PDA

View Full Version : War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?



don
03-13-12, 05:11 PM
or more like Stalingrad . . .

An Ohio State Senator is turning the tables on men seeking to regulate women’s access to reproductive health. Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) has introduced legislation regulating men’s access to erectile dysfunction drugs. The Dayton Daily News has the details (http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/bill-introduced-to-regulate-mens-reproductive-health-1341547.html):

Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health… Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the ‘Heartbeat bill,’ they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health.



Turner’s bill tracks FDA guidelines which recommends doctors determine whether the root cause of men’s sexual disfunction is physical or psychological. She describes her bill as an effort to “legislate it the same way mostly men say they want to legislate a woman’s womb.”

There have been similar efforts in other states. An Illinois bill would require men to watch a “horrific video (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/05/437402/illinois-bill-would-require-men-to-watch-horrific-video-on-side-effects-of-viagra/)” on the side effects of Viagra. In Virginia, Sen. Janet Howell (D) submitted a bill requiring men to undergo a digital rectal exam (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/31/415393/virginia-democrat-adds-gender-equity-to-anti-abortion-bill-requires-rectal-exams-for-men-seeking-viagra/) before recieving a prescription for erectile disfunction drugs.

Conservative commentators such as Sean Hannity have dismissed the comparison, claiming that Viagra — unlike birth control — treats a “medical problem (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/08/05/289117/hannity-blasts-insurance-coverage-for-birth-control-defends-viagra-that-is-a-medical-problem/).” Most women, however, use birth control for medical purposes other than family planning (http://act.drsforamerica.org/cms/thanks/contraception#.T10cvjEgdM7).

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/11/442208/affidavit-confirming-impotence-viagra/?mobile=nc

Master Shake
03-13-12, 11:23 PM
Fine by me. The whole Fluke kerfluffle was just political bread and circuses for the masses. The government shouldn't be dictating what any private health care insurance should or should not cover.

You okay with Medicaid covering fertility therapy for those on public assistance?

thriftyandboringinohio
03-13-12, 11:38 PM
...You okay with Medicaid covering fertility therapy for those on public assistance?

Respectfully, Master Shake, the two situations are not logically equivalent.

Birth control reduces expensive pregnancies and eliminates the medical care for the resulting children, saving money for the members of the insurance pool.
Fertility treatments increase those costs.

Being both for birth control coverage and against fertility treatment coverage is coherent.

solitas777
03-13-12, 11:54 PM
Men have been getting screwed by the system for a long time. Who is most likely to pay alimony? What sex is more likely to serve more time and recieve harsher punishment for equivilent crimes? What sex is more likely to be falsely accused of hitting their significant other and being thrown out of their home without a fair trial? MEN. The number one recipient of affirmative action. WHITE WOMEN. How do you like that?

oddlots
03-17-12, 11:07 AM
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/3/15/111741/244


Sex Strike: A Dad's Support For This Event (http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/3/15/111741/244)
by Steven D (http://www.boomantribune.com/user/Steven%20D)
Thu Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:17:41 AM EST
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7051/6984622599_b89973c580.jpg

.... I want my daughter to have the same coverage by insurance companies (http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/blogs.detail/display/771/Why-don-t-insurance-companies-have-to-cover-birth-control-for-medical-issues-.html) to make contraception choices when she decides, before or after marriage, to engage in sexual activity, without having to pay for the full cost of her reproductive health. I also don't want you to deny her contraception or the right to make decisions about her own body that I assume you as a man will also enjoy unless you are willing to pay the cost of bearing and raising the children produced by your decision to prevent her and other women from using contraception (http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2008/09/sarah-palin-pro.html) . You say you are pro-life? Prove it by protecting the rights of children born under any circumstances, even to single mothers.

Master Shake
03-17-12, 07:08 PM
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/3/15/111741/244


Sex Strike: A Dad's Support For This Event (http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/3/15/111741/244)


by Steven D (http://www.boomantribune.com/user/Steven D)
Thu Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:17:41 AM EST
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7051/6984622599_b89973c580.jpg

.... I want my daughter to have the same coverage by insurance companies (http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/blogs.detail/display/771/Why-don-t-insurance-companies-have-to-cover-birth-control-for-medical-issues-.html) to make contraception choices when she decides, before or after marriage, to engage in sexual activity, without having to pay for the full cost of her reproductive health. I also don't want you to deny her contraception or the right to make decisions about her own body that I assume you as a man will also enjoy unless you are willing to pay the cost of bearing and raising the children produced by your decision to prevent her and other women from using contraception (http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2008/09/sarah-palin-pro.html) . You say you are pro-life? Prove it by protecting the rights of children born under any circumstances, even to single mothers.

What a pantsload. Go to Planned Parenthood. You can get the pill for free. Or try Wal-Mart for $9.99/month.

vt
03-17-12, 07:22 PM
Fully agree. What about the man's responsibility? Why can he contribute to contraception? You're right about cheap pills or free if women know where to go. The claim of needing $1,000 a year is a fraud.

The other more important concern since we are discussing health is that the pill does not prevent STDs. The incidence of antibiotic resistant STDs is increasing; only condoms can prevent such transmission, and cost is less than the pill. I saw no reference to this in the brain dead press reporting. Unfortunately political theater is more important than disease prevention.

Raz
03-17-12, 07:44 PM
Fine by me. The whole Fluke kerfluffle was just political bread and circuses for the masses. The government shouldn't be dictating what any private health care insurance should or should not cover.

You okay with Medicaid covering fertility therapy for those on public assistance?

+1.

Raz
03-17-12, 07:46 PM
Men have been getting screwed by the system for a long time. Who is most likely to pay alimony? What sex is more likely to serve more time and recieve harsher punishment for equivilent crimes? What sex is more likely to be falsely accused of hitting their significant other and being thrown out of their home without a fair trial? MEN. The number one recipient of affirmative action. WHITE WOMEN. How do you like that?

+1.

Thailandnotes
03-17-12, 10:55 PM
"During a protest of Oklahoma’s Personhood measure, state Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre stood in front of the state Capitol with a grin on her face and holding a sign reading, “If I wanted the government in my womb I’d fuck a senator."

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/18/mockery_womens_new_weapon/

oddlots
03-17-12, 11:42 PM
Go to Planned Parenthood.

Luckily, that's still an option, but for how long:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-usa-healthcare-komen-idUSTRE8111WA20120203

Ellen Z
03-18-12, 01:05 AM
You okay with Medicaid covering fertility therapy for those on public assistance?

I did a quick google search, and it seems that Medicaid does not "cover fertility therapy for those on public assistance" ... it may in some rare cases, but with a quick search, what I found was that generally speaking, it is not covered.

ALSO, and this is more interesting, most of the time fertility therapy is not covered for those with conventional, employer-sponsored insurance coverage. One reason is that it's very expensive.


Here is a 32-page document on Medicaid coverage of family planning services, published in 2009. http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/8015.pdf (http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/8015.pdf)
See the chart on page 13. The text says, page 6, "Infertility testing and treatments are rarely considered family planning services, and in fact are rarely covered by Medicaid."
 
Many people with conventional insurance coverage find that infertility treatment isn’t covered, or only in a very limited way.
http://www.insurancerate.com/infertility-health-insurance.php (http://www.insurancerate.com/infertility-health-insurance.php) says:
"Only one-quarter of employer-sponsored health insurance plans offer infertility benefits. Even when coverage is offered, the benefits can vary widely. Some plans do not cover IVF (in-vitro fertilization), other plans may demand a 50% co-pay, and some insurers will only cover certain drugs. Fifteen states have enacted infertility insurance coverage laws, but these laws are futile for many employees, as 65% of all employees participate in plans that are exempt from state mandates under federal law. Thus, for the majority of those seeking infertility treatment, out-of-pocket payment is the only option."

Master Shake
03-18-12, 10:04 AM
Respectfully, Master Shake, the two situations are not logically equivalent.

Birth control reduces expensive pregnancies and eliminates the medical care for the resulting children, saving money for the members of the insurance pool.
Fertility treatments increase those costs.

Being both for birth control coverage and against fertility treatment coverage is coherent.

Thrifty,

They are coherent with regard to an over-bearing government dictating logically inconsistent policies. ;-)

Master Shake
03-18-12, 10:08 AM
Excellent. I am happy to hear that.

BigBagel
03-18-12, 11:14 AM
"During a protest of Oklahoma’s Personhood measure, state Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre stood in front of the state Capitol with a grin on her face and holding a sign reading, “If I wanted the government in my womb I’d fuck a senator."


That's it Judy, stay classy!

BigBagel
03-18-12, 11:27 AM
The match that started this blaze was the government mandating the Catholic institutions to provide medical insurance policies that cover birth control and sterilization procedures.

Disregard whether the mandate is good or bad thing in and of itself and answer this question: Is the mandate a violation of the Catholic institution's constitutional rights?

I think the answer is an easy one and it's a "yes".

LazyBoy
03-18-12, 11:49 AM
Men have been getting screwed by the system for a long time. Who is most likely to pay alimony?
Who is most likely to be raising the kids on their own?

What sex is more likely to be falsely accused of hitting their significant other and being thrown out of their home without a fair trial?Who is most likely to be beaten by their spouse?


Poor, poor men. We're so disadvantaged.

Thailandnotes
03-18-12, 11:51 AM
98% of Catholics use contraception.

Master Shake
03-18-12, 01:04 PM
Non-sequiteur. The issue is the Free Exercise clause of the Constitution, not whether Catholics are following church doctrine.

Ellen Z
03-18-12, 01:06 PM
98% of Catholics use contraception.

That statistic has been widely quoted, and it is accurate, but it doesn’t mean that 98% are using contraception today.

More precisely, a recent survey found that among Catholic women who are sexually active (not pregnant, not post-partum or trying to get pregnant) 68 percent are using highly effective methods of birth control:
____ 32 percent sterilization
____ 31 percent pill
____ five percent IUD.

Two percent were using natural family planning. 11 percent used nothing, even though they were not trying to get pregnant.

The data are from an April 2011 study called "Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use," from the Guttmacher Institute. It is based on a 2006-2008 national survey, relying on in-person interviews with 7,356 women aged 15 to 44.

The 98% figure is from the same survey, and what it’s saying is, 98% of Catholic women have used some method of birth control that wasn’t natural family planning, at some point in their lives.

For the source of these statistics, plus many more details,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html

Garry Wills, in his book "Why I Am a Catholic" quotes similar though not identical statistics, and says that he, and many other Catholics "do not conform... to what the Vatican was demanding, yet without any feeling of being a bad Catholic... [Catholics who use contraception] have reached their position conscientiously. In this way, they are witnesses to the lived faith of the church." That’s from the chapter called "Vatican II."

The book includes a section on Wills' personal experience as a Catholic (as a young man he was a Jesuit, studying to become a priest) as well as an overview of church history, from Peter/Paul to Vatican II. For someone like myself (I'm not a Catholic) it is an eye-opening introduction to the range of views within Catholic thought today, and the historical processes behind those views.

Ellen Z
03-18-12, 01:12 PM
Non-sequiteur. The issue is the Free Exercise clause of the Constitution, not whether Catholics are following church doctrine.


Does the Free Exercise clause apply to organizations (such as Catholic universities) or to individuals (such as employees of those organizations)?

jiimbergin
03-18-12, 02:28 PM
Does the Free Exercise clause apply to organizations (such as Catholic universities) or to individuals (such as employees of those organizations)?

I think the recent Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC would indicate that it applies to both.

dcarrigg
03-18-12, 02:33 PM
The match that started this blaze was the government mandating the Catholic institutions to provide medical insurance policies that cover birth control and sterilization procedures.

Disregard whether the mandate is good or bad thing in and of itself and answer this question: Is the mandate a violation of the Catholic institution's constitutional rights?

I think the answer is an easy one and it's a "yes".

The whole problem's the mandate thing.

That's what landed the law in the Supreme Court (arguments start 3/26 - should be a wild ride).

The way at least the Boston Diocese handles health insurance (http://www.catholicbenefits.org/PDF/health/2012BenefitSummary.pdf) is to take a standard Tufts plan and put a rider in at the end saying it doesn't cover vasectomies, oral contraceptives, abortion, infertility treatments, etc. Out of all these things, contraceptives are the only thing they can't have on the list any more from how the law would come down. In truth, I can imagine a room where this was being decided and nobody even thinking that contraception would be controversial. It could easily happen. Nobody was going to make that mistake with sex-changes or abortion. But even after all the years of Catholic schooling beat into me, I really might not have remembered that contraception is controversial to some.

Regardless, the problem lies in mandating that people and organizations buy healthcare. The problem is that it's all stick and no carrot. It's exactly what Hillary campaigned for, and exactly the opposite of what Obama campaigned for.

I personally hate the mandate. I'm glad they softened it, but it still could amount to over $2k in penalties in 2016 for not having health insurance. It's a 'poor-bastard' fee. And it leads to some strange decisions for some individuals and companies. Let's roll play it a bit.

Scenario 1
Let's say you're the sole income earner for a family of four. Say you're hauling in $40k per year working two jobs with no benefits. It's not quite enough to get by very comfortably, but too much to get government assistance. Say you don't want to dump a quarter of it into healthcare*. You get hit with a $2k fee. That is, if you do your taxes. Which you won't. Because not doing them and rolling the dice might save you $2k. Getting $2k for not filling out a form sounds awfully tempting. Lots of people will do it. Your neighbor did it. Why not you...

Scenario 2
Let's say you're running a company with over 50 employees that isn't lucky enough to be exempted like MickeyD's and Aetna. You have to provide health insurance now. Okay. That's pricy. Say you have 51 employees. There's an easy fix here. Change the tax forms so now you have 49 employees and 2 independent contractors. No health insurance. Problem solved. Actually, those independent contractors are nice you realize. You don't have to pay TDI or payroll taxes or workman's comp on them. Maybe more employees should become independent contractors you think...

Scenario 3
Let's say you're a ranking state legislator in our statehouse. You're mandated by federal law to go out and get everyone on Medicaid. Medicaid's already a quarter of your state's total spending and growing. It's costing $2k per capita per year just to keep it up. You need to balance your budget every year. You need to raise taxes to do this and still afford the additional Medicaid load, which would make Medicaid eat 35% of your budget instead of 25%. But you know you'll get voted out if you raise taxes in this environment. So you do the only logical thing left to do. You starve your health and human services budget. Short change them so they have to close the offices on Fridays and weekday afternoons. Overtly say that you're 'trying to comply' with the mandate, while making it increasingly more difficult to sign up for Medicaid on the ground. Actually, that's an easy way to cut taxes, comply with mandates and advance your career. Just de-fund government service delivery and everything gets cheaper. "Maybe I could pass a law to furlough all employees on Fridays," you think...

Scenario 4
Let's say you're a union worker, maybe a teacher just starting out, an individual with no family. You took a job where the union negotiated a lot of your compensation into benefits. You're only taking home about $400/wk, but your health insurance plan is pretty nice - it's worth $12k. All of the sudden in 2014 now it's a 'cadillac plan.' It gets hit with a 40% excise tax. You owe the government big at tax time. That is, if you do your taxes and report the cost of your health plan right. But you could leave that number out of the box on the tax form. I mean, you've left that box empty before and nothing was wrong with it, right? Turbotax is telling you you will owe thousands if you fill that box in. Maybe you're just doing it wrong. It can't be right that you'd owe that much. Usually you get money back at tax time. You just leave the box blank...


What bothers me, and what I tried to make clear, is that the mandate provides all these incentives to do things off the books. Especially as it isn't funded. It's going to fuel the fire of an underground economy. It's going to fuel lies. And the people playing by the rules (I'm thinking of flintlock here), are just going to be so much more expensive because of it, that there will always be work for these underground folk. The legislators being honest are going to get voted out. You just functionally put a $2,000 price sticker on what a lot of people will see as a 'little white lie.'

Not smart.




*"Bronze level" bottom-of-the-barrel plans start around $12k/yr. There is some 8% of your total income for healthcare exemption nonesense that's hard to figure out how it would be calculated. It might make the mandate not so bad as it's presented here. Theoretically if you have to pay over 8% pre-tax of everything you make towards healthcare, non-inclusive of employer contributions, co-pays, employer-employee premium sharing, etc. then the mandate fee isn't supposed to apply to you. But ignore that for these purposes. I'm assuming people will be scared enough of the fee they won't risk it. And I can see H&R Block screwing this one up pretty seriously.

don
03-18-12, 05:09 PM
One of the fundamental tools of minority divide-and-conquer rule is controlling women. Their reproduction choices, attire, worker/career opportunities, political participation, etc. It's as old as one class ruling over the rest and is historically ramped up in times of stress to those in charge. Keep 'em busy, keep 'em distracted. The rest is the how-to details . . .

Master Shake
03-18-12, 06:03 PM
Does the Free Exercise clause apply to organizations (such as Catholic universities) or to individuals (such as employees of those organizations)?

As JiimBergin said, I believe it applies to both. Why?

Ellen Z
03-18-12, 06:55 PM
http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Ellen Z http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=224077#post224077)
Does the Free Exercise clause apply to organizations (such as Catholic universities) or to individuals (such as employees of those organizations)?


As JiimBergin said, I believe it applies to both. Why?

One of the interesting recurring problems in practical politics is looking at basic principles, and then figuring out how to apply them in real life... where principles often conflict with each other.

I agree that it applies to both, and in my eyes there's a practical conflict between the right of the Catholic university to say "we find contraception morally repugnant; we are opposed to it on religious principles, and we are not willing to pay for it" and the right of the individual employees to say "I need basic health insurance ... given our insurance system I have to get my insurance through my employer... and contraception is approved (even praised) by my religious principles ... my health insurance should not be limited by someone else's religious principles."

In this situation, the Obama administration's current position (Catholic organizations don't have to pay for contraception but their employees still have a right to get it as part of basic insurance coverage) is just the sort of messy, practical solution that our political system is designed to produce... one that leaves all participants equally disgruntled.

You know, it strikes me that this is one example of why it makes no sense for us to have employer-based healthcare insurance. It's purely a historical accident. During world war two, there were wage controls, and labor was scarce (everyone was away in the war) so employers started to compete by offering health insurance benefits to attract workers.

Nowadays, it has negative side effects:
___ people stay with jobs they hate, they don't start a business they would like to start, because their healthcare insurance is tied to their job
___ when you get a serious illness you lose your job, and therefore lose your health insurance just when you need it most. (Since 1986, there is COBRA coverage, which lasts I think for 18 months after you lose your job, but it is very expensive.)

thriftyandboringinohio
03-18-12, 08:27 PM
...The issue is the Free Exercise clause of the Constitution, not whether Catholics are following church doctrine.

Many church-goers believe "Thou shall not kill" but cannot avoid contributing to the military; they are compelled to support war with their tax dollars.

thriftyandboringinohio
03-18-12, 08:38 PM
The issue is not small potatoes, affecting only a few people.
In the state of Ohio in 2009, the 4th largest employer was Catholic Healthcare Partneres, employing 28,200 people in their hospitals and clinics that year, according to the Ohio Department of Development annual report http://www.development.ohio.gov/research/files/B100000002.pdf
Still more were employed at Catholic universities like University of Dayton.

Master Shake
03-18-12, 08:45 PM
Many church-goers believe "Thou shall not kill" but cannot avoid contributing to the military; they are compelled to support war with their tax dollars.

Perhaps because they are unaware that "kill" may not be an appropriate translation. "Murder" would be the correct word.

Master Shake
03-18-12, 08:47 PM
http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Ellen Z http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=224077#post224077)
Does the Free Exercise clause apply to organizations (such as Catholic universities) or to individuals (such as employees of those organizations)?



One of the interesting recurring problems in practical politics is looking at basic principles, and then figuring out how to apply them in real life... where principles often conflict with each other.

I agree that it applies to both, and in my eyes there's a practical conflict between the right of the Catholic university to say "we find contraception morally repugnant; we are opposed to it on religious principles, and we are not willing to pay for it" and the right of the individual employees to say "I need basic health insurance ... given our insurance system I have to get my insurance through my employer... and contraception is approved (even praised) by my religious principles ... my health insurance should not be limited by someone else's religious principles."

In this situation, the Obama administration's current position (Catholic organizations don't have to pay for contraception but their employees still have a right to get it as part of basic insurance coverage) is just the sort of messy, practical solution that our political system is designed to produce... one that leaves all participants equally disgruntled.

You know, it strikes me that this is one example of why it makes no sense for us to have employer-based healthcare insurance. It's purely a historical accident. During world war two, there were wage controls, and labor was scarce (everyone was away in the war) so employers started to compete by offering health insurance benefits to attract workers.

Nowadays, it has negative side effects:
___ people stay with jobs they hate, they don't start a business they would like to start, because their healthcare insurance is tied to their job
___ when you get a serious illness you lose your job, and therefore lose your health insurance just when you need it most. (Since 1986, there is COBRA coverage, which lasts I think for 18 months after you lose your job, but it is very expensive.)

What were healthcare costs like before we had insurance? Before government got involved in mandating coverage and/or service for those not covered?

thriftyandboringinohio
03-18-12, 09:03 PM
Perhaps because they are unaware that "kill" may not be an appropriate translation. "Murder" would be the correct word.

Now we're down to splitting fine hairs, debating the accurate translation of a 2,000 year old text.

Many people feel all war is morally wrong, and even more think one war or another is morally wrong.
They get no say, we take their money by force of law and use it for war. Or killing. Or murder.

My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.
Your right to suppress the use of birth control ends at my wife's estrogen prescription.

mesyn191
03-18-12, 09:19 PM
Men have been getting screwed by the system for a long time. Who is most likely to pay alimony? What sex is more likely to serve more time and recieve harsher punishment for equivilent crimes? What sex is more likely to be falsely accused of hitting their significant other and being thrown out of their home without a fair trial? MEN. The number one recipient of affirmative action. WHITE WOMEN. How do you like that?
This is at best shifting goal posts and doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand either. Sexual bias in crime punishment, alimoney judgements, etc. are totally different issues.

mesyn191
03-18-12, 09:25 PM
The match that started this blaze was the government mandating the Catholic institutions to provide medical insurance policies that cover birth control and sterilization procedures.

