the church and they say it is.

Do they employ faith healers or MD's?

A hospital is not a Church. A chruch relies on faith. A hospital relies on science.

 

[koshergrl]

And that is apropos of what, exactly?

 

[koshergrl]

Wait, nevermind...it's yet another inane, unrelated and nonsensical spasming of the liberal mob...a slogan without any meaning or relevance.

Carry on. I know it's all you've got. Cling to it.

 

[Newby]

I'm trying to figure out how the catholic church is "forcing" anything upon anyone, when they are being "forced" to provide a service they do not support?

If the Church, in this case, the Catholic Church, is actually paying for any part of the health insurance benefits, then yes, I believe they have a right to dictate what can and cannot be included in the coverage. However, in the case of Georgetown University, it has been made clear that the University does not pay any part of the student's health insurance premiums. Therefore, I do not believe the Church should dictate what is covered and what is not. That is separate of the argument about cost.

I think the question should be whether the federal government should have any say in what any employer offers via health insurance to its employees? Shouldn't employers be able to choose on their own what health plans they want to offer and/or maybe help pay for? Why is the choice being taken away via force of the federal government? The more converage an insurance plan is offering, the higher the cost of the premium for everyone. Better yet, health insurance should be removed from the employer/employee relationship altogether and inidividuals should purchase their own insurance just like life, car, house, etc... and pay for it themselves.

 

[Newby]

I guess it's better that they not offer their students any insurance at all..and instead force them to provide their own, the way they do in Cali.

Exactly, quit offering it altogether, most college students are covered under their parent's plan while in school anyway.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm trying to figure out how the catholic church is "forcing" anything upon anyone, when they are being "forced" to provide a service they do not support?

If the Church, in this case, the Catholic Church, is actually paying for any part of the health insurance benefits, then yes, I believe they have a right to dictate what can and cannot be included in the coverage. However, in the case of Georgetown University, it has been made clear that the University does not pay any part of the student's health insurance premiums. Therefore, I do not believe the Church should dictate what is covered and what is not. That is separate of the argument about cost.

I think the question should be whether the federal government should have any say in what any employer offers via health insurance to its employees? Shouldn't employers be able to choose on their own what health plans they want to offer and/or maybe help pay for? Why is the choice being taken away via force of the federal government? The more converage an insurance plan is offering, the higher the cost of the premium for everyone. Better yet, health insurance should be removed from the employer/employee relationship altogether and inidividuals should purchase their own insurance just like life, car, house, etc... and pay for it themselves.

The argument is that it's sex discrimination to have a prescription drug plan as part of insurance coverage -

which, let's not forget, the employee is actually paying for - that doesn't include birth control pills.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that is apropos of what, exactly?

The First amendment protects the free exercise of religion. It does not protect the non-religious activities of someone or some institution that happens to be religious.

Selling insurance is not a religion. Selling insurance is a business.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I think the question should be whether the federal government should have any say in what any employer offers via health insurance to its employees? Shouldn't employers be able to choose on their own what health plans they want to offer and/or maybe help pay for?

I will slightly agree with you. Except that I'm not so concerned with the government regulating health care insurance as part of the employment relationship. I look at it as essentially an addition to minimum wage laws. You must pay at minimum a certain wage, as well as have an insurance plan available. It's really just the government saying that you have to pay something to your employees. But I do firmly oppose the mandate that individuals be required to provide insurance.

That being said, that is really an aside issue here. First off all, students aren't employees of the school. Second, the issue with the school is being argued as an infringement of religious rights. Not to say that the point you raise isn't one that is important and worthy of consideration. It's just not the issue in regards to this particular case.

The more converage an insurance plan is offering, the higher the cost of the premium for everyone.

The ideal solution would be to have multiple options. Most employers, for example, have multiple levels of coverage available for employees to select. This would allow individuals to decide if they want particular coverage or not.

Better yet, health insurance should be removed from the employer/employee relationship altogether and inidividuals should purchase their own insurance just like life, car, house, etc... and pay for it themselves.

Better yet, health insurance should be outlawed altogether. Probably the single best way to bring down the cost of health care for the people, without going to a single payer system.

 

[koshergrl]

And that is apropos of what, exactly?

