BubberMiley Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 This issue is about the seperation of church and state, and whether or not the federal government can force people to go against the practices of their religion. You're misunderstanding the issue. They aren't forcing people to use contraception. They are just levelling the playing field regarding health care coverage to make sure an employer's arbitrary politics don't determine what care people receive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Larsen Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) Women must have full birth-control rights! All birth-control should be free! There should be as many different kinds of birth control as there are brands of soda pop at the supermarket. I think it's obvious that insurance companies just don't work. The only thing insurance companies are good for is filling their pockets full of money. USA currently has the most expensive medical system in the world, because insurance companies are bleeding the medical system dry. It would just be a lot cheaper to provide everyone with free medical care, including birth control. Birth control is a medical care issue, not a moral one. Considering all of the rampant child abuse in the Catholic Church, the churches are in no business to talk about morality! If you want a moral issue look at the fact that one out of every five children in the USA is growing up in poverty. That's an outrage! While billionaires got their bailouts and eat caviar and drink champagne on the taxpayers dime American children are suffering of poverty. The fact is the religious right only cares about the rights of the unborn, once a child is born the religious right doesn't care that a child grows up in poverty. The religious right blames the poor for being poor. But in fact the poor want jobs, but the capitalist economic system just can't seem to provide enough jobs for everyone. What we need is socialism. What we need is free quality medical care for everyone, and that includes free birth control. American capitalism is simply incapable of providing decent affordable medical care. The rich in America get the best medical care in the world, and meanwhile the workers are the ones paying the taxes, but they get shafted with inadequate medical care. Birth-control should be available everywhere and it should be free because we pay lots of taxes! Instead of our tax money going for war and bailouts for the rich our tax money should be going for free medical care and contraceptives. Edited February 9, 2012 by Wolf Larsen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 When does my church have to join the early 20th century? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Women must have full birth-control rights! All birth-control should be free! There should be as many different kinds of birth control as there are brands of soda pop at the supermarket. Soda pop at the supermarket isn't free. I think it's obvious that insurance companies just don't work. The only thing insurance companies are good for is filling their pockets full of money. USA currently has the most expensive medical system in the world, because insurance companies are bleeding the medical system dry. Correct..the Americans pay more...and they get more. It would just be a lot cheaper to provide everyone with free medical care, including birth control. Birth control is a medical care issue, not a moral one. Are "free abortions" medical care too? Considering all of the rampant child abuse in the Catholic Church, the churches are in no business to talk about morality! No, but the US Supreme Court is. If you want a moral issue look at the fact that one out of every five children in the USA is growing up in poverty. That's an outrage! While billionaires got their bailouts and eat caviar and drink champagne on the taxpayers dime American children are suffering of poverty. The fact is the religious right only cares about the rights of the unborn, once a child is born the religious right doesn't care that a child grows up in poverty. Living in poverty is not a crime....not even in Canada. The religious right blames the poor for being poor. But in fact the poor want jobs, but the capitalist economic system just can't seem to provide enough jobs for everyone. Give them jobs making free contraceptives. What we need is socialism. What we need is free quality medical care for everyone, and that includes free birth control. American capitalism is simply incapable of providing decent affordable medical care. The rich in America get the best medical care in the world, and meanwhile the workers are the ones paying the taxes, but they get shafted with inadequate medical care. Speak for yourself...and please keep that commie idea where it belongs...in Canada. Birth-control should be available everywhere and it should be free because we pay lots of taxes! Instead of our tax money going for war and bailouts for the rich our tax money should be going for free medical care and contraceptives. Write your congressman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Birth-control should be available everywhere and it should be free because we pay lots of taxes! Instead of our tax money going for war and bailouts for the rich our tax money should be going for free medical care and contraceptives. And joints. Free joints for everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 You're misunderstanding the issue. No I'm not. The very heart of the issue is the seperation of church and state and the first amendment. Focusing on just contraception is misunderstanding the issue. They aren't forcing people to use contraception. They're forcing people to pay for sterilization and abortion inducing drugs, which is against their religion. They are just levelling the playing field regarding health care coverage to make sure an employer's arbitrary politics don't determine what care people receive. They don't have the power to so-called level the playing field. They don't have the power to force a religious institution to financially support something that's against their religion. And specifically sterilization and abortion inducing drugs is just that. Free contraception can be obtained from many different service providers, usually at no charge. Look, I understand that the intentions of this mandate may be perfectly sincere, and seeking to do good. But that doesn't mean one has the constitutional authority to do so. Just because your goal maybe noble, you cannot override parts of the constitution, and violate somebody elses rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Birth-control should be available everywhere and it should be free It already is widely available. And it already is provided by many places for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 It already is widely available. And it already is provided by many places for free. Just not any organization that doesn't believe in it? I bet insurance companies can save a whole lot of money by not believing in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Just not any organization that doesn't believe in it?money by not believing in it. Exactly the opposite. You'd be suprised at how much money they can make by offering it as part of their service. There's a fairly large demand for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Exactly the opposite. You'd be suprised at how much money they can make by offering it as part of their service. There's a fairly large demand for it. I bet they would offer a slightly cheaper plan to employers who didn't want it especially very large employers they could save a boat load of money by getting employers to not believe in birth control Shady. Did you forget most Americans get their insurance through their work? That is what this fight is about. Edited February 10, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 They don't have the power to so-called level the playing field. They don't have the power to force a religious institution to financially support something that's against their religion. And specifically sterilization and abortion inducing drugs is just that. The courts determine what is and is not constitutional, not you. For example, today they ruled that Prop 8, the gay marriage ban in California, is unconstitutional. I don't recall any threads from you about how that was "shredding the constitution." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 It could all be a political ruse. What if Obama comes out now and changes the deal, finds a way to address the church's concerns? Then he'll have all those Catholics praising him. Perfect timing to grab the religious vote. If Obama is smart, that's what he'll try to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 And to "seal the deal", he makes his VP Biden do the work for him. That way it's a team effort. Biden says contraceptives fight can be worked out Vice President Joe Biden said on Thursday the White House was working to address concerns raised by the Catholic church over a new rule on contraceptives, and he believed an escalating election-year battle over the issue would be resolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 It could all be a political ruse. What if Obama comes out now and changes the deal, finds a way to address the church's concerns? Then he'll have all those Catholics praising him. Perfect timing to grab the religious vote. If Obama is smart, that's what he'll try to do. Churches are already EXEMPT!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Churches are already EXEMPT!! Not sure what you're shouting about? I never said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 No I'm not. The very heart of the issue is the seperation of church and state and the first amendment. Focusing on just contraception is misunderstanding the issue. They're forcing people to pay for sterilization and abortion inducing drugs, which is against their religion. The churchies should be free to do as they wish on this. In return the church should have its tax-exempt status revoked. They can pay with their secret stash of Nazi gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 It could all be a political ruse. What if Obama comes out now and changes the deal, finds a way to address the church's concerns? Then he'll have all those Catholics praising him. Perfect timing to grab the religious vote. If Obama is smart, that's what he'll try to do. Well, the issue is not new, having been adjudicated in at least two state supreme courts (NY & CA). The requirement is traceable back to an equal opportunity ruling based on Title 7 of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and sex based discrimination (only females get pregnant). That Obama and the feds would push it now does smack of political opportunism, but this will backfire for the reasons posed by member Shady (i.e. a majority of Americans do not want the government imposing its will on religious organizations and belief systems.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Looks as if there's been a compromise, which has been approved by both Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Health Association: Obama announces ‘accommodation’ for religious institutions on contraception According to the article: President Barack Obama announced Friday that his administration will not require religious institutions like hospitals and universities to provide free contraception to their employees in their health insurance. Speaking to reporters at the White House Friday, Obama offered a compromise that would allow women to obtain free contraception but would require them to obtain it directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control because of religious beliefs. I have to admit that I'm not quite understanding that - I thought every health benefit come directly from the insurance company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) ...I have to admit that I'm not quite understanding that - I thought every health benefit come directly from the insurance company. Yes and no....some insurance companies only provide the administration of groups, membership, eligibility, and claims processing. Others underwrite the entire shooting match including providers and services in a network. This is a good (technical) compromise compared to what some have done (removed the pharma benefit entirely to avoid the issue). I didn't really appreciate how important the issue was to women until a girlfriend made a big deal about it back in the 80's. She insisted that I pay 50% of her costs for prescription contraception. It wasn't a lot of money and I offered to pay for all of it, but no, it had to be exactly 50% to satisfy a larger issue. My little sister use to eat my mother's BCPs as candy, especially the off cycle ones often thrown away by women as not needed. AS Spock would say..."fascinating". Edited February 10, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 GOP Sen. Roy Blunt to introduce bill allowing employers to deny coverage for any health service if they "Morally Object to it". There you go, there is the slippery slope where insurance companies stop paying for Aids treatment because you must have had unprotected per-martial sex, or cancer treatment because God wanted you to have cancer to test your will. This is what a Republican America looks like no health care for anyone because someone might want to go on the pill someday, burn down the medical institutions because the country was so much better with out them. Great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 There's reasonable arguments to be made against it-- why should the state be able to specify what's included in a private entity's health insurance plan? --but trying to spin this as a first amendment issue strikes me as pretty weird, and sounds like an angle that's probably more convincing to people who don't actually know what the first amendment says. Applying regulations to the healthcare plan of hospital staff or university employees is neither the establishment of a religion, nor the denial of anyone's free exercise of their religion, regardless of who owns the hospital or university. Arguing that the owner's right to free exercise of religion is transferable to the business they own as well strikes me as an argument for total chaos. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 There's reasonable arguments to be made against it-- why should the state be able to specify what's included in a private entity's health insurance plan? I believe it's because they're receiving money from said state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) That Obama and the feds would push it now does smack of political opportunism, but this will backfire for the reasons posed by member Shady (i.e. a majority of Americans do not want the government imposing its will on religious organizations and belief systems.) Perhaps, but then again I said he might then come out and reconcile with the churches, therebye making himself look good at a crucial time. Seen as willing to acknowledge their issues and rights, by finding a compromise. In other words, double whammy. Create the crisis, then come up with the solution. But is Obama really that smart? Obama revamps contraceptive policy President Barack Obama announced Friday that the administration will not require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees. "Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where they work. That core principle remains," he said from the White House briefing room. "Religious liberty will be protected and a law that requires free preventative care will not discriminate against women," Obama added. Political reality forced the White House to come up with a solution to a complex matter much faster than anticipated. Edited February 11, 2012 by Manny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 But is Obama really that smart? a recovering economy is still... recovering. This was a chance to take the focus off the economy, to lay out some red-meat the GOP couldn't resist - culture wars!!! Obama Punks the GOP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 GOP Sen. Roy Blunt to introduce bill allowing employers to deny coverage for any health service if they "Morally Object to it". There you go, there is the slippery slope where insurance companies stop paying for Aids treatment because you must have had unprotected per-martial sex, or cancer treatment because God wanted you to have cancer to test your will. This is what a Republican America looks like no health care for anyone because someone might want to go on the pill someday, burn down the medical institutions because the country was so much better with out them. Great. the Republican amendment! (6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES — “(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS. — A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Services Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because — “(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or “(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.