Disregard whether the mandate is good or bad thing in and of itself and answer this question: Is the mandate a violation of the Catholic institution's constitutional rights?

I think the answer is an easy one and it's a "yes".
What constitutional right was violated exactly by the government? The government isn't trying to force a change in religious ideology or beliefs. If anything they're trying to protect non Catholics from having Catholic beliefs with regard to birth control and the like from being forced on to them.

Thailandnotes
03-18-12, 09:31 PM
in my eyes there's a practical conflict between the right of the Catholic university to say "we find contraception morally repugnant; we are opposed to it on religious principles, and we are not willing to pay for it" and the right of the individual employees to say "I need basic health insurance ... given our insurance system I have to get my insurance through my employer... and contraception is approved (even praised) by my religious principles ... my health insurance should not be limited by someone else's religious principles."

You know, it strikes me that this is one example of why it makes no sense for us to have employer-based healthcare insurance. It's purely a historical accident. During world war two, there were wage controls, and labor was scarce (everyone was away in the war) so employers started to compete by offering health insurance benefits to attract workers.

This is it in a nutshell!

Medicine improved dramatically in the 30's and 40's leading to more sophisticated hospitals, better standards, better treatment. Stays in hospitals, once very uncommon, became routine, and the cost of a stay could take the average worker years to retire. Insurance companies refused to offer health insurance thinking it was unprofitable. Non-profits Blue Cross and Blue Shield showed that wasn't true even though their status required them to charge all members (sick, well, old, young) the same premiums. Insurance took off in the forties. At the beginning of the decade a small minority of Americans had health insurance. Ten years later a vast majority had it. Private companies were finding younger/healthier pools, charging sick members higher premiums, and turning big profits. Away we go.

Master Shake
03-18-12, 09:59 PM
Now we're down to splitting fine hairs, debating the accurate translation of a 2,000 year old text.

Many people feel all war is morally wrong, and even more think one war or another is morally wrong.
They get no say, we take their money by force of law and use it for war. Or killing. Or murder.

My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.
Your right to suppress the use of birth control ends at my wife's estrogen prescription.

Well, we do have "conscientious objector" status for those whose religious beliefs do not allow them to kill another person during war time.

c1ue
03-18-12, 10:12 PM
This study has interesting conclusions regarding the relative devoutness of American Catholics vs. their European (and wealthy) peers:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/784/american-catholics-pope-visit

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/784-2.gif

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/784-3.gif

The high level of devoutness in relation to per capita income levels perhaps explains the militant nature of these types of conflicts in the US; poorer nations with higher absolute levels of devoutness simply refuse to countenance alternatives banned by the Catholic Church, while very low levels of devoutness don't trigger conflict.

oddlots
03-18-12, 10:55 PM
What were healthcare costs like before we had insurance? Before government got involved in mandating coverage and/or service for those not covered?

The US has one of the highest health care care burdens as a percentage of GDP in the industrialized world. And yes, the vast majority of those countries have socialized medicicine.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png

mesyn191
03-18-12, 10:59 PM
Well, we do have "conscientious objector" status for those whose religious beliefs do not allow them to kill another person during war time.
Its a bit of a joke though. You have to be approved for conscientious objector status in order to get it and that requires demonstrating "religious training and belief" that ALL wars are wrong. Personal morality and ethics codes, philosophy, and political reasons aren't enough. So very very few who apply for conscientious objector status are ever able to get it.

More info. here. (http://www.scn.org/ip/sdmcc/co.htm)

mesyn191
03-18-12, 11:06 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%_GDP.png
That is a good chart but I like this one better since it shows not only how much more we spend per person but also how despite that we're getting treated by doctors less than almost any one else.

http://i.imgur.com/ZNDEu.gif (http://imgur.com/ZNDEu)

Note: the chart uses data that is from 2007. Healthcare costs have risen more dramatically in the US than elsewhere since then so things in reality are even more out of whack now than the chart is showing.

Ellen Z
03-19-12, 12:08 AM
What were healthcare costs like before we had insurance? Before government got involved in mandating coverage and/or service for those not covered?

It seems to me there are four separate elements in your question:
_____ insurance
_____ mandated services for those not covered
_____ mandated coverage
_____ costs

I only know a bit about those subjects, but even with my lack of knowledge you’re going to get a long post, because you're asking complicated questions.

Insurance used to be individual fee-for-service insurance. Nowadays, you find individual fee-for-service in Medicare, but not too much elsewhere.

I thought that Kaiser was the first example of group-based pre-paid health coverage, but according to Wikipedia, I'm wrong. They say, "the first group prepayment plans appeared in 1929 in response to the onset of the Great Depression.... As for Kaiser Permanente, its history dates back to the year 1933 ... [the company] would prepay 17.5% of premiums, or $1.50 per worker per month, to cover work-related injuries, while the workers would each contribute five cents per day to cover non-work-related injuries." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente#Early_years for much more.

Anyway, when employers first started offering health insurance coverage, government mandates were not involved.

Also we're talking about several decades ago, and costs were much lower, because medicine could do much less. Back then, people died from conditions that are curable today... doctors didn’t have expensive equipment that costs millions of dollars (and that hospitals are eager to buy, because they all want the competitive advantage of owning the latest equipment.)

ABOUT MANDATING SERVICE:

The Hill–Burton Act was passed in 1946, and it provided federal grants and guaranteed loans to improve hospital buildings, mostly in middle-class areas. States and cities were required to match the grants, so the federal portion only accounted for one-third of the total cost. Over the years, these grants/loans have funded many/most of the hospitals we’re using today. Facilities that receive Hill-Burton funding agree not to discriminate based on race, color, national origin, or creed, and to offer some uncompensated care.

In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. Today, in United States, there’s a substantial percentage of people who have no access to basic care. But when they are seriously ill — when they have a heart attack on the street, or when they have diabetes and it’s so bad their feet have to be amputated ... then they are hospitalized and they receive a very high standard of care ... until they are discharged from hospital.

How do you feel about this? It means that if you or I have a heart attack on the sidewalk, an ambulance will take us to the closest hospital and we’re likely to get good care regardless of our ability to pay. It also means that other people will receive emergency treatment, regardless of their ability to pay.

ABOUT INSURANCE MANDATES (that say what insurance policies must include):

For many years, states have been passing laws saying this or that should be included in all insurance coverage. One argument in support is that the average person doesn’t know how to shop for insurance coverage... they could buy a policy, and then discover it doesn’t cover the sort of care most people need. (Like buying a car and discovering when starts raining that the builders didn’t include windshield wipers.)

The argument against this is that when you start mandating coverage for alcoholism and mental health treatment and liver transplants, aren’t you making coverage too expensive? Shouldn’t people be allowed to buy bare-bones coverage, if that’s what they want? This is a complicated long-running debate and at this moment I don’t know where to find a trustworthy summary.

There is a federal law called ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) which regulates employer-provided health insurance. Large employers are exempt from state insurance mandates, because they are covered by ERISA instead.

ABOUT MANDATED INSURANCE COVERAGE

Right now, we don't have this. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, in 2009 there were 50.7 million people in the U.S. (16.7% of the population) who don’t have insurance coverage. These are the people who don’t get insulin or other preventive measures to control diabetes, but do get the best standard of care when they develop gangrenous feet. One of the arguments for the new law is that we are now treating lots of people in the emergency room, in the most inefficient, expensive way possible.

As you know, the new healthcare reform law does mandate that individuals will get health insurance. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about this (and several other aspects of the law) starting on March 26.

I recall the healthcare debate in 1993. At that time, an individual healthcare insurance mandate was a Republican idea. It was put in the same terms as requiring car insurance before you drive a car. You have car insurance in case the car gets in an accident; people would similarly be required to get health insurance in case their body got in an accident, or was hurt in other ways. How times have changed.

I found dcarrigg’s comments about the unintended side-effects of the insurance mandate, earlier in this thread, very interesting and important. Personally, I think there are many legitimate concerns about how the new law will play out in real life... I expect it will need some tinkering.

On the other hand, let’s look at what happens if there is no individual mandate.

Suppose it’s five years ago, you’re working at a large company and you have good insurance. You develop a serious illness... let’s say multiple sclerosis, or a fast-moving cancer ... it progresses to the point where you can no longer work, and you’re laid off. For 18 months, you have COBRA insurance coverage. You’re a responsible person, you have savings for emergencies ... but when the 18 months ends you find you cannot get insurance coverage at any price, because you have have MS, or cancer. You have a pre-existing condition... you had good insurance coverage until you got ill... but now, sorry!!

The new healthcare law says that an insurance company can’t deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. (I don’t know exactly when this takes effect, or any of the other details, but this is clearly one of the parts of the law that everyone agrees is a good idea.)

Well, if you are going to have coverage for pre-existing conditions, then you have to have something that requires everyone, or almost everyone, to get health insurance. It’s like the two sides of a seesaw, they have to balance. If you don’t have this requirement, if everyone knows they will definitely be able to buy insurance even when they get really sick, then of course they’ll wait till until they get really sick.

But for insurance to work, you need a large pool of people, healthy and sick, to share the cost. Everyone who has a mortgage is required to have insurance in case their house catches fire. You can’t wait until your house is burning and say, "now I’d like to buy insurance please."

This has been the longest iTulip post I’ve ever done, by far. You started out asking about costs, and I do have a valuable resource that will interest you about cutting health-care costs ... but I’m going to let it wait for another day.

Ellen Z
03-19-12, 12:09 AM
Wow! I stepped aside to start drafting a response, and when I came back there were eight new posts with important ideas.
We seem to have several different topics mixed up together in this thread.... should we separate them??
 

photon555
03-19-12, 01:11 AM
98% of Catholics use contraception.

So out of a billion Catholics in the world, 980,000,000 use contraception? Better check those figures.

davidstvz
03-19-12, 01:31 AM
Perhaps because they are unaware that "kill" may not be an appropriate translation. "Murder" would be the correct word.

I recall Jesus saying something about taxes: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. The context was the Jewish leaders trying to trap him into saying something that was either unpopular (pay taxes to the occupying Romans) or treasonous (don't pay taxes), but I think the point is flexible enough to apply here.

mesyn191
03-19-12, 01:37 AM
<snip ginormous post>
Just like to say this was a fantastic and very interesting effort post. Thanks.

Raz
03-19-12, 01:52 AM
Now we're down to splitting fine hairs, debating the accurate translation of a 2,000 year old text.

Many people feel all war is morally wrong, and even more think one war or another is morally wrong.
They get no say, we take their money by force of law and use it for war. Or killing. Or murder.

My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.
Your right to suppress the use of birth control ends at my wife's estrogen prescription.

The Roman church isn't saying that it has the right to suppress anyone's use of artificial birth control.
Roman Catholics are free to disregard the teachings of their church, but they cannot avoid the spiritual consequences.

What the magisterium of the Roman church is saying is their participation in any form of providing artificial birth control is inherently sinful and violates their free excercise.
Although I'm not Roman Catholic (I'm Eastern Orthodox), and I have profound and serious disagreement with their theology in several areas (ecclesiology, soterology, and even some of their moral theology), I do agree that their constitutional right of free excercise is being compromised by this administration.

mesyn191
03-19-12, 02:04 AM
What the magisterium of the Roman church is saying is their participation in any form of providing artificial birth control is inherently sinful and violates their free excercise.
Although I'm not Roman Catholic (I'm Eastern Orthodox), and I have profound and serious disagreement with their theology in several areas (ecclesiology, soterology, and even some of their moral theology), I do agree that their constitutional right of free excercise is being compromised by this administration.

The problem with this argument, even if you want to ignore the individual's beliefs here which it seems you might be, is that it opens the door to de facto putting the (edit)beliefs/lifestyle of the individual at the mercy of the boss/institution/corporation/wage payer's beliefs/private ethics & moral principals. "I won't pay for that because it goes against my beliefs" can and will be used and abused in all sorts of new and interesting ways well outside the scope of the current anti- contraceptive debacle.

Like for instance limiting people's access, suppressing if you will, to contraceptives. After all, if people can't afford it, they probably won't get it right? And it isn't reasonable to say, "well contraceptives are cheap so they don't really count" because there is no upper or lower dollar limit here since the argument is that the Catholic Church believes contraceptives are inherently sinful and so shouldn't compensate for them which has nothing to do with cost.

photon555
03-19-12, 02:10 AM
Raz, you're exactly right. This whole discussion isn't about anyone suppressing anything. It's about whether government can require everyone to pay for some people's desire for contraception. If the government can do that, it can require everyone to pay for some people's desire for some other entirely arbitrary thing, like coverage for plastic surgery, say, or a cell phone, or perhaps a new car every five years.

Also, the underlying conflict taking place is between whether the government or conscience is dominant. Does the government rule over all society, or do private religious organisations have the right to obey their collective conscience. This country was founded on religious liberty principles. In most of eighteenth century Europe government determined what constituted lawful religion. Now we are moving back to that repressive time.

shiny!
03-19-12, 02:15 AM
Who is most likely to be raising the kids on their own?
Who is most likely to be beaten by their spouse?


Poor, poor men. We're so disadvantaged.

Thank you.

mesyn191
03-19-12, 02:26 AM
If the government can do that, it can require everyone to pay for some people's desire for some other entirely arbitrary thing, like coverage for plastic surgery, say, or a cell phone, or perhaps a new car every five years.
Is it correct to say that you believe being able to manage and control procreation is, if not a minor thing, then a luxury? Given the cost of contraceptives (never no mind the responsibility required) vs. the individuals' cost of raising a child or perhaps having the state raise an abandoned child this seems to be a net benefit for society in terms of economics doesn't it?


Also, the underlying conflict taking place is between whether the government or conscience is dominant.
What about the conscience of the individual? Don't they matter too? Do you really want the beliefs of the wage payor to be dominant over the wage earner?


This country was founded on religious liberty principles. In most of eighteenth century Europe government determined what constituted lawful religion. Now we are moving back to that repressive time.
Oh come on now you're just handwaving hysterically. There is plenty of repression going on here in the US but religion isn't one of those things where its an issue. Hell, the government even lets the Scientologists call themselves a valid religion.

shiny!
03-19-12, 02:45 AM
There is plenty of repression going on here in the US but religion isn't one of those things where its an issue. Hell, the government even lets the Scientologists call themselves a valid religion.

The government doesn't have a say in what is or is not a valid religion. We'd better hope they let the Scientologists be, because once the government feels it has the power to decide what is or is not a valid religion, we've lose the 1st Amendment.

shiny!
03-19-12, 03:10 AM
This health insurance mess stinks to high heaven and I don't know what the solution is. It's too big, too complicated. It's too expensive to adminster and too expensive for most people to afford. Almost everybody is unhappy with the system. It's too broken to fix, IMO.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION??? I mean a GOOD solution? Maybe more than one good solution? What are some better ideas?

Do we need to go smaller instead of bigger? If we totally scrapped the employer provider model, what could we replace it with that isn't a Federal government provider model? Could we design a system that could function without insurance companies, just have direct dealings between patients and providers? Or... what?

If we could wipe all the current players off the board and start over from scratch, what could we do that would work better?

mesyn191
03-19-12, 03:11 AM
I dunno what you know about the Scientologists but they're one of those cases where the government probably should say they aren't a valid religion. And it wouldn't have anything to do with the 1st Amendment. Scientology is a pure manufactured for profit cult and was always designed that way from the get go.

On a longer look, however, something more equitable will have to be organized. I am not quite sure what we would call the place - probably not a clinic - but I am sure that it ought to be a company, independent of the HAS [the Hubbard Association of Scientologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbard_Association_of_Scientologists)] but fed by the HAS. We don't want a clinic. We want one in operation but not in name. Perhaps we could call it a Spiritual Guidance Center. Think up its name, will you. And we could put in nice desks and our boys in neat blue with diplomas on the walls and 1. knock psychotherapy into history and 2. make enough money to shine up my operating scope and 3. keep the HAS solvent. It is a problem of practical business. I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion, we couldn't get worse public opinion than we have had or have less customers with what we've got to sell. A religious charter would be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick. But I sure could make it stick. We're treating the present time beingness, psychotherapy treats the past and the brain. And brother, that's religion, not mental science.

The wiki on it is quite good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_start ing_a_religion_for_money


WHAT IS THE SOLUTION??? I mean a GOOD solution? Maybe more than one good solution? What are some better ideas?
Just do a Medicare buy in for everyone that wants it above or around the poverty line, those on the opposite side of the povery line can get it for free. Those that don't can still get private insurance if they so choose.

Note: something like this was attempted soon after Obama got elected but he shot it down pretty quick and then spent a lot of time and effort to get that crap bill (PPACA) passed. That was a big tip off early on that Obama was full of crap and one of the main reasons I dislike him. He at very least has managed to set back true health care reform 8-10 years at a minimum. Maybe longer depending on how long the whole crony-capitalist system can keep lurching a long.


If we totally scrapped the employer provider model, what could we replace it with that isn't a Federal government provider model?
The other option to the above or a UHS is to do what Germany and Japan do, which is have private insurance that has fixed prices set by the government that care providers must accept no matter what, and everyone has to buy the insurance or if they're too poor they get it for free. edit: Frontline did a show on healthcare world wide called "Sick Around the World", here is the parts on Japan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uziy_xAkwSk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OTKwa__h-c&feature=channel. Doesn't take long to watch it at all.


If we could wipe all the current players off the board and start over from scratch, what could we do that would work better?
Single payer UHS would be the best thing. Most of the rest of the world does this without issue as you can see from the charts linked or posted on the previous page.

edit:\/\/\/\/\/Except it isn't a religion, not even sorta kinda, its a scam that poses as one to hide behind the 1st Amendment. The government wouldn't be deciding anything there since the Scientology founder admitted in writing and told numerous people that the whole thing is a for profit scam.

shiny!
03-19-12, 03:23 AM
I dunno what you know about the Scientologists but they're one of those cases where the government probably should say they aren't a valid religion. And it wouldn't have anything to do with the 1st Amendment. Scientology is a pure manufactured for profit cult and was always designed that way from the get go.


The wiki on it is quite good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_start ing_a_religion_for_money

Once you let the Government cross that line there would be no going back. There are plenty of cults in this world. I'm a lot less frightened of them than I am of an over-powerful central government. Giving the Government power to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution it's going to abide by is very foolish indeed.

Master Shake
03-19-12, 08:01 AM
The problem with this argument, even if you want to ignore the individual's beliefs here which it seems you might be, is that it opens the door to de facto putting the (edit)beliefs/lifestyle of the individual at the mercy of the boss/institution/corporation/wage payer's beliefs/private ethics & moral principals. "I won't pay for that because it goes against my beliefs" can and will be used and abused in all sorts of new and interesting ways well outside the scope of the current anti- contraceptive debacle.

Like for instance limiting people's access, suppressing if you will, to contraceptives. After all, if people can't afford it, they probably won't get it right? And it isn't reasonable to say, "well contraceptives are cheap so they don't really count" because there is no upper or lower dollar limit here since the argument is that the Catholic Church believes contraceptives are inherently sinful and so shouldn't compensate for them which has nothing to do with cost.

Well, perhaps the employee can find another employer that does provide whatever benefit they want? You are confusing wanting something and feeling entitled to it with being forced to provide a good or service that is contrary to your religious beliefs.

Master Shake
03-19-12, 08:03 AM
Once you let the Government cross that line there would be no going back. There are plenty of cults in this world. I'm a lot less frightened of them than I am of an over-powerful central government. Giving the Government power to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution it's going to abide by is very foolish indeed.

Spoken like a true Brown Coat!

mesyn191
03-19-12, 08:30 AM
Well, perhaps the employee can find another employer that does provide whatever benefit they want?
The "This is my business love or leave it!!" argument eh? That doesn't really answer the question you quoted, you're just shifting goal posts to a new topic. Since that question still stands and I didn't put it to you I'll try to answer yours at least. What if finding that employer requires moving far away and they're forced to sell their house, pull their kids out of school, etc? More likley: what if every employer decides to start acting the petty lord and decides to put all sorts of different restrictions on compensation every where you go so that an "ideal" employer who just pays you without trying to enforce morals/ethics/religion no longer exists? Why do you believe its reasonable for the employee to bear all risks and go through all the effort to see that their needs/wants/religious views are respected?


You are confusing wanting something and feeling entitled to it with being forced to provide a good or service that is contrary to your religious beliefs.
Why are the employers "wants" and "feelings of entitlement" and beliefs to be respected here and not the employees? Why is affordable control of procreation a "want" and not a "need" in the first place?

Raz
03-19-12, 09:35 AM
The problem with this argument, even if you want to ignore the individual's beliefs here which it seems you might be, is that it opens the door to de facto putting the (edit)beliefs/lifestyle of the individual at the mercy of the boss/institution/corporation/wage payer's beliefs/private ethics & moral principals. "I won't pay for that because it goes against my beliefs" can and will be used and abused in all sorts of new and interesting ways well outside the scope of the current anti- contraceptive debacle.

Like for instance limiting people's access, suppressing if you will, to contraceptives. After all, if people can't afford it, they probably won't get it right? And it isn't reasonable to say, "well contraceptives are cheap so they don't really count" because there is no upper or lower dollar limit here since the argument is that the Catholic Church believes contraceptives are inherently sinful and so shouldn't compensate for them which has nothing to do with cost.

*WARNING* Raz might be censored by EJ, but in the case of mesyn191 he no longer cares.

Your point is absolute and total nonsense - unless you're a neocommunist. You are saying that a personal "need" conveys a "right" to stick your hand into my billfold. Plain and simple.
Everything is about YOU, mesyn - YOUR needs, YOUR "rights", and what business owners OWE YOU. No one owes you ANYTHING, mesyn, and unless you figure that out you're going to end up a total loser. Your sorry attitude and mostly vacuous "arguments" on many subjects have you well on your way.