The First amendment protects the free exercise of religion. It does not protect the non-religious activities of someone or some institution that happens to be religious.

Selling insurance is not a religion. Selling insurance is a business.

So? It's not the government's place to tell businesses what they must sell.

At least it didn't used to be.

In fact, in this case, they aren't even telling them what to sell. They're telling them what they must provide free of charge.

That's none of the government's business. If the church doesn't want to provide birth control, whether directly or through an insurance company, they shouldn't have to.

Fuck fascists.

 

[koshergrl]

Once and for all, any American and pretty much any human alive in the US today can obtain FREE CONTRACEPTIVES...

OK prove it. This statement is so preposterous it boarders on the absurd. After you have traveled the nation in every small and large town, and where there isn't even a town, come back and tell us about the experience and then I bet you return to reality. We'll wait.

I already proved it. You are showing your ignorance of the topic by braying that women can't get free contraceptives.

I lived in a VERY rural area .... and guess what? You could get free contraceptives there. If you didn't want to go to that tiny clinic, then you could travel to a different county and get them there. Since people regularly travel to grocery shop, no biggie.

And guess what else? It's the INNER CITIES where teen pregnancy, single parenthood, child abuse etc. are running rampant. As I proved already by posting the various and assorted places in DC ALONE where anyone could get free contraceptives, including without a pelvic, for free, the cities have a PP and free clinic on every fucking corner.

And yet it doesn't seem to help, does it? Guttmacher's is VERY DISTURBED by this, and says that more abortions are the answer...though fully 50 percent of all pregnancies in the inner cities are already aborted.

Maybe just a regular blitzkreig would be more effective...I'm sure they'll suggest it soon.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Once and for all, any American and pretty much any human alive in the US today can obtain FREE CONTRACEPTIVES.

Ok? I'm tired of having to deal with nitwits in every single discussion about reproductive issues who claim women can't obtain birth control unless we 1. Allow abortion 2. Mandate birth control or 3. Force the churches to subsidize birth control (which includes abortion).

On multiple occasions I have had to post information, generally to the same people (chris) (rdean) (various and assorted lesbian buddhists and the like) confirming and providing contact information for free clinics in pretty much every community in the US.

So can we just all accept that birth control is available in the US, including for NOTHING, and move on? You can still argue other points idiotically, but please just let that one particular argument (people can't obtain birth control! OMG! However will they kill their babies????) die a natural death.

I know you are also adverse to natural death...I'll rephrase it...

Will you please euthanize, or abort, the mantra "women can't access birth control!"

Really?

Why do millions of Americans pay for birth control then? You need to get the word out

Drug stores need to stop selling condoms....after all, they are free

Why do millions of americans buy water when they can just stand outside, point their head up, open their mouth, and wait for rain?


Convenience

 

[Texanmike]

There are no ‘new government powers,’ Congress has always had the authority to regulate insurance companies and employee compensation.

Reference?

Mike

 

[Foxfyre]

Like Rush, a lot of y'all don't seem to understand the difference between condoms and the pill.

Condoms are available for free at Planned Parenthood clinics and even many college campuses. Birth control pills are not.

How many times you have sex is important with condoms because it's one-per-episode. How many times you have sex is unimportant to birth control pills; you take one a day regardless of activity.

Also, birth control pills come with hormones and other drugs. Women can be on birth control for health reasons, such as regulating cycles. I knew one girl who went on birth control when she was 13 for health reasons, not sexual ones.

So condoms are easily obtained in the US. Birth control pills require a prescription and therefore are not easily obtained. Therefore, it's incorrect to say "birth control is available in the US for nothing". Condoms are. The Pill is not.

There is no insurance company that I know of that doesn't cover a legitimate prescription for hormones necessary as a medical treatment. Nobody should be taking oral contraceptives that are not prescribed and monitored by a doctor, and any licensed medical doctor can prescribe oral contraceptives. They are therefore easily obtained.

 

[Newby]

If the Church, in this case, the Catholic Church, is actually paying for any part of the health insurance benefits, then yes, I believe they have a right to dictate what can and cannot be included in the coverage. However, in the case of Georgetown University, it has been made clear that the University does not pay any part of the student's health insurance premiums. Therefore, I do not believe the Church should dictate what is covered and what is not. That is separate of the argument about cost.

