Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
No, not outlawed altogether but it should be only for large ticket items. Surgery, cancer treatment, rehab . . things of that nature. This 'paying for everything and/or paying for the small shit' only causes premiums to rise and overall costs to rise. It's retarded.
Imagine how much ones car insurance premium would rise if things like oil changes, tire rotation and lube jobs were included in insurance. Dumb.
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.
Condoms are still cheaper even if you screw 10 times a day. And they protect against STDs, unlike birth control.
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.
Roll out the cancer lady!
The ONE GIRL you knew has NOTHING to do with why I should be paying for birth control for EVERY GIRL.
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.
Condoms are still cheaper even if you screw 10 times a day. And they protect against STDs, unlike birth control.
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.
Roll out the cancer lady!
The ONE GIRL you knew has NOTHING to do with why I should be paying for birth control for EVERY GIRL.
This is so typical. Again we let big church, big business get all the press. It just enforces what I have been saying. At all stages, we get screwed by a big group and screw the individual because this is no democracy. it is an economic oligarchy which is blatantly against the individual. Even churches, which should be taxed, run roughshod over the individual. So, let me get this straight...
A Catholic church opens a business which is not a private business, say a hospital, can deny any of it's employees this coverage due to a stance of religious beliefs? That is crap! It is just another episode of a big business getting to do as it pleases to people. If they did not want to enter into this kind of situation, they should have made it a private hospital with only Catholic employees. When it allowed the general public the ability to enter the mix, they lost the ability and the right to complain about such stuff. It is the height of hubris and downright totalitarian in nature. Of course, most religious people's view of the afterlife is a monarchy with no recourse but to be told what do do in the afterlife as well. Still the Hamiltonian model even after death.
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.
Is it the government's business whether or not a restaurant should have to serve black people?
I
Condoms are still cheaper even if you screw 10 times a day. And they protect against STDs, unlike birth control.
Roll out the cancer lady!
The ONE GIRL you knew has NOTHING to do with why I should be paying for birth control for EVERY GIRL.
This is so typical. Again we let big church, big business get all the press. It just enforces what I have been saying. At all stages, we get screwed by a big group and screw the individual because this is no democracy. it is an economic oligarchy which is blatantly against the individual. Even churches, which should be taxed, run roughshod over the individual. So, let me get this straight...
A Catholic church opens a business which is not a private business, say a hospital, can deny any of it's employees this coverage due to a stance of religious beliefs? That is crap! It is just another episode of a big business getting to do as it pleases to people. If they did not want to enter into this kind of situation, they should have made it a private hospital with only Catholic employees. When it allowed the general public the ability to enter the mix, they lost the ability and the right to complain about such stuff. It is the height of hubris and downright totalitarian in nature. Of course, most religious people's view of the afterlife is a monarchy with no recourse but to be told what do do in the afterlife as well. Still the Hamiltonian model even after death.
Really? I cannot think of ANY business, let alone a Catholic business, that can deny its employees anything. In a free country a job is a mutally agreed contract between an employer and an employee. The employer agrees to provide X in wages and benefits in return for the employee providing X number of hours of his/her time, skills, expertise, labor or whatever. If no mutual agreement is reached, they part company and the employee looks for work elsewhere and the employer looks for somebody else to fill that job.
And the government should be involved in that contract. . . .why?
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
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.
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.
The employee pays for his healthcare with his work. Work has a value. Insurance has a value. One is traded for the other.
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.
so you like to brush your teeth with lead toothpaste?
You dont want government telling people what to sell, but want to close down Abortion clinics...and Planned parenthoods...
and no they arent telling people what they must offer free of charge. You dont understand how insurance works do you?
You guys are too much.
No one is being force to go against their morals. If you have a religious conviction against taking birth control you are not required to take it. However looks like secular society is getting tired of religious institutions forcing their morals on non-believers in the form of sub-par healthcare coverage.
Forcing people, or institutions to provide a service or product that they consider to be a sin, is imposing someone else's morality on those people or institutions. No one is forced to work for, or associate with, any person or institution, that provides them sub-par health care coverage. Anyone, with even an iota of common sense would not expect to receive contraceptive services if they took a job at a Catholic institution. The Church does not have any right to control their employees use of contraceptives, but they have the right not to provide them for their employees.
However, institutions and employers that receive federal or state financial assistance (whether directly via grants or indirectly via tax relief or other subsidies) should provide access to birth control. It goes against the public interest and basic common sense to think otherwise.
The Catholic Church hierarchy opposes contraception while the vast majority of its adherents do not. Nighty-eight percent of sexually active Catholic women use some form of contraception, indicating that the vast majority of Catholic women do not share the official views of the Church with respect to birth control. Mutual respect for religious beliefs is part of what makes America an attractive place for many, but there comes a time when it must bow to the needs of public health.
If the rule that an institutions insurance must cover birth control is so offensive, perhaps it is time for university administrators to explore a new industry or at least refuse to accept federal funding.
Catholic Universities That Receive Federal Funding Must Provide Access to Birth Control @PolicyMic | Lise Rahdert
However, institutions and employers that receive federal or state financial assistance (whether directly via grants or indirectly via tax relief or other subsidies) should provide access to birth control. It goes against the public interest and basic common sense to think otherwise.
The Catholic Church hierarchy opposes contraception while the vast majority of its adherents do not. Nighty-eight percent of sexually active Catholic women use some form of contraception, indicating that the vast majority of Catholic women do not share the official views of the Church with respect to birth control. Mutual respect for religious beliefs is part of what makes America an attractive place for many, but there comes a time when it must bow to the needs of public health.
If the rule that an institutions insurance must cover birth control is so offensive, perhaps it is time for university administrators to explore a new industry or at least refuse to accept federal funding.
Catholic Universities That Receive Federal Funding Must Provide Access to Birth Control @PolicyMic | Lise Rahdert
What we keep saying however, and what doesn't seem to be sinking in, is that not providing a product out of religious conviction or any other reason is not the same thing as denying access to that product. What anybody does in their private life or whatever convictions they do or do not hold does not change that in the least.
I would agree with you if the Church was saying that its employees cannot work there if they use contraceptives. That has not been the case nor the issue. The issue is whether the Catholic Church (or anybody else, however) MUST provide a product that goes against their teachings/convictions or just because they prefer to use the money for something else.
The issue is whether the federal government or the President has the power to order anybody to buy anything if they do not wish to buy that product. The issue is that a government who can order you to buy something that you don't want is a government that can do to you anything it wants.