I've read your posts on this matter and you're just not worth talking to. You are going on my Ignore list.

jiimbergin
03-19-12, 09:41 AM
Ellenz,


Suppose it’s five years ago, you’re working at a large company and you have good insurance. You develop a serious illness... let’s say multiple sclerosis, or a fast-moving cancer ... it progresses to the point where you can no longer work, and you’re laid off. For 18 months, you have COBRA insurance coverage. You’re a responsible person, you have savings for emergencies ... but when the 18 months ends you find you cannot get insurance coverage at any price, because you have have MS, or cancer. You have a pre-existing condition... you had good insurance coverage until you got ill... but now, sorry!!

The 1996 HIPAA law requires that you can convert to individual coverage at the end of COBRA. What you can convert to varies by state.

lektrode
03-19-12, 09:41 AM
The whole problem's the mandate thing.
....
..
What bothers me, and what I tried to make clear, is that the mandate provides all these incentives to do things off the books. Especially as it isn't funded. It's going to fuel the fire of an underground economy. It's going to fuel lies. And the people playing by the rules (I'm thinking of flintlock here), are just going to be so much more expensive because of it, that there will always be work for these underground folk. The legislators being honest are going to get voted out. You just functionally put a $2,000 price sticker on what a lot of people will see as a 'little white lie.'

Not smart.


*"Bronze level" bottom-of-the-barrel plans start around $12k/yr. There is some 8% of your total income for healthcare exemption nonesense that's hard to figure out how it would be calculated. It might make the mandate not so bad as it's presented here. Theoretically if you have to pay over 8% pre-tax of everything you make towards healthcare, non-inclusive of employer contributions, co-pays, employer-employee premium sharing, etc. then the mandate fee isn't supposed to apply to you. But ignore that for these purposes. I'm assuming people will be scared enough of the fee they won't risk it. And I can see H&R Block screwing this one up pretty seriously.


thanks for the comparisons/examples dc - you always manage to make the incomprehensible clear/understandable for the typical reader.

the problem, as eye see it, is that the .gov (read: the nanny state promoters) inserting itself in this particular issue and 'trying to make all sides happy' has so compounded the issues that we again require the courts to figure it out = epic fail, once again, by the .gov (nanny statists) to fix a problem THEY have created.

the mandates are what is driving the escalation in medical insurance cost, coupled with the practice of defensive medicine by the doctors (vs the lawyers/tort bar) for jacking up the prices of what used to be or should be routine practices

and the principal issue with mandates is that forcing insurers to cover things like birth control, routine maternity, viagra/impotence, sexchange 'therapies', substance abuse etc etc is allowing the 'socialization' of the costs of the individual's lifestyle choices to be forced upon those who shouldnt otherwise have to shoulder the burden - and NONE of this stuff should be an 'insurable event'

frankly, i resent the hell out of MY med insurance rates going up to pay for any/all of the above.

then having the middle man (insurance cos) in the equation, basically getting paid/profiting to the tune of billions for essentially operating the claims-payment function, thus eliminating any oversight/incentive the consumer might have had in reducing the costs of the services rendered (simply _knowing_ what the charges will be would result in lower costs, as people decide for themselves whether they 'need' any particular service badly enuf to want to pay HOW MUCH?? for it.


all in all its the .gov that has caused the whole problem (beginning with wage caps during/after ww2, that resulted in business offering med insurance as part of compensation to get around the caps), and methinks we are deluding ourselves in thinking that congress will somehow fix it.

that said, i think we're on a oneway/no-return trip to single payer and short of that, perhaps having a gov-provider of last resort would make the most sense and it would give the private sector providers some competition - i've brought this one up before: a 6th branch of the 'armed services' called the medical corps, that would operate hospitals for those without any other means of getting med care, that would be staffed by those who would sign up for the corps just like they do for the army/navy/marine corps, be educated/trained and then owe uncle sam some number of years of service in return - this should offer a solution to both the lack of affordable options for those needing med attention and those desiring to be trained for medical careers, but dont have the 100's of thousands nec for the usual private sector education

jiimbergin
03-19-12, 09:43 AM
The problem with this argument, even if you want to ignore the individual's beliefs here which it seems you might be, is that it opens the door to de facto putting the (edit)beliefs/lifestyle of the individual at the mercy of the boss/institution/corporation/wage payer's beliefs/private ethics & moral principals. "I won't pay for that because it goes against my beliefs" can and will be used and abused in all sorts of new and interesting ways well outside the scope of the current anti- contraceptive debacle.

Like for instance limiting people's access, suppressing if you will, to contraceptives. After all, if people can't afford it, they probably won't get it right? And it isn't reasonable to say, "well contraceptives are cheap so they don't really count" because there is no upper or lower dollar limit here since the argument is that the Catholic Church believes contraceptives are inherently sinful and so shouldn't compensate for them which has nothing to do with cost.

You do not have to work for someone who does not provide the benefits you want.

mesyn191
03-19-12, 09:53 AM
Except I'm not arguing for my personal wants and needs and beliefs per se here, I'm arguing that employees wants and needs and beliefs need to be respected too. Why should the employees beliefs and wants and needs be subject to what amounts the employers whim?

Now others seem to have argued on top of that contraceptives are a "want" without giving a good reason why. I've mentioned already at least once that its a net economic positive for everyone one on the whole to have access to free contraceptives so what is the problem with that idea exactly? Vague rhetoric about "sticking your hand in my billfold" doesn't really cut it.

mesyn191
03-19-12, 09:57 AM
You do not have to work for someone who does not provide the benefits you want.
You pretty much just restated what Master Shake said to me a little ways up the page which I've already replied to.


The 1996 HIPAA law requires that you can convert to individual coverage at the end of COBRA. What you can convert to varies by state.
Sure but this is a Catch 22. For many people the cost of health care insurance is so high the only way they could "afford" it was by working for an employer who paid for a decent chunk of it.

Without that job that pays for a big chunk of it many can't afford health care or health insurance at all, so they're by default, totally screwed. That is why so many are uninsured right now.

mesyn191
03-19-12, 10:11 AM
the problem, as eye see it, is that the .gov ...epic fail, once again, by the .gov (nanny statists) to fix a problem THEY have created.

the mandates are what is driving the escalation in medical insurance cost, coupled with the practice of defensive medicine by the doctors (vs the lawyers/tort bar)
Healthcare costs have been rising for decades at a rate significantly higher than the rate of inflation. Since at least Regan took office in fact. That was why there was a big bruhaha over health care in the 90's with the Clintons and Gingrich, even back then it was apparent things were out of control.
http://i.imgur.com/8N6uL.gif (http://imgur.com/8N6uL)

Medical malpractice suits (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm) have a marginal effect on health care costs too.

"It's common currency in the U.S. that litigation drives medical inflation by forcing doctors and hospitals to resort to "defensive medicine," overtreating patients to avoid lawsuits.

The evidence suggests a much smaller effect. Study after study shows that costs associated with malpractice lawsuits make up 1% to 2% of the nation's $2.5 trillion annual health-care bill and that tort reform would barely make a dent in the total."

lektrode
03-19-12, 10:39 AM
Healthcare costs have been rising for decades at a rate significantly higher than the rate of inflation. Since at least Regan took office in fact. That was why there was a big bruhaha over health care in the 90's with the Clintons and Gingrich, even back then it was apparent things were out of control.


no argument there.
the question is WHY?



Medical malpractice suits (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm) have a marginal effect on health care costs too.

Doctors see things differently. They pay malpractice premiums that can run up to $250,000 a year for specialties such as neurology or obstetrics. It's "a huge issue for us," says Dr. Steven M. Safyer, CEO of Montefiore Medical Center in New York. "I would say about 5% of our costs are directly attributable to malpractice premiums and another 5% to defensive medicine."


A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office came up with much lower figures, however.



well they _would_ say that, wouldnt they?

who ya gonna believe, the docs or the .gov?

not that i think the docs are all working for altruism, but i'm skeptical about any claims that only 1or2% of total med expenditures are associcated with malpractice claims, ins premiums and the resultant practice of defensive medicine - for one thing, are the legal industry's billings directly attributable to med cases accounted for in their take or the med industry's ?

mesyn191
03-19-12, 10:51 AM
no argument there. the question is WHY?
Mostly due to the drug and insurance companies although the biomedical guys have been raking it in too.


well they _would_ say that, wouldnt they? who ya gonna believe, the docs or the .gov?
The CBO's study was done in 2004, well before the PPACA was even a twinkle in Obama's eye. What political motivation would they have to nay say the doctor's back in 2004?


for one thing, are the legal industry's billings directly attributable to med cases accounted for in their take or the med industry's ?
Unfortunately I don't have or know of any numbers that break down that sort of info. But note the section regarding Texas' actions to reduce malpractice costs and the results from those actions in that same article:

Look at Texas, which enacted some of the most extensive malpractice reforms in the nation in 2003. The number of lawsuits in the state has fallen by half since then, and malpractice premiums are down 30%. But health-care costs in Texas are still among the highest in the nation and are growing at a faster rate than in most other states. "I think tort reform is a good idea as a carrot to get doctors to go along with more significant health-care reforms," says law professor Charles M. Silver of the University of Texas at Austin. "But as we've proved, it isn't the answer on its own."

jiimbergin
03-19-12, 11:05 AM
no argument there.
the question is WHY?



well they _would_ say that, wouldnt they?

who ya gonna believe, the docs or the .gov?

not that i think the docs are all working for altruism, but i'm skeptical about any claims that only 1or2% of total med expenditures are associcated with malpractice claims, ins premiums and the resultant practice of defensive medicine - for one thing, are the legal industry's billings directly attributable to med cases accounted for in their take or the med industry's ?

I have a doctor friend who kept working at his small personal practice into his late 70s. He finally gave it up because his malpractice insurance was eating into his entire margin. Although he loved what he was doing (and it was not for the money) he finally said enough is enough.

BigBagel
03-19-12, 11:09 AM
What constitutional right was violated exactly by the government? The government isn't trying to force a change in religious ideology or beliefs. If anything they're trying to protect non Catholics from having Catholic beliefs with regard to birth control and the like from being forced on to them.

Your right in that the government is not trying to change ideology or beliefs. They're just demanding that the Catholic Church acts in a way that is in conflict with those beliefs. The use of contraceptives by Catholics versus non-Catholics is I would bet pretty much at the same rate but the Catholic Church is a hierarchical religion and those are the Church's teachings.
They don't want to pay for insurance that covers contraception and sterilization procedures for employees of Catholic institutions. The secretary at the local church can believe whatever she wants. No one is forcing her or anyone else to change their beliefs.

mesyn191
03-19-12, 11:16 AM
No one is forcing her or anyone else to change their beliefs.
Correct, but de facto those beliefs are being forced onto another whether that is the Church's intent or not. Assuming the law applies equally to both the employer and the employee why would the employer's beliefs/ethics/whatever supersede those of the employee's?

edit: That seems to be a political choice (ie. Pro Life) and distinction though, this is supposed to be a constitutional law issue.\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

ProdigyofZen
03-19-12, 11:26 AM
This is ridiculous and taken to the extreme.

I think there is a gulf of difference between buying a pill for sexual pleasure and getting an abortion, which everyone wants to argue what that entails but everyone knows it is ending the life of a potential human without its own choice.

Birth control I have no problem with.

gwynedd1
03-19-12, 12:12 PM
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/3/15/111741/244


Sex Strike: A Dad's Support For This Event (http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/3/15/111741/244)


by Steven D (http://www.boomantribune.com/user/Steven%20D)
Thu Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:17:41 AM EST
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7051/6984622599_b89973c580.jpg

.... I want my daughter to have the same coverage by insurance companies (http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/blogs.detail/display/771/Why-don-t-insurance-companies-have-to-cover-birth-control-for-medical-issues-.html) to make contraception choices when she decides, before or after marriage, to engage in sexual activity, without having to pay for the full cost of her reproductive health. I also don't want you to deny her contraception or the right to make decisions about her own body that I assume you as a man will also enjoy unless you are willing to pay the cost of bearing and raising the children produced by your decision to prevent her and other women from using contraception (http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2008/09/sarah-palin-pro.html) . You say you are pro-life? Prove it by protecting the rights of children born under any circumstances, even to single mothers.


My only complain is that photo is no longer representative of the typical American woman. The legs should be fatter with vericose veins and with cellulite on the hips.

c1ue
03-19-12, 12:50 PM
The problem with this argument, even if you want to ignore the individual's beliefs here which it seems you might be, is that it opens the door to de facto putting the (edit)beliefs/lifestyle of the individual at the mercy of the boss/institution/corporation/wage payer's beliefs/private ethics & moral principals. "I won't pay for that because it goes against my beliefs" can and will be used and abused in all sorts of new and interesting ways well outside the scope of the current anti- contraceptive debacle.

You're essentially arguing a slippery slope.

Employers are not in any way required to match all of their employee's desires. Employer's ability to reduce benefits is in no way restricted to those required by religion; an employer just has to say "I can't or won't afford it" and said benefit goes away.

I do think in this instance you've chosen the wrong horse. A Catholic corporation or organization can no more sanction contraception by paying for it any more than a libertarian organization can advocate for socialized anything.

c1ue
03-19-12, 12:54 PM
the mandates are what is driving the escalation in medical insurance cost, coupled with the practice of defensive medicine by the doctors (vs the lawyers/tort bar) for jacking up the prices of what used to be or should be routine practices

and the principal issue with mandates is that forcing insurers to cover things like birth control, routine maternity, viagra/impotence, sexchange 'therapies', substance abuse etc etc is allowing the 'socialization' of the costs of the individual's lifestyle choices to be forced upon those who shouldnt otherwise have to shoulder the burden - and NONE of this stuff should be an 'insurable event'

Actually from what I can tell, none of the above are even in the top 5 for why health care costs are rising so quickly.

wayiwalk
03-19-12, 01:30 PM
One of the fundamental tools of minority divide-and-conquer rule is controlling women. Their reproduction choices, attire, worker/career opportunities, political participation, etc. It's as old as one class ruling over the rest and is historically ramped up in times of stress to those in charge. Keep 'em busy, keep 'em distracted. The rest is the how-to details . . .

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Divide and conquer....tell that to my boss, errrr, wife. :D

As Mrs Assad, said, I am the REAL dictator here!

The more regulations the federal gov't writes, the more we all fight and argue.

charliebrown
03-19-12, 02:23 PM
Well said, the all the stories start with contracetption, but what I really take offense too is the use of public funds for abortion. I don't know if it is rhetoric or not but millions of children have been killed over the decades.

Contraception no problem. I think any private entity has a right to control what they pay for or what they will not.
My company does not pay for eye glases, and they are essential for my livelyhood, and are expensive. Should I demand
that my company provide eye glasees.

My pediatrician had a copy of his malpractice bill posted on this wall. I think it was 150K? It was a long time ago (2003)
He has multiple doctors working for him in the practice. But just how many office visits does it take to just pay that bill.
1000? Yes the law suits might be small, but insurance costs are not.

Regarding church state. The beauty of separation of church and state is that even though the catholic, church may outlaw contraception, they can either tell me I'm going to hell, or ex-communicate me etc. They cannot take my money away (money=labor=life), or throw me in prison. Like gvt powers can.

I know personally that all pregnancies are not wanted, some are dangerous for the mother to bring to term etc.
Abortion must be carefully considered, and not like going through drive - through.

Ellen Z
03-19-12, 02:55 PM
... what I really take offense too is the use of public funds for abortion.
To the best of my knowledge, no public funds are used to pay for abortions. (Legal folks, am I missing something?)

The Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions; it primarily affects people covered by Medicaid. Since then, similar provisions have extended the ban on federal funding of abortions. Federal government employees who wish to have abortions pay for them "out-of-pocket". Abortions are not covered healthcare services for U.S. military personnel and their families, Peace Corps volunteers, Indian Health Service clients, or federal prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment)

jiimbergin
03-19-12, 04:04 PM
To the best of my knowledge, no public funds are used to pay for abortions. (Legal folks, am I missing something?)

The Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions; it primarily affects people covered by Medicaid. Since then, similar provisions have extended the ban on federal funding of abortions. Federal government employees who wish to have abortions pay for them "out-of-pocket". Abortions are not covered healthcare services for U.S. military personnel and their families, Peace Corps volunteers, Indian Health Service clients, or federal prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment)

Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $360 million in 2009).[43] (http://www.itulip.com/forums/#cite_note-thorn-43) By law (http://www.itulip.com/wiki/Hyde_Amendment), federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions,[44] (http://www.itulip.com/forums/#cite_note-politico-44) but some opponents of abortion have argued that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up (http://www.itulip.com/wiki/Fungible)" funds to be re-allocated for abortion.[45] (http://www.itulip.com/forums/#cite_note-eckholm-45)[46] (http://www.itulip.com/forums/#cite_note-46)\

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

LazyBoy
03-19-12, 04:45 PM
I guess we'll all end up working for Christian Scientists. In fact, for a public company which is required to maximize shareholder value, a religion that denies medical care will be required. (-- at the top. The religion of the workers being unimportant.)

Ellen Z
03-19-12, 05:27 PM
Two things strike me as especially interesting about this conversation, up to this point:
_____ people have strongly held personal views that aren’t likely to change
_____ all of us can imagine a better healthcare system, if we were starting from scratch

About the first point:

Many of us have strongly held personal views, that abortion is equivalent to murder, or that any form of contraception is sinful. On the other hand, many of us rely on contraception in our personal lives and take contraception for granted.

National statistics show that the country is split right down the middle on these and many similar issues.

So the interesting question in terms of designing the healthcare system is, how do you design a healthcare system that will work for most people, that accommodates BOTH of these viewpoints.

About the second point:

We have a healthcare system that has evolved over time, and I think everyone agrees it is not functioning too well right now. The big change between the healthcare debate in 1993 and the debate today, is that in 1993 the major players wanted to be left alone, and now the major players (I mean physicians, hospitals, insurers) all agree that the current system is not working.

We are not starting from scratch. We have a crazy quilt system that includes primary care physicians, specialists, nurses, patients, employers, hospitals, nursing homes, large health systems, unions, insurers, state legislatures, medical equipment manufacturers, drug companies ... each of those groups with its own interests, its own vocabulary, its own payment history (and we could break it down into many smaller subsets.)

One of the problems in limiting healthcare costs is that every healthcare cost is also someone’s source of income. Of course people fight like the dickens at proposed changes that could reduce their income below its current level.

We don’t get to wave a magic wand and start over again from scratch. The interesting question is, what is the best thing we could or should do, building upon, or altering, the systems and processes that are already in place?

jiimbergin
03-19-12, 05:43 PM
Two things strike me as especially interesting about this conversation, up to this point:
_____ people have strongly held personal views that aren’t likely to change
_____ all of us can imagine a better healthcare system, if we were starting from scratch

About the first point:

Many of us have strongly held personal views, that abortion is equivalent to murder, or that any form of contraception is sinful. On the other hand, many of us rely on contraception in our personal lives and take contraception for granted.

National statistics show that the country is split right down the middle on these and many similar issues.

So the interesting question in terms of designing the healthcare system is, how do you design a healthcare system that will work for most people, that accommodates BOTH of these viewpoints.

About the second point:

We have a healthcare system that has evolved over time, and I think everyone agrees it is not functioning too well right now. The big change between the healthcare debate in 1993 and the debate today, is that in 1993 the major players wanted to be left alone, and now the major players (I mean physicians, hospitals, insurers) all agree that the current system is not working.

We are not starting from scratch. We have a crazy quilt system that includes primary care physicians, specialists, nurses, patients, employers, hospitals, nursing homes, large health systems, unions, insurers, state legislatures, medical equipment manufacturers, drug companies ... each of those groups with its own interests, its own vocabulary, its own payment history (and we could break it down into many smaller subsets.)

One of the problems in limiting healthcare costs is that every healthcare cost is also someone’s source of income. Of course people fight like the dickens at proposed changes that could reduce their income below its current level.

We don’t get to wave a magic wand and start over again from scratch. The interesting question is, what is the best thing we could or should do, building upon, or altering, the systems and processes that are already in place?

Excellent summary! Perphaps if/when Ka-Poom happens we will have a chance to start over, but probably not.

Kadriana
03-19-12, 05:53 PM
I guess we'll all end up working for Christian Scientists. In fact, for a public company which is required to maximize shareholder value, a religion that denies medical care will be required. (-- at the top. The religion of the workers being unimportant.)

There are several religions against surgery, aren't there? I find this whole debate confusing because I though the Catholic church was fine with bc pills being used for medical reasons. It seems weird that they would want to withhold needed medication for fear their followers will use it just to prevent pregnancy. Plenty of people use pain pills for recreational uses but I don't hear talk about banning Oxycontin. I don't think bc pills need to be free but why aren't they treating like any other medication that has several uses?

photon555
03-19-12, 06:30 PM
"Hard cases make bad law." This legal maxim should be remembered in this difficult situation. All Catholic institutions together are a very small part of the universe of all employers. Any decision imposed by state fiat is bound to lead to bad precedent and unintended consequences. The state deciding a matter of conscience by writing a law, or judicial decision is bad enough, but to do it by executive fiat is outrageous, bordering on the insane. Often in difficult situations the best course of action is to take no action at all, especially when the only action being proposed is for state intervention. Let the parties involved work out their differences of conscience unmolested. Once the state interjects itself into matters of conscience with respect to religion there is a slippery slope leading inevitably to the state determining which religions meet the state's requirements to be considered proper and well behaved and receive the state's approval. Government is a very powerful amoral force. This is its fundamental nature. It knows nothing of any human attribute such as compassion or charity, or even reason. Do not burden it with duties for which it is entirely unsuited. The state, in deciding between two parties contesting a matter of conscience, will promote one view over another, and thus become the arbiter of which doctrine is correct or not correct.

There is a vocal minority which calls for state intervention at every opportunity. Every time there is a conflict of views on matters which properly belong to individuals and private institutions the specter of gross injustice is raised. "We must have a law to control/prevent/ensure this or that outcome." Their childlike faith in the all knowing, all caring state undoubtedly reveals some intriguing insights into a troubled upbringing, but the details are un-important compared to the massive harm they do to society. George Washington stated that government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. This view of the state as being unsuited for deciding certain issues can be extended to many other venues of society. Another important area is education. Better to require Dr. Frankenstein's monster to perform brain surgery on your child than to give his/her upbringing into the hands of the (Frankenstein) state. Government, like so many other aspects of life, is definitely a case where less is more.

mesyn191
03-19-12, 06:57 PM
You're essentially arguing a slippery slope.
Well would or wouldn't the case represent new precedent that would effect everyone based on the SCOTUS decision?