I think the question should be whether the federal government should have any say in what any employer offers via health insurance to its employees? Shouldn't employers be able to choose on their own what health plans they want to offer and/or maybe help pay for? Why is the choice being taken away via force of the federal government? The more converage an insurance plan is offering, the higher the cost of the premium for everyone. Better yet, health insurance should be removed from the employer/employee relationship altogether and inidividuals should purchase their own insurance just like life, car, house, etc... and pay for it themselves.

The argument is that it's sex discrimination to have a prescription drug plan as part of insurance coverage -

which, let's not forget, the employee is actually paying for - that doesn't include birth control pills.

Insurance plans don't cover quite a lot of things, are we now going to demand that the federal government mandate exactly what has to be in every health insurance plan? That's really going to lower the costs of insurance, right? I assume you're saying that the employee is paying for it since it's part of their compensation package? Let's remove health insurance coverage from employment with a company altogether and make it private, and then we'll see how much your take home salary increases. Wanna guess not much? I opt out of insurance coverage at work since I'm covered under my husband's plan, do you want to guess how much they give me a month for that? The employer is paying for it in all actuality.

 

[Newby]

I think the question should be whether the federal government should have any say in what any employer offers via health insurance to its employees? Shouldn't employers be able to choose on their own what health plans they want to offer and/or maybe help pay for?

I will slightly agree with you. Except that I'm not so concerned with the government regulating health care insurance as part of the employment relationship. I look at it as essentially an addition to minimum wage laws. You must pay at minimum a certain wage, as well as have an insurance plan available. It's really just the government saying that you have to pay something to your employees. But I do firmly oppose the mandate that individuals be required to provide insurance.

That being said, that is really an aside issue here. First off all, students aren't employees of the school. Second, the issue with the school is being argued as an infringement of religious rights. Not to say that the point you raise isn't one that is important and worthy of consideration. It's just not the issue in regards to this particular case.

The more converage an insurance plan is offering, the higher the cost of the premium for everyone.

The ideal solution would be to have multiple options. Most employers, for example, have multiple levels of coverage available for employees to select. This would allow individuals to decide if they want particular coverage or not.

Better yet, health insurance should be removed from the employer/employee relationship altogether and inidividuals should purchase their own insurance just like life, car, house, etc... and pay for it themselves.

Better yet, health insurance should be outlawed altogether. Probably the single best way to bring down the cost of health care for the people, without going to a single payer system.

That's the first post of yours that I've read that I completely agree with.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the question should be whether the federal government should have any say in what any employer offers via health insurance to its employees? Shouldn't employers be able to choose on their own what health plans they want to offer and/or maybe help pay for? Why is the choice being taken away via force of the federal government? The more converage an insurance plan is offering, the higher the cost of the premium for everyone. Better yet, health insurance should be removed from the employer/employee relationship altogether and inidividuals should purchase their own insurance just like life, car, house, etc... and pay for it themselves.

The argument is that it's sex discrimination to have a prescription drug plan as part of insurance coverage -

which, let's not forget, the employee is actually paying for - that doesn't include birth control pills.

Insurance plans don't cover quite a lot of things, are we now going to demand that the federal government mandate exactly what has to be in every health insurance plan? That's really going to lower the costs of insurance, right? I assume you're saying that the employee is paying for it since it's part of their compensation package? Let's remove health insurance coverage from employment with a company altogether and make it private, and then we'll see how much your take home salary increases. Wanna guess not much? I opt out of insurance coverage at work since I'm covered under my husband's plan, do you want to guess how much they give me a month for that? The employer is paying for it in all actuality.

Further, the cheapest oral contraceptive, which is quite adequate and well tolerated by most women, costs about $9/month. But there are some that also cost $30/month or more. Now if the woman is buying out of pocket, and is on a tight budget, that $9 prescrption might be what she would ask for. If the insurance company is required to cover whatever the doctor prescribes, where is the incentive to not prescribe the most expensive? At any rate, we will quickly see that $9 medication no longer being as affordable and insurance becoming NECESSARY to get many things that are now very reasonable to buy. So everybody pays more and/or everybody's insurance premiums go up.

Let the free market work it out. Keep the government out of it.