Employers are not in any way required to match all of their employee's desires.
Absolutely, but I never said they should either. Remeber the argument here is that employers don't have to compensate for things that they have religious/ethical/whatever objections too, cost isn't the problem here.


A Catholic corporation or organization can no more sanction contraception by paying for it any more than a libertarian organization can advocate for socialized anything.
This is like comparing apples to rocks. The Catholics don't have to sanction or advocate for contraceptives, they'd just have to allow their health care plans to compensate for them. If you, or the Church, want to argue that is the same thing as advocating for contraceptives then I'd say you're conflating two very different things.

photon555
03-19-12, 07:04 PM
To make my personal position clear I am not a Catholic, although I am a Christian; I am an evangelical Baptist if it matters to you. I am not arguing either for or against Catholic institutions providing contraception coveage as part of their healthcare package. I do not have a personal interest in the matter. I am not against contraception per se. I am arguing that the decision is entirely up to those institutions and their stakeholders. The state should have no part in any decision regarding a matter of conscience, and this is definitely a matter of conscience. The state has interjected itself into the dialogue and created a controversy. This in itself is wrong and has made any solution more difficult, but for the state to dictate a decision would be dangerous in the extreme. Even if you support the decision this regime has made, you must realize that this action creates a pernicious precedent; a different regime could decide against your preferences just as easily as for them.

photon555
03-19-12, 07:17 PM
This is like comparing apples to rocks. The Catholics don't have to sanction or advocate for contraceptives, they'd just have to allow their health care plans to compensate for them. If you, or the Church, want to argue that is the same thing as advocating for contraceptives then I'd say you're conflating two very different things.

You may say anything you like, but it is the Catholics themselves who get to decide if this is a matter of conscience or not. Not only are they saying that it is, they have a record which concurs with their contention that it is a matter of conscience to them. For the Obama regime to impose it's politically expedient will on Catholic institutions in this matter is a clear violation of their rights.

mesyn191
03-19-12, 07:23 PM
The interesting question is, what is the best thing we could or should do, building upon, or altering, the systems and processes that are already in place?
The best thing no holds barred is a single payer UHS. Considering we're talking about people's health its not unreasonable to expect and want the best solution. However a FAR more realistic one would be to have a early buy in option for Medicare for everyone, with free Medicare for those in the poverty range, and for those who don't want Medicare regular private insurance would be available.


National statistics show that the country is split right down the middle on these and many similar issues.
That depends actually depending on how the questions are asked. There is real reason to believe that the split isn't even however, and that people would favor a UHS or at the very least Medicare for all.
http://i.imgur.com/SvEbG.jpg (http://imgur.com/SvEbG)
http://i.imgur.com/Za45c.png (http://imgur.com/Za45c)

And something a little more relevant to the topic at hand.
http://i.imgur.com/ZkCXH.jpg (http://imgur.com/ZkCXH)
http://i.imgur.com/43GLk.png (http://imgur.com/43GLk)

shiny!
03-19-12, 07:33 PM
The 1996 HIPAA law requires that you can convert to individual coverage at the end of COBRA. What you can convert to varies by state.

But using Ellenz's example, how would an unemployed person with cancer be able to afford individual coverage after COBRA expires? I'm on COBRA since my husband was killed last year and I can barely afford it. Individual coverage costs even more.

mesyn191
03-19-12, 07:36 PM
You may say anything you like, but it is the Catholics themselves who get to decide if this is a matter of conscience or not.
As was said before earlier in the thread by someone else, "My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Your right to suppress the use of birth control ends at my wife's estrogen prescription."

Now why do you believe that the employer's "matters of conscience" should matter more here than the employees? If the government doesn't get enforce public opinion on such issues who should?

shiny!
03-19-12, 07:48 PM
"Hard cases make bad law." This legal maxim should be remembered in this difficult situation. All Catholic institutions together are a very small part of the universe of all employers. Any decision imposed by state fiat is bound to lead to bad precedent and unintended consequences. The state deciding a matter of conscience by writing a law, or judicial decision is bad enough, but to do it by executive fiat is outrageous, bordering on the insane. Often in difficult situations the best course of action is to take no action at all, especially when the only action being proposed is for state intervention. Let the parties involved work out their differences of conscience unmolested. Once the state interjects itself into matters of conscience with respect to religion there is a slippery slope leading inevitably to the state determining which religions meet the state's requirements to be considered proper and well behaved and receive the state's approval. Government is a very powerful amoral force. This is its fundamental nature. It knows nothing of any human attribute such as compassion or charity, or even reason. Do not burden it with duties for which it is entirely unsuited. The state, in deciding between two parties contesting a matter of conscience, will promote one view over another, and thus become the arbiter of which doctrine is correct or not correct.

There is a vocal minority which calls for state intervention at every opportunity. Every time there is a conflict of views on matters which properly belong to individuals and private institutions the specter of gross injustice is raised. "We must have a law to control/prevent/ensure this or that outcome." Their childlike faith in the all knowing, all caring state undoubtedly reveals some intriguing insights into a troubled upbringing, but the details are un-important compared to the massive harm they do to society. George Washington stated that government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. This view of the state as being unsuited for deciding certain issues can be extended to many other venues of society. Another important area is education. Better to require Dr. Frankenstein's monster to perform brain surgery on your child than to give his/her upbringing into the hands of the (Frankenstein) state. Government, like so many other aspects of life, is definitely a case where less is more.

Eloquently stated. This is beautiful.

jiimbergin
03-19-12, 07:50 PM
To make my personal position clear I am not a Catholic, although I am a Christian; I am an evangelical Baptist if it matters to you. I am not arguing either for or against Catholic institutions providing contraception coveage as part of their healthcare package. I do not have a personal interest in the matter. I am not against contraception per se. I am arguing that the decision in entirely up to those institutions and their stakeholders. The state should have no part in any decision regarding a matter of conscience, and this is definitely a matter of conscience. The state has interjected itself into the dialogue and created a controversy. This in itself is wrong and has made any solution more difficult, but for the state to dictate a decision would be dangerous in the extreme. Even if you support the decision this regime has made, you must realize that this action creates a pernicious precedent; a different regime could decide against your preferences just as easily as for them.

+1

photon555
03-19-12, 07:56 PM
I am opposed to anything free to anybody except those who are absolutely unable to provide for themselves due to real disabilities. If someone "needs" food stamps, or medical treatment, or anything else that is supposedly essential to life, then they should be required to work for them. If they are unable to find their own job, then the local communtiy should arrange suitable work. Something like community service, but doing real work that makes a difference. There is nothing wrong with having to work 80 hours or more a week to make ends meet. Many people work this much and more to provide for their families, or to establish a business. Nobody is entitled to a free ride, or even a 40 hour per week work limit. Going without eating for a day or two might motivate some people to find their own job, and is usually good for health. Historically, fasting one day a week has been seen as good for the soul and the body. Perhaps we all should try it at least once so we can speak from experience. My own slight experience with fasting has been entirely accidental or due to illness, I must admit. Now if someone is so unfortunate or unwilling to work that they reach the age of retirement without paying off their debt to society, then their hours can be reduced, but they should still be required to work at least some amount until they are actually no longer able. If you think that is harsh, then realize that it is not as harsh as the economic collapse of society to which our entitlement crazed social welfare paradigm is leading. For those who are unable to order their own lives society could offer the freely chosen option of being under supervision in a commune like arrangement. Just remember there is nothing free except God's love, and that actually cost Him His only Son. It's only free to humanity, to those of us who accept His offer of redemption.

Let the reprisals begin!

photon555
03-19-12, 08:04 PM
As was said before earlier in the thread by someone else, "My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Your right to suppress the use of birth control ends at my wife's estrogen prescription."

Now why do you believe that the employer's "matters of conscience" should matter more here than the employees? If the government doesn't get enforce public opinion on such issues who should?

Public opinion doesn't get enforced by anybody. Go read the Constitution.

jiimbergin
03-19-12, 08:48 PM
But using Ellenz's example, how would an unemployed person with cancer be able to afford individual coverage after COBRA expires? I'm on COBRA since my husband was killed last year and I can barely afford it. Individual coverage costs even more.

I did not mean to imply that it was cheap, but coverage is available with no underwriting. Each state is different. The coverage must be broad and one or two of the insurance companies top plans. Since they can not deny anyone coverage in Florida, for example, they can charge up to 2 times the regular individual rate. Obviously someone who is unemployed will not be able to afford virtually any coverage unless they have other resources. I don't know if your example of being unemployed with cancer is your situation. I pray that is not your situation. I have had personal experience with friends and family who are or have been on medicaid. It has proven a good alternative for them. But in each case they were already on medicare, so I do not know how well it works for those who are younger.

thriftyandboringinohio
03-19-12, 09:01 PM
...All Catholic institutions together are a very small part of the universe of all employers...

Bigger than you'd guess.
In Ohio, Catholic Healthcare Partners is the 4th largest employer in our state. We're a big state.
Add in the Catholic universities (University of Dayton, Xavier, Ohio Dominican...) and it is really big.
Now throw in small and medium size businesses owned by Catholic people, and it becomes huge.

Catholic businesses are NOT a small part of the universe of employers.
Invoking the slippery slope argument, this could also ripple out to first tier suppliers like giant pharmaceutical companies, paper companies....

mesyn191
03-19-12, 09:07 PM
I am opposed to anything free to anybody except those who are absolutely unable to provide for themselves due to real disabilities.
OK that is nice but what does that have to do with the question I asked before of, "Now why do you believe that the employer's "matters of conscience" should matter more here than the employees?" and, "If the government doesn't get enforce public opinion on such issues who should"?


If someone "needs" food stamps, or medical treatment, or anything else that is supposedly essential to life, then they should be required to work for them...Nobody is entitled to a free ride
I know the thread has kind've drifted around to include general health care coverage too but what does this have to do with a UHS or Medicare for All?


There is nothing wrong with having to work 80 hours or more a week to make ends meet. Many people work this much and more to provide for their families, or to establish a business.
Its one thing to work those long hours because you want to and another to HAVE to work those hours just to make ends meet. When a political/economic system results in large numbers of people, much less a majority of them, having to work greatly increased hours just to make ends meet while a special few get richer then this is a systemic issue and not a personal one.


Going without eating for a day or two might motivate some people to find their own job
Starvation as a social/economic cure all eh? Historically that hasn't gone very well to say the least. Its funny though, prior to 2008 or so the number of people working was much higher than now, did you ever wonder why that is so? I mean do you believe that millions of people suddenly became perma-sloths or what? Is it something in the water or what? Or could it possibly have something to do with that whole recession thing and the nearly non-existent "recovery" that has followed it?

mesyn191
03-19-12, 09:08 PM
Public opinion doesn't get enforced by anybody. Go read the Constitution.
Public opinion a) effects who gets voted in to what and b) shapes the laws that are made. The laws of a society reflect that society's beliefs/tradition/etc. That is why once upon a time slavery was legal and now it isn't.

shiny!
03-19-12, 09:34 PM
I am opposed to anything free to anybody except those who are absolutely unable to provide for themselves due to real disabilities. If someone "needs" food stamps, or medical treatment, or anything else that is supposedly essential to life, then they should be required to work for them. If they are unable to find their own job, then the local communtiy should arrange suitable work. Something like community service, but doing real work that makes a difference. There is nothing wrong with having to work 80 hours or more a week to make ends meet. Many people work this much and more to provide for their families, or to establish a business. Nobody is entitled to a free ride, or even a 40 hour per week work limit. Going without eating for a day or two might motivate some people to find their own job, and is usually good for health. Historically, fasting one day a week has been seen as good for the soul and the body. Perhaps we all should try it at least once so we can speak from experience. My own slight experience with fasting has been entirely accidental or due to illness, I must admit. Now if someone is so unfortunate or unwilling to work that they reach the age of retirement without paying off their debt to society, then their hours can be reduced, but they should still be required to work at least some amount until they are actually no longer able. If you think that is harsh, then realize that it is not as harsh as the economic collapse of society to which our entitlement crazed social welfare paradigm is leading. For those who are unable to order their own lives society could offer the freely chosen option of being under supervision in a commune like arrangement. Just remember there is nothing free except God's love, and that actually cost Him His only Son. It's only free to humanity, to those of us who accept His offer of redemption.

Let the reprisals begin!

No reprisal from me, because I agree with you to an extent.

Used to be, back before FIRE took over the economy, that people worked, and they were able to save and live debt-free and be self-reliant for the most part. That world is gone. Now, the cheerleaders for FIRE tell us that it's virtuous to work two and three jobs to keep a roof over our heads and feed our families. What happened to the American Dream? FIRE happened.

We've had to accept lower paying jobs with fewer benefits, no pensions, no job security. Most people are unprepared and ill-equipped to survive this "new normal". The FIRE politicians talk about the undeserving lazy poor getting welfare and food stamps, but they steal our money and give it to Wall Street banksters.

So, while I'm a big fan of self-reliance, it concerns me that people are starting to repeat FIRE spokesmen's assertions that suffering is good for the soul, when FIRE is what brought about our suffering in the first place. These crooks robbed our country blind! Now they want to turn us against each other while we fight for scraps and crumbs.

photon555
03-19-12, 09:37 PM
Public opinion a) effects who gets voted in to what and b) shapes the laws that are made. The laws of a society reflect that society's beliefs/tradition/etc. That is why once upon a time slavery was legal and now it isn't.

The government doesn't directly enforce public opinion, at least not in a republic. And until public opinion influences elections and laws, nobody enforces it. After the influence is incorporated into law it will be enforced, but hopefully it will be subject to strict scrutiny and made subject to the Constitiution. Sometimes public opinion rides victoriously and unchecked into power and some people's rights are abridged as a result. You speak of public opinion as if it is a cut and dried thing that everyone agrees on. I'm pretty sure this is not the case. Also, it is wise to be skeptical of opinion polls; look at the huge disparity in the ones you posted earlier.

jiimbergin
03-19-12, 09:39 PM
No reprisal from me, because I agree with you to an extent.

Used to be, back before FIRE took over the economy, that people worked, and they were able to save and live debt-free and be self-reliant for the most part. That world is gone. Now, the cheerleaders for FIRE tell us that it's virtuous to work two and three jobs to keep a roof over our heads and feed our families. What happened to the American Dream? FIRE happened.

We've had to accept lower paying jobs with fewer benefits, no pensions, no job security. Most people are unprepared and ill-equipped to survive this "new normal". The FIRE politicians talk about the undeserving lazy poor getting welfare and food stamps, but they steal our money and give it to Wall Street banksters.

So, while I'm a big fan of self-reliance, it concerns me that people are starting to repeat FIRE spokesmen's assertions that suffering is good for the soul, when FIRE is what brought about our suffering in the first place. These crooks robbed our country blind! Now they want to turn us against each other while we fight for scraps and crumbs.

and I am sorry that it does not appear that it will get any better soon. Maybe after the KA-Boom we will have one chance to fix our situation.

don
03-19-12, 09:48 PM
suffering is good for the soul

Check out Jamie Dimon's digs: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/jamie-dimons-house/view/?service=1

LazyBoy
03-19-12, 10:44 PM
I am opposed to anything free to anybody except those who are absolutely unable to provide for themselves due to real disabilities.
...
If they are unable to find their own job, then the local communtiy should arrange suitable work. Something like community service, but doing real work that makes a difference.
...
Going without eating for a day or two might motivate some people to find their own job, and is usually good for health.

Hunger is also a motivation for criminal activity. And should the unemployed person's children go hungry while they get their motivation?

I like self reliance too, but I don't think starvation is a good solution. "Get a job you bum!" Unemployed != lazy anymore. Where are the jobs for high school grads? That can support a family? How many millions are unemployed? What can possibly supply all those jobs?

How many millions can pick up trash around the courthouse (community service) and not put other people out of work? At some point doesn't it mean the society or economic system has failed, not that everyone is lazy?

photon555
03-19-12, 10:48 PM
No reprisal from me, because I agree with you to an extent.

Used to be, back before FIRE took over the economy, that people worked, and they were able to save and live debt-free and be self-reliant for the most part. That world is gone. Now, the cheerleaders for FIRE tell us that it's virtuous to work two and three jobs to keep a roof over our heads and feed our families. What happened to the American Dream? FIRE happened.

We've had to accept lower paying jobs with fewer benefits, no pensions, no job security. Most people are unprepared and ill-equipped to survive this "new normal". The FIRE politicians talk about the undeserving lazy poor getting welfare and food stamps, but they steal our money and give it to Wall Street banksters.

So, while I'm a big fan of self-reliance, it concerns me that people are starting to repeat FIRE spokesmen's assertions that suffering is good for the soul, when FIRE is what brought about our suffering in the first place. These crooks robbed our country blind! Now they want to turn us against each other while we fight for scraps and crumbs.

I totally agree with you about FIRE, but the same crooks who facilitate the banksta's piracy, are at the same time busily creating a dependent class who will be their willing pawns, and keep them in office. They will be used as cannon fodder most likely if the need arises. We are being attacked in a pincer movement, from above and below. We must recognize both attacks if we are to respond accordingly. The best thing for all of us is to be prepared to exert ourselves on the behalf of our families. We must be prepared to "suck it up" and keep on fighting. If you can't break even then just getting behind as little as possible is still a partial victory. An attitude of despair is really our greatest enemy. There will be a future at some point, even if only for our children. But we must keep on resisting both attacks, and work as much as possible. The most important thing we can do is guard against falling into that dependent class ourselves if at all possible. Dependency leads to despair, cynicism, and surrender. Our's is not a new situation. Oppression by elites is nothing new. It's been going on for thousands of years. The past two hundred years in the US have really been quite extraordinary when viewed against the historical norm.

My post is really my description of the closest thing to an achievable utopia that I believe is humanly possible, given human nature. The greatest threat to most people is their own nature, that they will succumb to despair and fall into dependency, that they will give up on themselves. Only a few are afforded the opportunity of being corrupted by wealth. You may have heard it said that most people are waiting either for Santa Claus or the Grim Reaper. They are waiting for something to happen to them instead of making something happen. I have heard that life is what happens to you while you are waiting for something important to happen. Well, we must make something important happen for us before life is over. Still, there will always be many people who give up on themselves or just don't have the ability to compete economically. Hence my post. Work is necessary for emotional and mental health. Therefore it should be embraced. But intentionally luring people into dependency for power and profit must be exposed for the crime and tragedy that it is.

Well, I hope I have made it clear that I don't condone the FIRE pirates in any way.

mesyn191
03-19-12, 10:54 PM
The government doesn't directly enforce public opinion, at least not in a republic.
Usually not directly no, though there things like CA's proposition system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition) which are a form of direct democracy that allows the people there to bypass the state government or even amend the state constitution. Historically on a national level in our republic there have been things like the Civil Rights Movement and the Labor Movements that have heavily influenced the government as well, both in terms of who got elected and how the then current politicians shaped policy to meet the people's demands.


You speak of public opinion as if it is a cut and dried thing that everyone agrees on. I'm pretty sure this is not the case.
It isn't the case and I didn't aim to suggest that it was. If you look at the charts of polls I posted a ways up the page its obvious not every one agrees on the issue of a UHS, Medicare for All, or anything else really. There does however to be a majority consensus on what people want though.


Also, it is wise to be skeptical of opinion polls; look at the huge disparity in the ones you posted earlier.
The way the question is asked and the context the question is given in matter a lot and play a huge role in the results. Push Polls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll), like the infamous one Bush used* can be used by intellectually dishonest people looking to sway public opinion. That is why I gave a chart of several different polls from different sources all asking similar but not exactly the same questions at different times. Note that in 8 of the 9 cases more than 50% of people were pro single payer or Medicare for All as a form of public health care. On the issue of employers beliefs and compensation I included 2 charts of polls, both done by different people, again asking the similar but not same question, and done at different times. The results were broken down by sex, religion, political affiliation, etc.

A certain amount of skepticism is good concerning polls but when you start seeing similar results for similar questions that are well sourced across different groups over time...well its probably not a flash in the pan result.


*Voters in South Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina) reportedly were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" The poll's allegation had no substance, but was heard by thousands of primary voters.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll#cite_note-4) McCain and his wife had in fact adopted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption) a Bengali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_people) girl. Bush had previously used push polls in his 1994 bid for Texas Governor against incumbent Ann Richards. Callers asked voters "whether they would be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if they knew that lesbians dominated on her staff."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll#cite_note-5)

mesyn191
03-19-12, 11:04 PM
I totally agree with you about FIRE, but the same crooks who facilitate the banksta's piracy, are at the same time busily creating a dependent class who will be their willing pawns, and keep them in office.
This argument would make sense if they were really trying to expand social welfare programs and services but doesn't really pan out since they're doing the opposite.

Simpson-Bowles (aka. Cat Food Commission), PPACA (aka. Obamacare), etc. are all anti social welfare/service policies and pro corporate/FIRE. They're all about taking your and my money and giving it to the rich and nothing at all to do with social improvement, much less creating a class of willing pawns.

photon555
03-19-12, 11:27 PM
I see that the idea of missing a few meals is being equated with starvation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not advocating forced starvation, but a little hunger can be a great motivator. Please try fasting a day or two. Perhaps you could start by eating just one meal a day once or twice. Fasting really is good for you if you are in reasonable health. People who die of starvation have generally been starved for months on end, sometimes years of privation. I have seen hunger in my own extended family. When I was a boy I had three cousins whose parents were alcoholics. You could not give them money if you wanted to help. You had to bring groceries to their house so the boys could eat. Do you think addicts and alcoholics use food stamps to feed their children? Not from my experience. Once again government makes the problem worse, not better.

The most effective charity begins at home; family helping family. Then the church and community are the next line of defense for those who need help. Government should be the last resort, not the first. And we must be honest and call welfare what it really is, charity. If you ever need help, it is good to be reminded that you are in fact receiving charity. Someone else has decided to help you from their earnings. This will be a humbling experience, one that is good for all of us. And you will be highly motivated to become self supporting again as soon as possible. You will learn that "self reliance" is good, but that we are not really "masters of our own destiny." There is a golden mean, a balance to be sought here that will grow your soul.

mesyn191
03-20-12, 12:11 AM
I see that the idea of missing a few meals is being equated with starvation.
That was hyperbole actually. Its great and all if you like fasting but I'd think you'd find most people would rather prefer a healthy steady diet and exercise instead.


Do you think addicts and alcoholics use food stamps to feed their children?
Nope, but if a relative few abuse a given system do you think that system should be abolished even if it is a net benefit for society as a whole both from an economic perspective and moral one too?

LazyBoy
03-20-12, 12:22 AM
If corporations are people and some are apparently Catholic, should they tithe?

jiimbergin
03-20-12, 12:23 AM
I see that the idea of missing a few meals is being equated with starvation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not advocating forced starvation, but a little hunger can be a great motivator. Please try fasting a day or two. Perhaps you could start by eating just one meal a day once or twice. Fasting really is good for you if you are in reasonable health. People who die of starvation have generally been starved for months on end, sometimes years of privation. I have seen hunger in my own extended family. When I was a boy I had three cousins whose parents were alcoholics. You could not give them money if you wanted to help. You had to bring groceries to their house so the boys could eat. Do you think addicts and alcoholics use food stamps to feed their children? Not from my experience. Once again government makes the problem worse, not better.

The most effective charity begins at home; family helping family. Then the church and community are the next line of defense for those who need help. Government should be the last resort, not the first. And we must be honest and call welfare what it really is, charity. If you ever need help, it is good to be reminded that you are in fact receiving charity. Someone else has decided to help you from their earnings. This will be a humbling experience, one that is good for all of us. And you will be highly motivated to become self supporting again as soon as possible. You will learn that "self reliance" is good, but that we are not really "masters of our own destiny." There is a golden mean, a balance to be sought here that will grow your soul.

+1

thriftyandboringinohio
03-20-12, 12:48 AM
If corporations are people and some are apparently Catholic, should they tithe?

Catholic Healthcare Partners had a net operating revenue of $3.6 billion in 2011 and is owned entirely by catholic organizations.
I presume the entire amount was controlled by the church. Not a tithe (a tenth) but all of it.

Ellen Z
03-20-12, 04:34 AM
Catholic Healthcare Partners had a net operating revenue of $3.6 billion in 2011 and is owned entirely by catholic organizations.
I presume the entire amount was controlled by the church. Not a tithe (a tenth) but all of it.

Catholic Healthcare Partners is a large, not-for-profit health system.

All not-for-profit hospitals and health systems are tax-exempt and are required to offer non-compensated care and other forms of community benefit, because they are tax-exempt. With recent changes, they are now required to fill out annual federal tax forms (the 990) with detailed information about how much community benefit they have accomplished each year. (I'm not sure precisely which taxes they are exempt from, so perhaps some legal mind could fill in that gap.) Anyway, they all fill out a form 990, it is available for public viewing, and it is full of details about their board, their expenditures, etc.

I don't happen to know specific details about Catholic Healthcare Partners, but many Catholic healthcare systems do amazing, exemplary work and go far beyond the standard definition of "healthcare" ... they are truly devoted to service. I recall a San Francisco hospital that set up a free walk-in clinic for people with diabetes ... another group set up an array of support services for homeless people... both of these hospitals were in deteriorated downtown neighborhoods so they also had a financial incentive for offering these services .... it cut down their emergency room usage. But if all our healthcare met the standards set by hospitals that were founded by Catholic nursing sisters, we would be in much better shape. No organization is saintly.... but some of the original founding spirit persists ... in my opinion.

Anyway, here are some basic statistics on Catholic Healthcare Partners, from their web page. Note how much they spent on community service.

Hospitals: 24
Long-Term Care Facilities: 15
Health Insurance Plan (PPO) Covered Lives: 97,182
Home Health Agencies: 8
Associates: 32,537
FTEs: 26,686
Affiliated Physicians: 5,593
Total Assets: $5.4 billion
Net Operating Revenues: $3.6 billion (2011)
Net Income: ($6.1 million) (2011)
Operating Income: $119.9 million (2011)
Total Annual Community Service Benefits: $345.7 million (2011)
Bond Ratings: Moody's: A1, S&P: AA-, Fitch: AA-

PS -- if you want more information about the not-for-profit hospitals in your town, go read the 990. If you're part of a community group that needs funding for a health-related service project, present it to the local hospital... they often make grants to local organizations as one aspect of community service.

<!--end content-->

jiimbergin
03-20-12, 09:57 AM
If corporations are people and some are apparently Catholic, should they tithe?

Many Christians (including some very conservative evangelicals) do not believe that tithing applies in New Testament times. I personally encourage tithing and in addition offerings, but only for those who are joyful in so doing.

jiimbergin
03-20-12, 11:27 AM
A compelling argument:

http://eerdword.wordpress.com/tag/hosanna-tabor/
....

The labels for the after-the-fact pills say that they may sometimes work after fertilization. Asking Catholic institutions to pay for something that they believe sometimes results in homicide is a grave threat to religious liberty.
The bishops’ principal legal claim is under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — RFRA. RFRA says that the federal government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, unless the imposition of that burden is the least restrictive means to serve a compelling government interest. The government says that its compelling interest is in adequate medical care for women.
But the government cannot claim an interest as compelling if it fails to protect that interest in any important range of cases. And the contraception mandate has enormous gaps. The health-care reform act does not apply to employers with fewer than 50 employees, which leaves 20 to 40 million employees uncovered. It does not apply to grandfathered plans, of which there seem to be a great many. They may remain grandfathered for many years. And the Department of Health and Human Services has reportedly granted thousands of administrative waivers to employers who were initially covered. McDonald’s got a waiver on the ground that it can’t afford to offer full coverage for its low-income employees. When the government is willing to make tens of millions of exceptions, it cannot credibly say that its interest is so compelling that it cannot make exceptions to protect the free exercise of religion.
These exceptions also support a claim directly under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that the Free Exercise Clause does not require religious exceptions from laws that are neutral and generally applicable. But a law with tens of millions of exceptions is not generally applicable. Nor is it neutral; it reflects a value judgment that McDonald’s low-wage business model is more important than the bishops’ freedom of conscience.
What the courts will do with this politically charged litigation remains to be seen. But do not underestimate the bishops’ legal claims. Uniao do Vegetal won its right to use its hallucinogenic tea under RFRA — and the Supreme Court was unanimous.compelling argument on this:

c1ue
03-20-12, 01:40 PM
Well would or wouldn't the case represent new precedent that would effect everyone based on the SCOTUS decision?

It might or might not, it completely depends on what the premise of the case is.

If, for example, the SCOTUS case was over the issue on religious exemption from federal laws, then the result might affect recognized religions but not anyone else.

If, on the other hand, the premise were a 1st amendment/freedom of expression issue, then it might.

Thus the assumption of a slippery slope is very problematic.


Absolutely, but I never said they should either. Remeber the argument here is that employers don't have to compensate for things that they have religious/ethical/whatever objections too, cost isn't the problem here.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. What exactly is the difference between an employer refusing a benefit because they don't feel like it, vs. an employer refusing a benefit because they feel their religious views don't permit it?


This is like comparing apples to rocks. The Catholics don't have to sanction or advocate for contraceptives, they'd just have to allow their health care plans to compensate for them. If you, or the Church, want to argue that is the same thing as advocating for contraceptives then I'd say you're conflating two very different things.

I'd say you're stretching.

Paying for contraception is exactly the same as condoning contraception, just as paying for drugs is exactly the same as condoning drugs. Nor is this a situation like methadone, where the government pays for a drug specifically to help an individual get off worse drugs.

I do not see how you can possibly position the Catholic institution's views as not being moral from said institution's own perspective.


I totally agree with you about FIRE, but the same crooks who facilitate the banksta's piracy, are at the same time busily creating a dependent class who will be their willing pawns, and keep them in office.

This is a belief, not fact.

The fact is, poor people don't vote. Thus they cannot be said to be keeping anyone in office:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2010/tables.html



<tbody>
Age and family income
Total Population
US Citizen


Total Citizen Population
Reported registered
Reported not registered
No response to registration 1
Reported voted
Reported did not vote
No response to voting 2


Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent


18 YEARS AND OVER
Total
168,548
154,410
102,996
66.7
26,573
17.2
24,841
16.1
73,628
47.7
56,462
36.6
24,321
15.8


Under $10,000
6,679
5,496
2,857
52.0
1,945
35.4
695
12.6
1,465
26.7
3,406
62.0
625
11.4


$10,000 to $14,999
6,017
5,069
2,781
54.9
1,665
32.8
623
12.3
1,512
29.8
3,013
59.4
544
10.7


$15,000 to $19,999
5,626
4,549
2,644
58.1
1,389
30.5
516
11.3
1,518
33.4
2,552
56.1
478
10.5


$20,000 to $29,999
14,930
12,632
7,878
62.4
3,367
26.7
1,387
11.0
5,103
40.4
6,237
49.4
1,291
10.2


$30,000 to $39,999
15,002
13,182
8,692
65.9
3,040
23.1
1,450
11.0
5,845
44.3
5,979
45.4
1,357
10.3


$40,000 to $49,999
11,825
10,807
7,393
68.4
2,422
22.4
992
9.2
5,300
49.0
4,576
42.3
931
8.6


$50,000 to $74,999
27,168
25,516
18,641
73.1
4,179
16.4
2,695
10.6
13,252
51.9
9,680
37.9
2,583
10.1


$75,000 to $99,999
18,392
17,597
13,558
77.0
2,360
13.4
1,680
9.5
10,164
57.8
5,756
32.7
1,677
9.5


$100,000 to $149,999
17,236
16,586
13,257
79.9
1,694
10.2
1,635
9.9
10,121
61.0
4,777
28.8
1,688
10.2


$150,000 and over
12,629
12,102
9,716
80.3
1,126
9.3
1,260
10.4
7,454
61.6
3,353
27.7
1,295
10.7


Income not reported
33,044
30,875

15,580
50.5
3,386
11.0
11,909
38.6
11,893
38.5
7,132
23.1
11,850
38.4

</tbody>


The people who have money outnumber the poor people both in percentage of voting registration and in absolute number of registered voters. (note the 3rd and 4th columns of numbers are the number/percentage of registered voters. The iTulip background software doesn't import Excel tables very well)

The $50K and over income brackets comprise over 50% of the entire voting base (55,172K voters = 53.6% of all registered voters).

Thus if any conclusion is to be drawn, it is that welfare causes people to drop out of participation in politics as well as in the economy.

As for self reliance - again you make the presumption that there is hope.

For many poor people, they have none.

As the American Dream becomes ever harder to attain, so too will this attitude spread among the not yet poor, as the youth of America are experiencing now.

Raz
03-20-12, 03:07 PM
"The labels for the after-the-fact pills say that they may sometimes work after fertilization. Asking Catholic institutions to pay for something that they believe sometimes results in homicide is a grave threat to religious liberty."

The Orthodox Church maintains the concilliar and cannonical consensus of the Early Church in this matter and is in agreement with the Roman Magisterium: a procured abortion is the most evil act imaginable since the more helpless and innocent the victim, the more heinous the crime. It is the closest thing to Deicide - the murder of Christ Himself. And there is no difference between a mechanically induced abortion and a chemically induced abortion. Period.

The Roman Catholic church should absolutely refuse to obey the U.S. government should the position of the Obama Administration be upheld in the courts.
They should close or sell every Catholic hospital and shut down Catholic Charities if necessary. I would hope the Orthodox would do the same.

lektrode
03-20-12, 03:36 PM
My only complain is that photo is no longer representative of the typical American woman. The legs should be fatter with vericose veins and with cellulite on the hips.

dont fergit the tatoos...

lektrode
03-20-12, 03:51 PM
I have a doctor friend who kept working at his small personal practice into his late 70s. He finally gave it up because his malpractice insurance was eating into his entire margin. Although he loved what he was doing (and it was not for the money) he finally said enough is enough.

have had a couple of my self empl'd doc clients tell me same: they either retired or went to work for a big outfit to escape the burden of the malprac ins

have also read about the workload from 3rd party billing, A/R-collections and gen'l dealings with the whole gov/ins buracracy driving more and more docs from their practices - my point here is that i dont believe gov stats that say all this only accounts for 1-2% of 'healthcare costs' - not when comparing the prices of basic 'encounters' (what a visit to the doc is referred to these daze) NEVER MIND HOUSECALLS (non existent) were in the past - or hospital stays for that matter - never mind what a couple hours in the emergency room costs....

and god help ya if need anything more than a routine exam...

1-2% is the total burden/pricetag/vig for legal-associated costs 'absorbed' by the medical industry? (and then tacked onto our med insurance premiums) ???

i'd bet its more like 25%, just based upon what my doc clients have told me and the anecdotal evidence that i've read here and there

and this is the ultimate/epic-fail of obamacare: it didnt even address the issue.

but then... what should we expect from legislation brought to us by the party of the tortbar... (never mind the banksta's)

lektrode
03-20-12, 06:22 PM
The Roman Catholic church should absolutely refuse to obey the U.S. government should the position of the Obama Administration be upheld in the courts.
They should close or sell every Catholic hospital and shut down Catholic Charities if necessary. I would hope the Orthodox would do the same.



while i agree with the spirit of that mr raz, we dont want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, do we?



Catholic Healthcare Partners, from their web page. Note how much they spent on community service.



Net Operating Revenues: $3.6 billion (2011)
Net Income: ($6.1 million) (2011)
Operating Income: $119.9 million (2011)
Total Annual Community Service Benefits: $345.7 million (2011)

mesyn191
03-21-12, 03:24 AM
If, for example, the SCOTUS case was over the issue on religious exemption from federal laws, then the result might affect recognized religions but not anyone else.

If, on the other hand, the premise were a 1st amendment/freedom of expression issue, then it might.
Even if you're only talking about a ruling effecting organized religions you're talking about a hell of a lot of people being effected in a broad manner. There are religions that don't believe people should get organ transplants, blood transfusions, etc. even in life threatening situations. Either which way you look at it this a decision will not be truly narrow in scope.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand. What exactly is the difference between an employer refusing a benefit because they don't feel like it, vs. an employer refusing a benefit because they feel their religious views don't permit it?
I think you're reading that part wrong or something, I wasn't suggesting and don't believe there is one.


I'd say you're stretching.

Paying for contraception is exactly the same as condoning contraception, just as paying for drugs is exactly the same as condoning drugs.
Bad metaphor to say the least. The legal, social, and health aspects of birth control and crack or methadone are very very different to put it very very mildly. By allowing their healthcare plans to compensate for contraceptives they would simply be meeting their employees and society's general expectations of what a healthcare plan should and normally does cover.


I do not see how you can possibly position the Catholic institution's views as not being moral from said institution's own perspective.
Of course its moral from their perspective, I didn't say it wasn't, but why are only the employer's morals to be considered here and not the employee's as well?

mesyn191
03-21-12, 03:38 AM
have had a couple of my self empl'd doc clients tell me same: they either retired or went to work for a big outfit to escape the burden of the malprac ins
,,,,,,,
1-2% is the total burden/pricetag/vig for legal-associated costs 'absorbed' by the medical industry? (and then tacked onto our med insurance premiums) ???

i'd bet its more like 25%, just based upon what my doc clients have told me and the anecdotal evidence that i've read here and there
Oh come on now, I already gave you an article that cited a study which beats out anecdotal evidence any day of the week and 50 times on Sundays. On top of that the same article mentioned how the state of Texas cut malpractice suites in half AND lowered costs by 30% at the same time but health care costs in that state went up even higher than some other states.

Even if you want to ignore the first point the second one shoots giant gaping holes in the idea that legal costs are having any significant impact on health care costs. To help add to the discussion and perhaps even change your mind I'll give you another article on the subject. (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/) Note this one cites another newer study done in 2007 by a private actuarial firm, it also does a better job of explaining the why of the whole situation too.


Q. A lot of people seem to have taken up the cause of tort reform. Why isn’t it included in the health care legislation pending on Capitol Hill?
A. Because it’s a red herring. It’s become a talking point for those who want to obstruct change. But [tort reform] doesn’t accomplish the goal of bringing down costs.


Q. Why not?
A. As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.


Q. But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.
A. That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.


Q. You said the number of claims is relatively small. Is there a way to demonstrate that?
A. We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.

jiimbergin
03-21-12, 10:01 AM
Of course its moral from their perspective, I didn't say it wasn't, but why are only the employer's morals to be considered here and not the employee's as well?

Because the employer is the one paying the bill!

Raz
03-21-12, 10:03 AM
while i agree with the spirit of that mr raz, we dont want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, do we?

With all due respect, lektrode, (and I am sincere) - if the price of performing good deeds is complicity in mass murder then the Church must forego the good deeds.

From the very beginning the world has been at war with the Church because she refused to compromise the truth. (Refusing to worship the Roman "gods" embodied in Caesar sent one to the lions.)

To so compromise is to deny Him who is Truth.

jiimbergin
03-21-12, 10:09 AM
With all due respect, lektrode, (and I am sincere) - if the price of performing good deeds is complicity in mass murder then the Church must forego the good deeds.

From the very beginning the world has been at war with the Church because she refused to compromise the truth. (Refusing to worship the Roman "gods" embodied in Caesar sent one to the lions.)

To so compromise is to deny Him who is Truth.



I agree completely.

thriftyandboringinohio
03-21-12, 10:55 AM
With all due respect, lektrode, (and I am sincere) - if the price of performing good deeds is complicity in mass murder then the Church must forego the good deeds.

From the very beginning the world has been at war with the Church because she refused to compromise the truth. (Refusing to worship the Roman "gods" embodied in Caesar sent one to the lions.)

To so compromise is to deny Him who is Truth.



I know you are a pretty devout person, Raz, from your posts over the years, and I think this comment of yours is a pretty good one. In any transaction, it's always fair for either party to say "no thank you, no sale", and leave the room.

In this debate, neither wants the other compelling them to act against their interest. I happen to fall on the other side from you on this one, but would be the first to support the Church's privilege to disengage completely if we legally define a minimum health insurance plan that includes hormonal birth control, same rule for everybody.

As a practical matter, I would think the Catholic hospitals could find a work-around wherein they don't offer medical insurance to employees and still run their hospitals, to their benefit and ours. Respectfully, I endorse that position.

c1ue
03-21-12, 01:08 PM
Even if you're only talking about a ruling effecting organized religions you're talking about a hell of a lot of people being effected in a broad manner. There are religions that don't believe people should get organ transplants, blood transfusions, etc. even in life threatening situations. Either which way you look at it this a decision will not be truly narrow in scope.

Again, while there may be far reaching consequences of a SCOTUS decision on this issue, there as easily may not be.

I don't see any information which informs toward either result, thus I think it is far too premature to start kicking up a fuss.


I think you're reading that part wrong or something, I wasn't suggesting and don't believe there is one.

Fair enough. The principle that employers are fully entitled to decide what they will or will not pay for is then the issue.

You seem to be arguing that employers may not have this decision. If for example dangerous labor practices, labor abuse, or some actual crime was involved, I can understand why certain decisions might be taken out of employer's hands - for example sexual/racial discrimination.

I do not, however, see how payment for contraceptives constitutes discrimination. The Catholic employer is not forcing their (Catholic or non-Catholic) employees to not engage in contraception, they merely require said users of contraception to do so with their own money. The rationale is irrelevant. It is no different than saying the Catholic institutions won't pay for braces, or eyeglasses, or plastic surgery.


Bad metaphor to say the least. The legal, social, and health aspects of birth control and crack or methadone are very very different to put it very very mildly. By allowing their healthcare plans to compensate for contraceptives they would simply be meeting their employees and society's general expectations of what a healthcare plan should and normally does cover.

The problem with your disagreement is that you are invoking legal, social, and health aspects. The issue at hand is moral in the context of religion.

There are no legal requirements to support contraception.

There are no social requirements to support contraception.

There are no health aspects requiring the support of contraception.

As for society's expectations, I would actually argue that American society has zero expectations for health care - insurance or otherwise. How else do you explain tens of millions of Americans with no health insurance and equally minimal health care?

I believe you are inferring your own expectations for health care insurance coverage onto someone else with completely different views.

I actually believe the Americans should have some minimal expectation for health care, but until we get national health care this is not going to be fulfilled.


Of course its moral from their perspective, I didn't say it wasn't, but why are only the employer's morals to be considered here and not the employee's as well?

Because it is the employer paying for it. He who pays, decides.

A good employer will gauge whether the extra expense is worthwhile, but in this case there are religious and moral considerations which override any amount of extra employee satisfaction.

As I noted above, until we get to the point where we have national health care, it is pointless to expend energy trying to force private payers to any form of standard.

Kadriana
03-21-12, 01:28 PM
"The labels for the after-the-fact pills say that they may sometimes work after fertilization. Asking Catholic institutions to pay for something that they believe sometimes results in homicide is a grave threat to religious liberty."

The Orthodox Church maintains the concilliar and cannonical consensus of the Early Church in this matter and is in agreement with the Roman Magisterium: a procured abortion is the most evil act imaginable since the more helpless and innocent the victim, the more heinous the crime. It is the closest thing to Deicide - the murder of Christ Himself. And there is no difference between a mechanically induced abortion and a chemically induced abortion. Period.

The Roman Catholic church should absolutely refuse to obey the U.S. government should the position of the Obama Administration be upheld in the courts.
They should close or sell every Catholic hospital and shut down Catholic Charities if necessary. I would hope the Orthodox would do the same.





Where is the Orthodox Church's stance on bc for medical reasons? From my understanding, the Catholic Church allows it.

Raz
03-21-12, 02:03 PM
I know you are a pretty devout person, Raz, from your posts over the years, and I think this comment of yours is a pretty good one. In any transaction, it's always fair for either party to say "no thank you, no sale", and leave the room.

In this debate, neither wants the other compelling them to act against their interest. I happen to fall on the other side from you on this one, but would be the first to support the Church's privilege to disengage completely if we legally define a minimum health insurance plan that includes hormonal birth control, same rule for everybody.

As a practical matter, I would think the Catholic hospitals could find a work-around wherein they don't offer medical insurance to employees and still run their hospitals, to their benefit and ours. Respectfully, I endorse that position.

Thank you, thrifty, for your kind remarks and reasonable position. Let's hope this is how it plays out should the Federal Courts decide that the First Amendment no longer applies to traditonal, apostolic Christianity.

Personally, I do NOT believe the Obama Administration will grant a waiver to the Roman church allowing them to opt-out completely from providing employee medical coverage.
They have an agenda that is anti-christian, unless you happen to be part of the mainline apostacy that passes for "christianity" today. I hope I'm wrong; we shall see.

Should my fears prove valid I suppose I'll be treated to a tiny taste of what black Americans felt for almost two-hundred years.

mesyn191
03-21-12, 03:02 PM
Because the employer is the one paying the bill!
Just because you pay someone doesn't mean you should be able to intrude on their life or livelihood with your beliefs in any way shape or form. Respect for beliefs should go both ways, instead the employers seem to hold all the cards and the employees can just get screwed.

jiimbergin
03-21-12, 03:07 PM
Just because you pay someone doesn't mean you should be able to intrude on their life or livelihood with your beliefs in any way shape or form. Respect for beliefs should go both ways, instead the employers seem to hold all the cards and the employees can just get screwed.

They can pay for their own items. And yes the payer holds all the cards as long as there are enough people willing to work. That is the way the world works, but I assume not the way you want it to work.

Kadriana
03-21-12, 03:13 PM
Because it is the employer paying for it. He who pays, decides.

A good employer will gauge whether the extra expense is worthwhile, but in this case there are religious and moral considerations which override any amount of extra employee satisfaction.

As I noted above, until we get to the point where we have national health care, it is pointless to expend energy trying to force private payers to any form of standard.

Both the employer and the employee pay. Most people have a certain amount deducted from their paycheck every two weeks for health care and also have deductibles.

mesyn191
03-21-12, 03:54 PM
Again, while there may be far reaching consequences of a SCOTUS decision on this issue, there as easily may not be.
Given the SCOTUS power and position on the courts I'm not convinced any sort of truly narrow or minor result will come of any ruling, its just not the nature of that particular beast.


I do not, however, see how payment for contraceptives constitutes discrimination.
I would disagree with you there, and I'd be surprised if most women wouldn't disagree with you either. Sure the decision not to pay for contraceptives applies to men and women, but its women who will usually pay the cost of the end result of that decision.


The problem with your disagreement is that you are invoking legal, social, and health aspects. The issue at hand is moral in the context of religion.
,,,,,
Because it is the employer paying for it. He who pays, decides.
Its moral in the context of a specific religion of which many are not a part of.

What if I was an atheist and decided to reduce the pay of all Catholics in my organization by 10% if they tithe to the church since I don't believe in organized religion? You could say that atheism isn't a religion, but this is quibbling, its a belief too right? If you don't like that example I'm pretty sure I can find all sorts of other ones, there are many religions out there after all with very different views of morality built into them after all. I'm sure people in general would be taking a very different view of this whole matter if it was a case where a muslim had decided to apply certain aspects of Sharia Law on his employees instead of this being about Catholics and birth control which are issues many sympathize with for different reasons out side of religion.

And you can take the view of, "well they can go elsewhere" but that view seems to show a lack of empathy to say the least. After all, we all know the current state of the economy and what it means to be unemployed right now and how long it can take to find another job too.


There are no legal requirements to support contraception. There are no social requirements to support contraception. There are no health aspects requiring the support of contraception.
Legally there aren't any requirements to ban it either, socially most expect to have it and its usage is nearly ubiquitous these days, and health wise there are indeed issues that require the use of contraceptives (http://www.ranker.com/list/diseases-treated-with-oral-contraceptive/reference) in special circumstances where the patient may have a idiopathic or allergic response to the normally used treatments.


As for society's expectations, I would actually argue that American society has zero expectations for health care - insurance or otherwise.
You didn't happen to notice those poll charts posted earlier with regard to Medicare for All or single payer healthcare did you?


How else do you explain tens of millions of Americans with no health insurance and equally minimal health care?
Because they can't afford it? But really now this seems strange to me for you to say this, after all its not like people haven't been complaining for years now that something needs to be done to reduce the cost of healthcare is it? Or are you going to say you haven't heard of Obamacare and the complaints about that either?


I actually believe the Americans should have some minimal expectation for health care, but until we get national health care this is not going to be fulfilled.
You're probably right but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it either.

lektrode
03-21-12, 04:49 PM
mr mesyn... thanks for the info/comeback.

this stuff is of particularly intense interest to me (and i suspect quite a few others here)
because my premium/dues, whatevah, for kaiser-permanente has jumped 15% just since last year and has kranked up 86% since '04 (from 249 to 462 this year for their individual/self-empl'd plan), while the max ann'l supplemental charges, copays, etc have gone up even faster, while the benefit levels have all been cut (while they continue to knuckle under to ever increasing state-mandated - and PolitcallyCorrekt benefits - that address scant/sliver minorities of the subscriber base and furthermore, get overloaded by state/county employees they are covering with cadillac plans that we individual subscribers end up subsidizing!... there, i feel better now ;)


...the state of Texas cut malpractice suites in half AND lowered costs by 30% at the same time but health care costs in that state went up even higher than some other states.

Even if you want to ignore the first point the second one shoots giant gaping holes in the idea that legal costs are having any significant impact on health care costs. To help add to the discussion and perhaps even change your mind I'll give you another article on the subject. (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/) Note this one cites another newer study done in 2007 by a private actuarial firm, it also does a better job of explaining the why of the whole situation too.

quite frankly, i'm not ignoring anything you post as you are one of the more informed/opionionated people here (not that i agree with everything you write, but appreciate those who HAVE opionions and feel strongly enough aboout them to post em...

that said - lets pose the question of: what is the total load on the medical care delivery system for malpractice insurance, judgements, out of court settlements and the biggie: CYA proceedures, paperwork, staffing that are being done/billed in an effort to keep med practioners from getting sued?

never mind what the burden of the new electronic record systems will end up costing and if anybody thinks thats being done for OUR benefit? (with the system already using every word you ever tell them against you when it comes to paying for coverage)

i understand WHY the med industry does what it does, but HOW MUCH is it costing us?

not for a second do i believe its "only 1-2%"
which, quite frankly, sounds like propaganda eminating from the tort lobby and the insurance industry.



Q. You said the number of claims is relatively small. Is there a way to demonstrate that?
A. We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.

well of course theres been a declining rate of lawsuits!
the med industry would have to be complicit with the tort industry if there wasnt a decline and they'd be paying even MORE to the insurance industry than they already are (and we know the docs aint stupid) - the question becomes:

decrease in lawsuits = how much increase in CYA activities?, which are then simply tacked onto OUR insurance bills

and to add insult to injury, the GD med insurers make even fatter profits when it is!

1or2% ?
and obamacare will make these costs go down?
(and fugetabout 'free' birth control, thats just a campaign tactic to get the conservatives lookin bad to the center = win for the dems)

mesyn191
03-21-12, 11:55 PM
that said - lets pose the question of: what is the total load on the medical care delivery system for malpractice insurance, judgements, out of court settlements and the biggie: CYA proceedures, paperwork, staffing that are being done/billed in an effort to keep med practioners from getting sued?
I don't understand, the article already mentioned that according to the study it was $30.4 billion in 2007. That number includes "defensive medicine" (CYA costs) costs too. If you want more recent numbers than that I'm not aware of any, but note that the person answering the questions mentions that malpractice cases have essentially remained steady since the 80's while the healthcare industry has grown considerably.

Now you've already refused to consider the CBO study as valid for what I guess could be called personal reasons, are you also refusing to consider a 2nd study done by a non-government private actuarial organization done 7 years later? Which apparently has arrived at pretty much the same conclusions as the first study?

If you still hold your personal anecdotes as superior to the information I've given you, then well fair enough, but there isn't any point in continuing the conversation since I'll never be able to prove anything to you. Nor will likely anyone else either BTW, unless of course they have anecdotes that are close to yours...but then that is a form of self selecting bias.


which, quite frankly, sounds like propaganda eminating from the tort lobby and the insurance industry.
You have it the other way around. The tort lobby and insurance companies are some of the main proponents to the "malpractice is driving healthcare costs" meme. The "reform" they want to do would nearly eliminate or totally eliminate your ability to sue a doctor, hospital, or insurance company for almost anything, which BTW is already somewhat limited believe it or not. Remember, they're working for the I in FIRE, these people aren't your friends or allies. Unfortunately they're effective at spreading their propaganda, most people have heard it so much without informed dissent (surprise surprise right?) they've bought into it, your reaction of disbelief is the norm.

edit: Didn't notice you edited this question into your post until much later:

and obamacare will make these costs go down?
Nope its a terrible bill that does nothing to fix the healthcare industry or drop costs. It does limit the amount that costs can be raised each year IIRC but that amount is still higher than the rate of inflation. What led you to believe in my previous post that I supported Obamacare? I'd already said before earlier in the thread that I thought Obamacare was terrible.

Raz
03-22-12, 01:37 PM
Where is the Orthodox Church's stance on bc for medical reasons? From my understanding, the Catholic Church allows it.

I'm only a layman so all I can give is my understanding from the limited number of letters and encyclicals by Orthodox Bishops from various jurisdictions (Antiochian, Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.).

The Church clearly teaches that a marriage which seeks to avoid the procreation of children is no marriage at all, sacremental or otherwise. But in variance to Rome it is not taught that every sexual encounter between the married must be open to conception. Before God told the first man and the first woman to "Be fruitfull and multiply" He said that "It is not good for the man to be alone".

I suppose there are extremely rare cases where the bearing of a child could pose serious risk to the life of the mother and this is what you are referring to. I'm not aware of any Orthodox Synod addressing this particular issue, but in such rare case it is likely that an Orthodox Bishop would advise abstinence but would not disallow contraception that isn't used as an abortificient.

The problem comes in with methods of regulating/spacing conception and birth that can cause abortion.

Sperm cells do not replicate themselves. Ovum do not replicate themselves. But after the two are united all the pairs of chromasomes are present, cell replication begins and a *new and unique human being* has been procreated. Some methods of contraception can dislodge this newly formed human zygote and in such cases they are in fact acting as abortificients. The "Morning After Pill" is a clear example and is therefore condemned by the Orthodox.

Both the Roman church and the Orthodox allow whatever medical treatments are required to save the life of a pregnant woman - as long as the preborn child is not attacked.
A pregnancy where cancer is discovered in the mother's body may be treated with chemotherapy, for example, and should the little one perish there is no bloodguilt.
But under no circumstances is it ever permissible to attack the child's body.

c1ue
03-22-12, 02:16 PM
Both the employer and the employee pay. Most people have a certain amount deducted from their paycheck every two weeks for health care and also have deductibles.

The vast majority of health insurance payments for employees in those companies that do provide health insurance is paid for by the employer.

We also do not know in this cases whether the employees of these Catholic institutions directly contribute or not.

As for employee contributions - theoretically the cost of contraception coverage in a health insurance plan is an additional one, thus the employees would have this increment available to pay for some part of contraception themselves.


Given the SCOTUS power and position on the courts I'm not convinced any sort of truly narrow or minor result will come of any ruling, its just not the nature of that particular beast.

You are welcome to your belief, but until you can show some evidence of the scope or effect of a SCOTUS ruling via a factual report, I remain unconvinced as to the slippery slope you believe in.


I would disagree with you there, and I'd be surprised if most women wouldn't disagree with you either. Sure the decision not to pay for contraceptives applies to men and women, but its women who will usually pay the cost of the end result of that decision.

I don't know about 'most women'; I do agree the contraceptive issue has more impact on women than men.

But again, where is it written that everything must be 100% fair? Nowhere is it written that everyone in the US gets everything equally in anything except perhaps free speech.


Its moral in the context of a specific religion of which many are not a part of.

You might not be, but the employers are. And that is the question. If the employer chooses not to pay for contraception due to the employer's religious belief, I fail to see what is hypocritical or inconsistent.


What if I was an atheist and decided to reduce the pay of all Catholics in my organization by 10% if they tithe to the church since I don't believe in organized religion? You could say that atheism isn't a religion, but this is quibbling, its a belief too right? If you don't like that example I'm pretty sure I can find all sorts of other ones, there are many religions out there after all with very different views of morality built into them after all. I'm sure people in general would be taking a very different view of this whole matter if it was a case where a muslim had decided to apply certain aspects of Sharia Law on his employees instead of this being about Catholics and birth control which are issues many sympathize with for different reasons out side of religion.

Your example is wrong because discrimination, particularly in pay, due to religion is specifically prohibited. A wronged employee in this example could sue you and would probably win.

Secondly your punitive attack on Catholic's pay in your example is not an exercise of your own religion, it is an attack on the Catholic religion.

There is a difference between not recognizing religion and specifically attacking it.

Equally your invocation of Sharia law is also flawed. The Catholic institutions are not controlling their employee's behavior, they simply are not collusively assisting it. Employees are perfectly welcome to employ contraception, which is in no way similar to enforcing Sharia law on employees.

Please at least try to be clear on what is going on.


And you can take the view of, "well they can go elsewhere" but that view seems to show a lack of empathy to say the least. After all, we all know the current state of the economy and what it means to be unemployed right now and how long it can take to find another job too.

Given that I've said no such thing, you are letting your emotions overcome your ability to read.

Read again carefully what I wrote.


Legally there aren't any requirements to ban it either, socially most expect to have it and its usage is nearly ubiquitous these days, and health wise there are indeed issues that require the use of contraceptives (http://www.ranker.com/list/diseases-treated-with-oral-contraceptive/reference) in special circumstances where the patient may have a idiopathic or allergic response to the normally used treatments.

If indeed there is a valid medical issue requiring contraception, then someone can bring a lawsuit over that.

In the meantime, your attempt to invoke consensus and/or societal norms into this discussion is a waste of time. A moral decision by definition is individual, even ignoring the fact that your statement is wrong. Millions of Catholics believe that contraception is evil and should not be tolerated.


You didn't happen to notice those poll charts posted earlier with regard to Medicare for All or single payer healthcare did you?

The charts show what some people say to a pollster.

The reality we live in shows what US society actually is, just as the reality of health care in other nations shows the difference.


Because they can't afford it? But really now this seems strange to me for you to say this, after all its not like people haven't been complaining for years now that something needs to be done to reduce the cost of healthcare is it? Or are you going to say you haven't heard of Obamacare and the complaints about that either?

My views on health care are quite clear.

My point, which you still apparently refuse to comprehend, is that we as an American society find that millions of uninsured are perfectly acceptable, that health care is not a public good, and that unaffordable health care is tolerable.

Obamacare is only in the very weakest of lights a change to the situation.

Health care is still not a public good under Obamacare - health insurance policies for certain segments of the American poor are.

Equally affordable health care is not a priority under Obamacare.

These are very important differences.


You're probably right but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it either.

My point is that picking on Catholic institution's choice to not support contraception is a poor way to express your dissatisfaction with the American health care situation.

There are far greater abuses out there such as the employment of 'independent contractors' in many industries (like package delivery companies), Walmart employees, McDonald's employees, etc etc.

The above institutions not only are not providing contraception support in health insurance, they by and large don't offer any health insurance whatsoever, and don't have a moral rationale for doing so.

Kadriana
03-22-12, 06:17 PM
I'm only a layman so all I can give is my understanding from the limited number of letters and encyclicals by Orthodox Bishops from various jurisdictions (Antiochian, Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.).

The Church clearly teaches that a marriage which seeks to avoid the procreation of children is no marriage at all, sacremental or otherwise. But in variance to Rome it is not taught that every sexual encounter between the married must be open to conception. Before God told the first man and the first woman to "Be fruitfull and multiply" He said that "It is not good for the man to be alone".

I suppose there are extremely rare cases where the bearing of a child could pose serious risk to the life of the mother and this is what you are referring to. I'm not aware of any Orthodox Synod addressing this particular issue, but in such rare case it is likely that an Orthodox Bishop would advise abstinence but would not disallow contraception that isn't used as an abortificient.

The problem comes in with methods of regulating/spacing conception and birth that can cause abortion.

Sperm cells do not replicate themselves. Ovum do not replicate themselves. But after the two are united all the pairs of chromasomes are present, cell replication begins and a *new and unique human being* has been procreated. Some methods of contraception can dislodge this newly formed human zygote and in such cases they are in fact acting as abortificients. The "Morning After Pill" is a clear example and is therefore condemned by the Orthodox.

Both the Roman church and the Orthodox allow whatever medical treatments are required to save the life of a pregnant woman - as long as the preborn child is not attacked.
A pregnancy where cancer is discovered in the mother's body may be treated with chemotherapy, for example, and should the little one perish there is no bloodguilt.
But under no circumstances is it ever permissible to attack the child's body.





There are a lot of medical conditions where you will be prescribed birth control pills. PCOS, heavy periods that cause anemia, severe cramping, severe PMS, endometriosis, hormone imbalances, etc. Some women are put on bc pills if they have irregular periods to try and help regulate them before they try and conceive. Basically, if you have any sort of health issue at all involving your overies or uterus, the doctor will put you on birth control pills. The second thing done is to remove your uterus or overies. You would be surprised with how many women I know that have had a hysterectomy before 40.

mesyn191
03-23-12, 05:02 AM
But again, where is it written that everything must be 100% fair?
Its impossible for every thing to be 100% fair but that is the ideal which we should strive for correct? This does not seem to be a situation where it'd be all that hard to get much closer to that ideal 100% either.


You might not be, but the employers are. And that is the question. If the employer chooses not to pay for contraception due to the employer's religious belief, I fail to see what is hypocritical or inconsistent.
Its hypocritical because it supports one groups beliefs (employers) over an others (employees). Also you have to consider that healthcare is a form of compensation.


Your example is wrong because discrimination....it is an attack on the Catholic religion.
The employer could simply say, "Can't be discrimination if it goes against my beliefs, I dock the pay of any worker who gives money to their church accordingly. Deal with it.". They could still certainly be sued, but you can sue anyone for most anything, that doesn't mean you'll win.


The Catholic institutions are not controlling their employee's behavior, they simply are not collusively assisting it.
Yes that is called a chilling effect. By not allowing their health plans to pay for contraceptives they're discouraging its use.


Given that I've said no such thing, you are letting your emotions overcome your ability to read.
Nope, other way around. I didn't say you said that, I used "you can say" and not "you do say" to preface that statement for a reason. Note: that same exact statement has been used to justify the Church's stance on this issue several times in this very thread. Several politicians have also used it as well, its the most common meme used to support the Church's position. I was trying to anticipate what you might say next. If you don't support that meme for the reason I mentioned then kudos to you.


In the meantime, your attempt to invoke consensus and/or societal norms into this discussion is a waste of time. A moral decision by definition is individual, even ignoring the fact that your statement is wrong. Millions of Catholics believe that contraception is evil and should not be tolerated.
How can you say that societal norms don't matter and that this is an individual issue but then invoke the beliefs of millions of Catholics to support an argument? If this is an individual basis issue only then who cares what millions of Catholics believe? Food for thought though: this is a study done from 2006-2008 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf). It found that not only did 99% of women use contraceptives 98% of Catholic women use them too.


The charts show what some people say to a pollster. The reality we live in shows what US society actually is, just as the reality of health care in other nations shows the difference.[/quote

So polls don't matter to you and reality is an accurate reflection of US society? Just exactly what color is the sky of the world you live on? Mine is blue FWIW.


My point, which you still apparently refuse to comprehend, is that we as an American society find that millions of uninsured are perfectly acceptable, that health care is not a public good, and that unaffordable health care is tolerable.
Given the polls on the subject plus the vast voter dissatisfaction with congress and the president I would say there is strong evidence to the contrary. But then you don't accept polls as evidence, so bravo I guess on laying a ground work to reject information that doesn't support your position.


Obamacare is only in the very weakest of lights a change to the situation.
It should be noted that Obama won his election in 2008 on the premise that he would bring large and sweeping change for the better on many subjects, including healthcare. That he turned around and screwed over the voters the instant he got office shouldn't have been too big a surprise for anyone paying attention at the time but you can't seriously argue that what we got out of the deal (ie. Obamacare) was genuinely what the people wanted. Unless of course you're going to next argue that people really want is to be screwed over and lied to by their government...


My point is that picking on Catholic institution's choice to not support contraception is a poor way to express your dissatisfaction with the American health care situation.

There are far greater abuses out there such as the employment of 'independent contractors' in many industries (like package delivery companies), Walmart employees, McDonald's employees, etc etc.

The above institutions not only are not providing contraception support in health insurance, they by and large don't offer any health insurance whatsoever, and don't have a moral rationale for doing so.
Healthcare is one of those issues where I don't like to see anyone doing anything to screw over anyone else anywhere. So you might be right that this is a poor way to express my opinions to say the least, but this --literally-- is people's health and lives we're talking about. Usually when that is said its used in a hyperbolic fashion, there is no exaggeration here at all. Especially in the case of contraceptives; being able to control when and with who you decide to have a child isn't a minor issue.

mesyn191
03-23-12, 05:08 AM
They can pay for their own items. And yes the payer holds all the cards as long as there are enough people willing to work. That is the way the world works
Would you say that this is a good way for the "world to work"? Or would you prefer it to work better in this instance?

jiimbergin
03-23-12, 08:56 AM
Would you say that this is a good way for the "world to work"? Or would you prefer it to work better in this instance?

I would prefer that all people accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and that we all live as the early Christians in Jerusalem where all wealth is joyously shared among all. I prefer all people to be treated as I would like to be treated and I try (although I fail every day) to follow that.

c1ue
03-23-12, 12:14 PM
Its impossible for every thing to be 100% fair but that is the ideal which we should strive for correct? This does not seem to be a situation where it'd be all that hard to get much closer to that ideal 100% either.

As a personal matter, I agree.

However, as a society and as a government, this is not the situation Americans live in (nor anywhere else in the world).


Its hypocritical because it supports one groups beliefs (employers) over an others (employees). Also you have to consider that healthcare is a form of compensation.

Given that there are 2 inimicable points of view:

a) that Catholicism believes all contraception is immoral

b) that contraception is a fundamental right which employers must pay for

the fact that you keep calling this discrimination against the employees as opposed to discrimination against the employer's religious beliefs underscores your inherent bias in the matter.

I would also note that a) is protected by law, but b) is not.

Roe vs. Wade was not about a fundamental right get have abortion be paid for by employers, it was that a women had the right to abortion.

And before you start saying that non-payment is abrogation of rights, don't bother. Non-payment exists for all sorts of 'rights' and is thoroughly tested as not being a criteria for discrimination.


The employer could simply say, "Can't be discrimination if it goes against my beliefs, I dock the pay of any worker who gives money to their church accordingly. Deal with it.". They could still certainly be sued, but you can sue anyone for most anything, that doesn't mean you'll win.

You can keep trying to create bogus situations all you want.

Catholicism is a long standing religion accepted all over the world, whereas your hypothetical other religion would have to pass all sorts of tests first.


Yes that is called a chilling effect. By not allowing their health plans to pay for contraceptives they're discouraging its use.

You still don't seem to get it. Catholics are by their own religion and morals required to discourage contraception.

By your interpretation of chilling effects, anything which 'discourages' something you disagree with is therefore prohibited.

I could as easily say that forcing a Catholic institution to support contraception is a 'chilling effect' on the morality of Catholicism and is thus an attack on Catholicism.

This is much more explicitly against US law.


Nope, other way around. I didn't say you said that, I used "you can say" and not "you do say" to preface that statement for a reason. Note: that same exact statement has been used to justify the Church's stance on this issue several times in this very thread. Several politicians have also used it as well, its the most common meme used to support the Church's position. I was trying to anticipate what you might say next. If you don't support that meme for the reason I mentioned then kudos to you.

You can say vs. you do say is ridiculous lawyering. Your intent was to put words in my mouth.

What others have done, that is their responsibility just as what you've done in this case is yours.

And what you've done is a personal attack (via misrepresentation) and nothing to do with fact.


How can you say that societal norms don't matter and that this is an individual issue but then invoke the beliefs of millions of Catholics to support an argument? If this is an individual basis issue only then who cares what millions of Catholics believe? Food for thought though: this is a study done from 2006-2008 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf). It found that not only did 99% of women use contraceptives 98% of Catholic women use them too.

You're still not reading what is written. What I said, to repeat, is that your argument that Catholic institutions should support contraception via health insurance coverage is because society considers contraception a norm.

However, since there are some 77 million Catholics in the US, at least 25% of the US population therefore does not support contraception. It cannot be said then that support for contraception is a norm in US society.

The study you quote has been thoroughly debunked as wrong.

Even were it correct, which it manifestly is not, the practices by which one or many Catholics fail to practice their faith does not dictate what a faithful Catholic practices.


So polls don't matter to you and reality is an accurate reflection of US society? Just exactly what color is the sky of the world you live on? Mine is blue FWIW.

I recognize that polls are easily manipulated, which you do not.

Your blue sky is a painted ceiling.


Given the polls on the subject plus the vast voter dissatisfaction with congress and the president I would say there is strong evidence to the contrary. But then you don't accept polls as evidence, so bravo I guess on laying a ground work to reject information that doesn't support your position.

All you have to do to convince me is to show that anything has actually changed.

Does the United States have national or socialized health care? No

Does the United States government actually offer health care services to anyone who is not a former member of the military or government? No

Does the United States prioritize the health care of its citizens as a public good? No

The answer to all of the above for every single other 1st and most 2nd world nation is: Yes


It should be noted that Obama won his election in 2008 on the premise that he would bring large and sweeping change for the better on many subjects, including healthcare. That he turned around and screwed over the voters the instant he got office shouldn't have been too big a surprise for anyone paying attention at the time but you can't seriously argue that what we got out of the deal (ie. Obamacare) was genuinely what the people wanted. Unless of course you're going to next argue that people really want is to be screwed over and lied to by their government...

If a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress is unable to execute on any of the above, with 3rd parties non existent, and with the presumption that the Republican party would never condone "Socialism", I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to say that "it ain't gonna happen anytime soon".

As for Obama, if indeed "the people" were as adamant as you say, I very much doubt that Obama would have pushed through what he did.

I saw no demonstrations over "no single payer".

There was no "Occupy Hospitals" or "Occupy ER" movement.

I did see the odd Tea Party demonstration against socialism.

It would be more accurate to say that most people would love nationalized or socialized health care if they don't have to pay more, which is an entirely different proposition.


Healthcare is one of those issues where I don't like to see anyone doing anything to screw over anyone else anywhere. So you might be right that this is a poor way to express my opinions to say the least, but this --literally-- is people's health and lives we're talking about. Usually when that is said its used in a hyperbolic fashion, there is no exaggeration here at all. Especially in the case of contraceptives; being able to control when and with who you decide to have a child isn't a minor issue.

The problem with your attack on Catholic institutions expression of morality is that from the Catholic's view, they are saving lives as well. And more importantly, saving souls.

To be clear: I am not Catholic nor do I believe that contraception is a sin.

However, one basic principle upon which the United States is founded is freedom of religion.

While many of our other basic principles are slowly being ground away - due process in particular - I am adamantly against the erosion of yet another via the hammer of political correctness.

cjppjc
03-23-12, 07:53 PM
I would like to be treated and I try (although I fail every day) to follow that.

+1

I need a way to remember what I wish.

mesyn191
03-24-12, 10:35 AM
the fact that you keep calling this discrimination against the employees as opposed to discrimination against the employer's religious beliefs underscores your inherent bias in the matter
Come on now, everyone has bias. What I keep trying to point out is that the law is inconsistent here to say the least to support only the employer's beliefs. Laws can be changed and have been before plenty of times in the past, they are not set in stone.


And before you start saying that non-payment is abrogation of rights, don't bother.
I haven't even tried to argue this at all. What I've said is that the decision to uphold the employer's beliefs over the employee's projects the employer's beliefs on to others and that denying contraceptives is inherently discriminatory towards women.


Catholicism is a long standing religion accepted all over the world, whereas your hypothetical other religion would have to pass all sorts of tests first.
AFAIK according to the law it just has to be recognized as a religion in the US, the size of the religion or length of existence doesn't matter at all. At least a few countries don't recognize Scientology as a religion but here in the US they are legally considered such for instance.


You still don't seem to get it. Catholics are by their own religion and morals required to discourage contraception.
Sure I get it, what I don't understand is why this is legally and/or morally acceptable, especially if you consider free speech and freedom of religion to be near sacrosanct. Those freedoms are supposed to extend to employees too. Yes I know they're getting paid by the Catholics but so what? Why should that be an exception to the rule?


By your interpretation of chilling effects, anything which 'discourages' something you disagree with is therefore prohibited.
Nope. Anything that is used to discourage another person's freedoms or livelihood would be more accurate. I have no problem with Catholics not using contraception for themselves due to religious reasons, its when they use their religion as an excuse to deny others contraceptives, that I have an issue with.


I could as easily say that forcing a Catholic institution to support contraception is a 'chilling effect' on the morality of Catholicism and is thus an attack on Catholicism.
Their religion or beliefs don't have to change though so they wouldn't be supporting it if the mandate is up held, they'd just be complying with the law. You can indeed comply with the law but disagree with it strongly, this is hardly contorted logic here.


You can say vs. you do say is ridiculous lawyering. Your intent was to put words in my mouth.
No it wasn't and I already explained why, if you want to read intent into my posts then fine go ahead, but I'd point out that isn't a very good way to go about convincing someone of anything.


The study you quote has been thoroughly debunked as wrong.
Nope. Some have argued that the age group it sampled (15-44 IIRC) is too narrow and used some odd criteria, but the actual data itself is widely seen as sound and as near as I can tell is one of the better studies on the subject available.


However, since there are some 77 million Catholics in the US, at least 25% of the US population therefore does not support contraception. It cannot be said then that support for contraception is a norm in US society.
Just because they're Catholics doesn't mean they support everything the church says. Given polls on the matter, which you probably won't accept so I won't bother posting them but they're easy to find on google, there is reason to believe most Catholics don't agree with the church on this matter. Hell technically I'm a Catholic (wasn't baptized IIRC) and I give no fucks what the church says I should or shouldn't do.


I recognize that polls are easily manipulated, which you do not.
I already mentioned earlier in the thread something a long this line and even posted the link to a good article on push polls. I also however pointed out that when you see the same results in the polls over time to a given set of similar questions, from different people, that it is very unlikely you've got a manipulated result. Polls aren't perfect but they're aren't trash data either.


Your blue sky is a painted ceiling.
Maybe but I make sure to double check out the window from time to time too.


All you have to do to convince me is to show that anything has actually changed.
A very vague knowledge of history is all it takes to invalidate this theory of yours. After all Civil Rights and Women's Sufferage had popular support for years before laws were wrote to reflect that change in society. The laws do not always and instantly reflect a society's change in views since the law is most always slower to change than society, particularly in the US.


If a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress is unable to execute on any of the above, with 3rd parties non existent, and with the presumption that the Republican party would never condone "Socialism", I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to say that "it ain't gonna happen anytime soon".
What makes you think the Democrats or Obama honestly wanted to pass a UHS bill or even Medicare for All? He threw that option away as soon as he became president, he didn't even try to use it as a bargaining point. Even idiots know that when bargaining you start off with a high bid and the other guy will go with a low bid. Obama is no idiot though.


I saw no demonstrations over "no single payer". There was no "Occupy Hospitals" or "Occupy ER" movement.
There were protests.
http://i.imgur.com/9dOFxs.jpg (http://imgur.com/9dOFx)
For whatever reason stuff like this didn't make the news but it did happen.


The problem with your attack on Catholic institutions expression of morality is that from the Catholic's view, they are saving lives as well. And more importantly, saving souls.
I know that, other people have different moral and religious views though too. They should get respected too.


I am adamantly against the erosion of yet another via the hammer of political correctness.
I don't see this as an issue of political correctness, if that was all that this was about I wouldn't care for it either.

lektrode
03-24-12, 01:39 PM
I don't understand, the article already mentioned that according to the study it was $30.4 billion in 2007. That number includes "defensive medicine" (CYA costs) costs too. If you want more recent numbers than that I'm not aware of any, but note that the person answering the questions mentions that malpractice cases have essentially remained steady since the 80's while the healthcare industry has grown considerably.

Now you've already refused to consider the CBO study as valid for what I guess could be called personal reasons, are you also refusing to consider a 2nd study done by a non-government private actuarial organization done 7 years later? Which apparently has arrived at pretty much the same conclusions as the first study?

since i'm not looking for an argument, only asking questions...
i guess i'll have to accept that, not that i believe it to be true (seeing as most stats can be read to support both ends of an argument), but until someone else offers some opposing evidence, i guess thats all we've got

but 30billion / 300million = 100bux per capita for annual litigation/CYA practices?
that just seems a bit understated, dont you think?

c1ue
03-24-12, 07:19 PM
Come on now, everyone has bias. What I keep trying to point out is that the law is inconsistent here to say the least to support only the employer's beliefs. Laws can be changed and have been before plenty of times in the past, they are not set in stone.

I don't agree with your view.

I would further point out that if you in fact want to change this law - it would be far more productive instead to change American health care policy.

Specifically: make public health a public good as opposed to a for profit industry - which is what it is today.

As it is what you seem to be advocating is to force employers not only to take on more cost, but to abrogate their morality as well. There are certainly instances where this in necessary, but I do not feel contraception and Catholic companies is one of them.


I haven't even tried to argue this at all. What I've said is that the decision to uphold the employer's beliefs over the employee's projects the employer's beliefs on to others and that denying contraceptives is inherently discriminatory towards women.

Actually, you are making several assumptions here:

1) That employers must legally adhere to all of their employees' beliefs. This is actually inherently impossible in many cases, and is unenforceable at best.

2) That all women agree with you that contraception paid for by employers is a right. You are making the assumption that all 'right thinking' women share your view, which I do not believe is the case.

3) That not paying for something is denial of rights. I'm sorry, but as I noted before there are plenty of companies that don't provide health insurance at all to their employees. The only successful cases I've seen where lack of a benefit was deemed discrimination was when a company failed to adhere to specific laws concerning equal access to handicapped individuals.

There is no law anywhere saying employees must have contraception paid for by the employer.


AFAIK according to the law it just has to be recognized as a religion in the US, the size of the religion or length of existence doesn't matter at all. At least a few countries don't recognize Scientology as a religion but here in the US they are legally considered such for instance.

I suggest you look up the IRS rules concerning exemptions related to religion. There very much are requirements.


Sure I get it, what I don't understand is why this is legally and/or morally acceptable, especially if you consider free speech and freedom of religion to be near sacrosanct. Those freedoms are supposed to extend to employees too. Yes I know they're getting paid by the Catholics but so what? Why should that be an exception to the rule?

I have no idea why you think getting contraception paid for by your employer is either a religious issue or freedom of speech.

I repeat: the women in question are perfectly entitled to obtain and use contraception. They simply don't have it paid for by their employer, much as they might not get dental coverage, eyeglasses, life insurance, or whatever.

I don't see why contraceptive coverage is any more or less a health issue as oral health, the ability to see clearly and diagnose/treat eye issues, the ability to have your family be compensated should you unexpectedly die, etc etc.


Nope. Anything that is used to discourage another person's freedoms or livelihood would be more accurate. I have no problem with Catholics not using contraception for themselves due to religious reasons, its when they use their religion as an excuse to deny others contraceptives, that I have an issue with.

You're still conflating lack of insurance coverage for contraception with denial of contraception. This simply is not true.

If the employers forced their employees not to use contraception, that would be one thing. Payment of benefits is not a right.


Their religion or beliefs don't have to change though so they wouldn't be supporting it if the mandate is up held, they'd just be complying with the law. You can indeed comply with the law but disagree with it strongly, this is hardly contorted logic here.

You are again belittling the Catholic faith.

You are trying to say here that so long as Catholics believe, that any action they undertake even if 100% unacceptable under the Catholic moral code is fine.

I'm sorry, but you are transparently dismissive of something you don't agree with. It is exactly this type of attitude which is why freedom of religion is enshrined in law.


No it wasn't and I already explained why, if you want to read intent into my posts then fine go ahead, but I'd point out that isn't a very good way to go about convincing someone of anything.

If you refuse to admit your tactic, that's your problem.

I could as easily say that you act like an atheistic supporter of communism because you seek to force companies to socialize baby murder.

I can then lawyer up and say that I wasn't calling you this, but the fact is that you would consider this an attack and rightfully so.


Nope. Some have argued that the age group it sampled (15-44 IIRC) is too narrow and used some odd criteria, but the actual data itself is widely seen as sound and as near as I can tell is one of the better studies on the subject available.

You can believe what you want, but sheer logic dictates that the numbers noted in that study are improbable.

A more factual set of debunking information:

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/02/how_to_lie_with_statistics_exa_1.html


More strikingly, as Neil pointed out to me after looking up the study, it excluded any women who were a) not sexually active, where that is defined as having had sexual intercourse in the past three months (there go all the nuns), b) postpartum, c) pregnant, or d) trying to get pregnant! In other words, the study was specifically designed (as the prose discussion on p. 8 makes explicit, in bold print) to include only women for whom a pregnancy would be unintended and who are "at risk" of becoming pregnant. Whether or not it included women who considered themselves neither trying nor not trying to get pregnant (there are some such women in the world) is unclear. It's also unclear whether it included women who have had their reproductive organs removed because of some medical problem. Presumably the study was intended to exclude women in both of these categories, as neither would count as a woman "at risk of an unintended pregnancy."

The study thus clearly focuses on a specific sub-segment of Catholic women and any conclusions from it as to the behavior of all Catholic women is highly suspect.

For that matter, Catholics are not supposed to have sex before marriage. To do so means they are not devout at least in this respect - and if so why not "not be" devout in another? At least some of the women in the study are not married, just as certainly some are.

I have no doubt that at least some Catholics do employ contraception, but to say that 98% of them, female or otherwise, do is transparently a falsehood.


Just because they're Catholics doesn't mean they support everything the church says. Given polls on the matter, which you probably won't accept so I won't bother posting them but they're easy to find on google, there is reason to believe most Catholics don't agree with the church on this matter. Hell technically I'm a Catholic (wasn't baptized IIRC) and I give no fucks what the church says I should or shouldn't do.

Just because some Catholics lapse doesn't mean that you can force all of them to.

Just because you are a lapsed Catholic does not give you the right to force your practices (or lack thereof) on anyone else.


I already mentioned earlier in the thread something a long this line and even posted the link to a good article on push polls. I also however pointed out that when you see the same results in the polls over time to a given set of similar questions, from different people, that it is very unlikely you've got a manipulated result. Polls aren't perfect but they're aren't trash data either.

Certainly some polls theoretically should have some value. The problem is that polls are used for political purposes. The science of manipulating poll results is highly advanced, thus at this point I do not believe anything any poll says anywhere because I know full well that the poll creator had a specific objective in mind, even if subconscious.

If there was some totally apolitical, amoral, dispassionate and non agenda driven independent organization which conducted polls, then possibly I would be more accepting.


A very vague knowledge of history is all it takes to invalidate this theory of yours. After all Civil Rights and Women's Sufferage had popular support for years before laws were wrote to reflect that change in society. The laws do not always and instantly reflect a society's change in views since the law is most always slower to change than society, particularly in the US.

Your vague knowledge of history doesn't seem to include that the United States is a heavily religious nation.

Neither Civil Rights nor Women's Suffrage conflicts with this.

And unlike slavery and the right to vote for women (and ex-slaves), religion is explicitly protected in the Constitution.


What makes you think the Democrats or Obama honestly wanted to pass a UHS bill or even Medicare for All? He threw that option away as soon as he became president, he didn't even try to use it as a bargaining point. Even idiots know that when bargaining you start off with a high bid and the other guy will go with a low bid. Obama is no idiot though.

So once again, exactly how will things change?


There were protests.
http://i.imgur.com/9dOFxs.jpg (http://imgur.com/9dOFx)
For whatever reason stuff like this didn't make the news but it did happen.

So people marched. I think that's good, but still a far cry from what the Occupy people are doing.


I know that, other people have different moral and religious views though too. They should get respected too.


The right to get something paid for has nothing to do with morality or religion.

Kadriana
03-24-12, 10:27 PM
2) That all women agree with you that contraception paid for by employers is a right. You are making the assumption that all 'right thinking' women share your view, which I do not believe is the case.



A lot of my female friends and I have been talking about this topic. The hard part is birth control pills are used to treat so many conditions and not just for preventing pregnancy. There really aren't a lot of alternatives to treat many conditions women suffer from. I mentioned earlier that if you have an issue with your overies or your uterus, you're usually prescribed bc pills. I don't really support forcing an institution to prescribe something but as a woman, it's hard not to take to feel like you're unworthy of treatment. A lot of women have to try multiple medications before they find one that works with their system and it's not as simple as going to Wal-mart for the $9.99 pill that many seem to believe.

So a lot of women I know, across the political sprectrum, are starting to feel a bit like there is a war on women. There is fear that this won't stop with the Catholic Church and wonder if this will affect other forms of hormonal treatment. Imagine being a female who has been bleeding for 3 months straight and being told that your insurance company won't pay for your medication because it's morally wrong.

Raz
03-25-12, 01:51 AM
... Imagine being a female who has been bleeding for 3 months straight and being told that your insurance company won't pay for your medication because it's morally wrong.

Imagine being told that you must pay for the commission of a mortal sin when you firmly believe that you will lose your soul should you do so.

And besides, if you work for any institution that is owned or operated by the Roman Catholic church it will be no surprise hitting you "out of the blue" to find that your health insurance will not pay for contraceptives. You will know that before you even accept such employment.

I'm growing weary of hearing the crapola about a "war on women" and a "war on blacks" and a "war on gays" and a "war on undocumented immigrants" and on and on and on and on and on and ....

Kadriana
03-25-12, 08:30 AM
Imagine being told that you must pay for the commission of a mortal sin when you firmly believe that you will lose your soul should you do so.

And besides, if you work for any institution that is owned or operated by the Roman Catholic church it will be no surprise hitting you "out of the blue" to find that your health insurance will not pay for contraceptives. You will know that before you even accept such employment.

I'm growing weary of hearing the crapola about a "war on women" and a "war on blacks" and a "war on gays" and a "war on undocumented immigrants" and on and on and on and on and on and ....



Again, the Catholic church in the past has been fine with you using birth control pills for medical reasons. It is not considered a mortal sin since you are not taking it in order to prevent pregnancy.

Also, I never said the Catholic Church should be forced to pay for contraceptives. I just said I didn't think it would stop with the Catholic Church. I also have concerns that other hormone medication might get thrown in.

c1ue
03-25-12, 02:11 PM
A lot of my female friends and I have been talking about this topic. The hard part is birth control pills are used to treat so many conditions and not just for preventing pregnancy. There really aren't a lot of alternatives to treat many conditions women suffer from. I mentioned earlier that if you have an issue with your overies or your uterus, you're usually prescribed bc pills. I don't really support forcing an institution to prescribe something but as a woman, it's hard not to take to feel like you're unworthy of treatment. A lot of women have to try multiple medications before they find one that works with their system and it's not as simple as going to Wal-mart for the $9.99 pill that many seem to believe.

Thank you for the perspective.

A far more constructive mode of engagement would be to find a common ground such that the Catholic institutions can in good conscience both meet Catholic morality and provide employees this benefit if indeed necessary for health reasons.

One way might be a rider which adds contraceptive support to the existing insurance plan. This rider could be paid for by the employer for individuals if the appropriate dispensation is given.

I am less clear on whether the Catholic faith would find it acceptable to offer this option to be paid for by individuals who do not have dispensation. While the employer could not be said to be colluding with a sin here, on the other hand the existence of the rider might still qualify. Perhaps the Catholics can comment.

Unfortunately I doubt that insurance companies are so accommodating.

vinoveri
03-25-12, 05:03 PM
Again, the Catholic church in the past has been fine with you using birth control pills for medical reasons. It is not considered a mortal sin since you are not taking it in order to prevent pregnancy.

Also, I never said the Catholic Church should be forced to pay for contraceptives. I just said I didn't think it would stop with the Catholic Church. I also have concerns that other hormone medication might get thrown in.

I'm not a canon lawyer or Catholic theologian, however I would like to offer a couple of observations I believe accurate and consistent with catholic teaching:

The Catholic church has no objections to hormonal therapies directed to the health care of women (and men) - the problem arise when those "pills" are used for the purposes of contraception and/or may or do cause or risk causing abortion (e.g., by preventing implantation). So we need to distinguish from "a particular medication" and the "use of that medication for a prescribed purpose".


The Catholic Church is the repository of Truth including moral Truth (how to live and what one ought and ought not do), but it is the responsibility of the individual to form their conscience well in light of church teaching and live their lives accordingly (i.e., according to their well-informed conscience).


So a women who needs hormones for a health issue as you describe may certainly lawfully receive them and use them under church law for that specific health issue, but may not use them contraceptively or when they may promote an abortion. Personal conscience is paramount in this situation, because contraception or abortion b/c of the hormones cannot occur without sexual activity. Thus is is up to the woman to abstain from sex under these conditions (i.e. during fertility).

The Church will never sanction contraception by artificial means (if it did it would lose right to claim to be the repository of Truth and the Faith). Contraception necessarily involves the conjugal union of man and women otherwise their is nothing to contraceive. The Church promotes the health of all and would sanction the use of hormone therapy to treat a disease or other ailment resulting in improved health of the individual.

mesyn191
03-25-12, 11:35 PM
but 30billion / 300million = 100bux per capita for annual litigation/CYA practices?
that just seems a bit understated, dont you think?
If the amount of litigation and other legal issues truly haven't grown since the 80's, then it'd make sense for it not to. Outside of legal expenses what do you believe is driving healthcare costs?

mesyn191
03-26-12, 01:17 AM
I don't agree with your view.
Yea and I don't think you ever will either. Either I'm not explaining things properly or we've got a fundamental disagreement about what free speech and such are supposed to be, or a bit of column A and a bit of column B.

I'd say its likely the latter, but them I'm biased.

I will say its a damn shame that while we agree on other issues we can't agree on this and that you think I've been arguing dishonestly to some extent here too.

A few quibbles though:

I suggest you look up the IRS rules concerning exemptions related to religion. There very much are requirements.
There are (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html) but size and duration of existence aren't one of them. There are, believe it or not Atheist Churches which have apparently attained 501c3 status (http://www.atheists.org/content/501c3-statement), so they're recognized legally as a religion and not taxed either.


I could as easily say that you act like an atheistic supporter of communism because you seek to force companies to socialize baby murder.

I can then lawyer up and say that I wasn't calling you this, but the fact is that you would consider this an attack and rightfully so.
This actually isn't ridiculous at all to me and I wouldn't consider it a character attack per se. I would say its a gross misrepresentation of myself but many people have very strong beliefs about these issues so if you contradict those beliefs you come across as a communist baby killer to them. You can't discuss any thing with someone who hold their beliefs so high as that, so I just shrug and move on. Well, most of the time anyways.


You can believe what you want, but sheer logic dictates that the numbers noted in that study are improbable.
Your "debunking" is pretty much what I already said. If you think that debunks it then really isn't anything to talk about there. Though I'd note other studies done earlier had found the number to be closer to 80-70% depending on the study you looked at. To say contraceptive usage isn't ubiquitous is just silly with numbers like that.


Just because some Catholics lapse doesn't mean that you can force all of them to.

Just because you are a lapsed Catholic does not give you the right to force your practices (or lack thereof) on anyone else.
Its not about forcing Catholics to do anything per se, its about making sure everyone's rights and beliefs are respected and that everyone gets adequate healthcare.


that the United States is a heavily religious nation. Neither Civil Rights nor Women's Suffrage conflicts with this.
When the religion seeks to restrict or deny them important healthcare or control over their own bodies it sure does.


So once again, exactly how will things change?
I doubt they will, IMO we're probably screwed. The electoral system is essentially broken at this point, the only people who manage to become candidates for president are shit lords like Bush or Obama or Clinton or Romney. Simultaneously the political debate in the country has been very thoroughly poisoned by the very media that is supposed to be informing people. And lastly people in general have a "politics as sports" approach to voting and personal debate, they will always vote D or R to keep the "other guy out of office" when they should be voting on policy matters instead. Rational voters, even those who seriously try at least to be rational, basically don't exist.


So people marched. I think that's good, but still a far cry from what the Occupy people are doing.
The stuff the OWS guys are protesting will naturally attract more people since those issues are more clear cut at the moment.

mesyn191
03-26-12, 01:31 AM
I'm growing weary of hearing the crapola about a "war on women"
There has been some genuinely crappy laws that have been attempted to be passed by politicians of late, as long as that remains true you're going to continue hearing about it.

For instance:
Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception For Non-Medical Reasons (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html)

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions.
,,,,,,,,,,
Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

"The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."
They want to require a woman to submit her health records to her boss if she wants to have her employer pay for contraceptives. So much for privacy right?

Texas has pretty much shit canned their entire woman's health program too over the issue. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/texas-loses-entire-womens_n_1349431.html?ref=topbar)

The federal government pays for nearly 90 percent of Texas' $40 billion Women's Health Program, and nearly half of the program's providers in Texas are Planned Parenthood clinics. But the new law that went into effect earlier this month disqualified Planned Parenthood from participating in the program because some of its clinics provide abortions, even though no state or federal money can be used to pay for those abortions.

According to Medicaid law, Mann said, a state cannot restrict women's ability to choose a provider simply because that provider offers separate services -- in this case, abortion -- that aren’t even paid for by the Medicaid program.

Perry wrote a letter to President Obama earlier this month accusing his administration of "mandating which health providers the state of Texas must use" in order to "continue to support abortion providers like Planned Parenthood." He vowed to continue the Women's Health Program in Texas without Planned Parenthood and without federal money, although he has yet to outline how his state will come up with money.

Apparently women are to be blamed for accidentally being single parents as well. (http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/142161793.html%22) Oh, and by being single parents they're inherently abusing their children too on purpose, because they're evil or something I guess.

Senator Grothman claims there's an epidemic of single parenthood, and he's pointing a finger at women for it.

"There's been a huge change over the last 30 years, and a lot of that change has been the choice of women," said Senator Grothman.

The backlash has put his bill under a microscope. Specifically, it cites non-marital parenthood as a contributing factor in child abuse. The bill's co-sponsor, Representative Don Pridemore, told TODAY'S TMJ4 he thinks even in abusive relationships, there are other options than divorce.

"If they can refind those reasons and get back to why they got married in the first place it might help," said Representative Don Pridemore.

Health officials are firing back, saying while two parents might be ideal, it's not always a healthy reality.

Dr. Geoffrey Swain of the Milwaukee Health Department is also a professor at the UW-Madison. He says surrounding a child with an unhealthy marriage can lead to not only abuse, but depression and anxiety.

"To the contrary one of the risk factors for child abuse and neglect is poor quality of marriage," said Dr. Geoffrey Swain. "Marriage actually has nothing to do with it, it's the quality of the relationship that matters in terms of the child's health."
Note the part in bold ladies. The good senator firmly believes that even if he beats you should still stick with the marriage, just because he used to love you at some point in the past. How is that for some misogyny?

c1ue
03-26-12, 12:11 PM
Yea and I don't think you ever will either. Either I'm not explaining things properly or we've got a fundamental disagreement about what free speech and such are supposed to be, or a bit of column A and a bit of column B.

I'd say its likely the latter, but them I'm biased.

I will say its a damn shame that while we agree on other issues we can't agree on this and that you think I've been arguing dishonestly to some extent here too.

We have fundamentally different views: I've expressed several times that you seem to believe that an employer's payment of a benefit is in some way a fundamental right. What that benefit is, is irrelevant.

I, on the other hand, understand why a Catholic institution feels it cannot support the commission of a mortal sin.

Your view is that contraception is a fundamental right of women, not just the right to employ it but the right to have it be paid for by the employer.

I agree with the first part of the above sentence but I don't agree with the rest of it.


There are (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html) but size and duration of existence aren't one of them. There are, believe it or not Atheist Churches which have apparently attained 501c3 status (http://www.atheists.org/content/501c3-statement), so they're recognized legally as a religion and not taxed either.

I've never said Atheist Churches cannot exist.

What I've said is that the ploy you note is a gross misrepresentation, and is furthermore much more of an attack on another religion rather than the expression of a personal belief.

Simply stating that Atheists, formally recognized church or otherwise, exist does not equate with said individuals/institutions actively discriminating against Catholic employees. And if they did, there would be a mighty lawsuit.


This actually isn't ridiculous at all to me and I wouldn't consider it a character attack per se. I would say its a gross misrepresentation of myself but many people have very strong beliefs about these issues so if you contradict those beliefs you come across as a communist baby killer to them. You can't discuss any thing with someone who hold their beliefs so high as that, so I just shrug and move on. Well, most of the time anyways.

As I've said your statements were viewed as an attack, does this then change your view?


Your "debunking" is pretty much what I already said. If you think that debunks it then really isn't anything to talk about there. Though I'd note other studies done earlier had found the number to be closer to 80-70% depending on the study you looked at. To say contraceptive usage isn't ubiquitous is just silly with numbers like that.

The reality is that the 98% is a gross exaggeration.

And as I've said before, while I do believe many American Catholics do employ contraception, at the same time this reality still does not invalidate the beliefs and actions of the ones who do not ignore Catholic doctrine.

You're trying to say that since everyone is doing it, the Catholic institutions might as well do so also. And as I've said, the prevalence of adherence to a religious belief is irrelevant to individual practice.

I know Catholics who have undergone hysterectomies in order to not violate the ban on contraception after their 4th child. Yes, this is probably a violation as well, though no doubt couched in health terms (the person in question was 34 at the time).

I still consider your ongoing cavalier dismissal of Catholic's faith to be misguided and inappropriate.


Its not about forcing Catholics to do anything per se, its about making sure everyone's rights and beliefs are respected and that everyone gets adequate healthcare.

You've so far not in any way attempted to observe or respect the Catholic ban on contraception, thus far it is difficult for me to understand how you can say "everyone's rights and beliefs are respected".


When the religion seeks to restrict or deny them important healthcare or control over their own bodies it sure does.

You're still conflating health insurance coverage with denial.

You've still not answered the question on why these Catholic institutions are so bad in your view, but all the company's which don't offer health insurance at all are perfectly fine.

The net result of a judicial edict as what you want would be the institutions dropping all health care coverage.

How then does this meet your moral criteria?


Rational voters, even those who seriously try at least to be rational, basically don't exist.

I actually don't agree with this. From my view, most people - as in the vast majority - are rational.

The problem is most people don't spend a lot of time looking at the issues.

My view is that ultimately as bad as everything is, it isn't bad enough for people to focus enough attention to really resolve the problems. Or perhaps the economy is so bad that many people are far more focused on survival than theoretical changes due to politicians, much less the arcane actual FIRE machinations of government today.

LazyBoy
03-27-12, 01:40 AM
The Catholic Church is the repository of Truth including moral Truth (how to live and what one ought and ought not do), but it is the responsibility of the individual to form their conscience well in light of church teaching and live their lives accordingly (i.e., according to their well-informed conscience).



I, on the other hand, understand why a Catholic institution feels it cannot support the commission of a mortal sin.

OK. But there is a lot of immoral, mortal sinning going on. Why this issue?

Why don't we see the Church throw it's weight around on paying taxes that go to support unjust wars, or any wars? Thou shalt not kill, right? How about paying taxes to a government that executes people? How can upstanding supporters of the Church continue to finance any person or organization that lies, covets, steals or works on the sabbath?

Getting back to the economic aspects of the forum, let's get the Church to take on these:



Cheating –A cheater defrauds his victim of their property. It is morally of grave matter unless the damage to the victim is unusually light (CCC 2413).
Defrauding a worker of his wages—This is one of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. Defrauding a worker of his wages withholds and impedes his ability to sustain basic needs for himself and his family. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867).
Unfair wagers—Unfair wagers in games of chance are of grave matter if they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others (CCC 2413).
Taking advantage of the poor—The economic or social exploitation of the poor for profit harms the dignity and natural rights of the victim. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867).
False witness and perjury—False witness is a public statement in court contrary to the truth. Perjury is false witness under oath. Both acts are gravely sinful when they condemn the innocent, exonerate the guilty or increase punishment of the accused. They are of grave matter because they contradict justice (CCC 2476).
Lying—Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. It is gravely sinful when it significantly degrades the truth. The gravity of this sin is measured by the truth it perverts, the circumstances, intentions of the liar and harm done to the victims (CCC 2484). Lying is a sin that originates from the devil, Satan, who is "the father of all lies" (John 8:44).
Avarice—Avarice is greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit. It is a passion for riches and luxury. Those who seek temporal happiness at the expense of spiritual duties, risk the grave sin of avarice. Avarice is one of the deadly vices (CCC 2536).


(From http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html )

mesyn191
03-27-12, 03:04 AM
Your view is that contraception is a fundamental right of women, not just the right to employ it but the right to have it be paid for by the employer.
Actually I'd rather have a UHS or Medicare for All do it than the employer. Employer paid healthcare is a part of today's compensation and the issue at hand so I was arguing from that perspective.


I've never said Atheist Churches cannot exist.
True but you certainly did seem to be suggesting age and size of a religion has an effect on its legal existence.


What I've said is that the ploy you note is a gross misrepresentation, and is furthermore much more of an attack on another religion rather than the expression of a personal belief.
From my POV it isn't. I've explained why to the best of my ability which as noted before either isn't enough and/or we can't agree on the fundamentals of the issue.


As I've said your statements were viewed as an attack, does this then change your view?
No. Most people if you say something that contradicts their core beliefs often take personal offense but that doesn't mean offense was intended.


The reality is that the 98% is a gross exaggeration....You're trying to say that since everyone is doing it, the Catholic institutions might as well do so also....You've so far not in any way attempted to observe or respect the Catholic ban on contraception, thus far it is difficult for me to understand how you can say "everyone's rights and beliefs are respected".
Even if it is other numbers still show usage to be ubiquitous which was the originial point anyways. The latter point I wasn't aiming for. The point I was shooting for was since the usage is ubiquitous the laws should reflect society's expectations of having the contraceptives covered. Whether the Catholics liked it or not was their problem, after all Catholic law should only effect and apply to Catholics, which it still could since a change in their beliefs wasn't required.


I know Catholics who have undergone hysterectomies in order to not violate the ban on contraception after their 4th child. Yes, this is probably a violation as well, though no doubt couched in health terms (the person in question was 34 at the time).
People with extreme religious views such as this exist but are fairly rare in the US, most will take the contraceptives.


You've still not answered the question on why these Catholic institutions are so bad in your view, but all the company's which don't offer health insurance at all are perfectly fine.
Whether a company should offer health insurance at all is a different matter. I'd like them all to offer it of course but would rather prefer a UHS/Medicare for All/etc.


The net result of a judicial edict as what you want would be the institutions dropping all health care coverage. How then does this meet your moral criteria?
Depends on how they handled it. If they dropped health care coverage but raised wages appropriately to compensate for the difference I'd be fine with that.

If they dropped health care coverage but kept wages the same then yea I'd have a problem with that since they'd be screwing over their employees big time.

Nearly everyone wouldn't be able to afford health care coverage at all without the employer paying for it in part or fully. Morally I'd consider the employer to be the antagonist there since they'd decided to act like immature man children with their "all or nothing" stance and would hope employees would protest and vote in UHS/Medicare for All. Much more realistically I'd understand if and expect people to protest vote the mandate since they don't know or are misinformed about a UHS/Medicare for All. Most don't understand how broken our health care system is until they get sick and those that are already sick couldn't afford to go without coverage for long so that would be my "more realistic moral" choice under that scenario.


I actually don't agree with this. From my view, most people - as in the vast majority - are rational. The problem is most people don't spend a lot of time looking at the issues.
Yea that is just explaining why they aren't rational. They don't take the time to really examine the issues as you note, which to be fair does require LOTS of time since there is so much BS to wade through on top of complex issues, and come election time usually end up making decisions based on their "gut". Which of course is easily effected by emotions and marketing. Which is why you see the politicians almost exclusively focusing on the "optics" these days and routinely and shamelessly contradict themselves. They don't really care too much what they say anymore, almost no one calls them on their BS and when they do you have just as many pundits claiming the opposite, and anyways its more important how they look while saying it.


Or perhaps the economy is so bad that many people are far more focused on survival than theoretical changes due to politicians, much less the arcane actual FIRE machinations of government today.
There is real reason to believe that Americans today are much more self centered and narcissistic (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-2519593.html) than they were in the past unfortunately. I won't bother to defend that study too much if you disagree with it since that is difficult subject matter to study in a less than biased matter, but it does reflect what I've seen personally change in the past 10 years or so.

Raz
03-27-12, 09:35 AM
OK. But there is a lot of immoral, mortal sinning going on. Why this issue?

Why don't we see the Church throw it's weight around on paying taxes that go to support unjust wars, or any wars? Thou shalt not kill, right? How about paying taxes to a government that executes people? How can upstanding supporters of the Church continue to finance any person or organization that lies, covets, steals or works on the sabbath?

Getting back to the economic aspects of the forum, let's get the Church to take on these:

Cheating –A cheater defrauds his victim of their property. It is morally of grave matter unless the damage to the victim is unusually light (CCC 2413).
Defrauding a worker of his wages—This is one of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. Defrauding a worker of his wages withholds and impedes his ability to sustain basic needs for himself and his family. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867).
Unfair wagers—Unfair wagers in games of chance are of grave matter if they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others (CCC 2413).
Taking advantage of the poor—The economic or social exploitation of the poor for profit harms the dignity and natural rights of the victim. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867).
False witness and perjury—False witness is a public statement in court contrary to the truth. Perjury is false witness under oath. Both acts are gravely sinful when they condemn the innocent, exonerate the guilty or increase punishment of the accused. They are of grave matter because they contradict justice (CCC 2476).
Lying—Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. It is gravely sinful when it significantly degrades the truth. The gravity of this sin is measured by the truth it perverts, the circumstances, intentions of the liar and harm done to the victims (CCC 2484). Lying is a sin that originates from the devil, Satan, who is "the father of all lies" (John 8:44).
Avarice—Avarice is greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit. It is a passion for riches and luxury. Those who seek temporal happiness at the expense of spiritual duties, risk the grave sin of avarice. Avarice is one of the deadly vices (CCC 2536).
(From http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html )


Why this issue?

Because it is the issue in question.

The Roman church is not being told that it must use its financial resources to subsidize lying. Or to cheat people out of their property. Or paying someone to lie under oath.
IIRC the American bishops and the Vatican opposed "Dubya's" Messinpotamia during 2003 as an unjust war. And they have spoken out numerous times against what they perceive to be
an unfair distribution of wealth in American society.

Perhaps you should do a little more investigation before you attempt to shift the argument.

And a "little knowledge of theology" is as dangerous as a "little knowledge of medicine ". "Thou shalt not kill" in context has always been understood as "Though shalt do no murder".
ALL killing is not murder just as all sex is not rape. Even secular law recognizes justifiable homicide in cases of self-defence.

The Sacred Scriptures clearly contain the concept of "blloodguilt". Read Deuteronomy.

jiimbergin
03-27-12, 10:48 AM
Why this issue?

Because it is the issue in question.

The Roman church is not being told that it must use its financial resources to subsidize lying. Or to cheat people out of their property. Or paying someone to lie under oath.
IIRC the American bishops and the Vatican opposed "Dubya's" Messinpotamia during 2003 as an unjust war. And they have spoken out numerous times against what they perceive to be
an unfair distribution of wealth in American society.

Perhaps you should do a little more investigation before you attempt to shift the argument.

And a "little knowledge of theology" is as dangerous as a "little knowledge of medicine ". "Thou shalt not kill" in context has always been understood as "Though shalt do no murder".
ALL killing is not murder just as all sex is not rape. Even secular law recognizes justifiable homicide in cases of self-defence.

The Sacred Scriptures clearly contain the concept of "blloodguilt". Read Deuteronomy.



Exactly!

c1ue
03-27-12, 12:28 PM
Why don't we see the Church throw it's weight around on paying taxes that go to support unjust wars, or any wars? Thou shalt not kill, right?

There are so many problems with this statement that it would take a long time to list them all.

A few quick ones:

1) The Catholic church doesn't pay income taxes. They're non-profits in the US. They certainly pay some other taxes like property taxes and sales taxes, but I think even you won't try and argue that these play into war and what not.

2) As part of their tax exempt status, they are prohibited from trying to influence legislation. It is unclear to me how strongly this prohibition is enforced given what I see in the environmental arena, but nonetheless.

3) Even were the Catholic church required to pay income taxes or any other tax directly related to general government expenditures, which in turn feed into war and what not, Catholics and other Christians are bound to 'render unto Caesar'.

4) The Catholic church thinks war in general is bad today, but hasn't always been this way. A quick glance at the history books shows this to be true. There is no Catholic dogma against war, unlike contraception and onanism - which are similar violations.

Other points, Raz has noted, but there are plenty more beyond that.


Actually I'd rather have a UHS or Medicare for All do it than the employer. Employer paid healthcare is a part of today's compensation and the issue at hand so I was arguing from that perspective.

So if I understand you correctly, your stand is that since employer paid health insurance (not health care) is part of today's compensation (different than when in the past 60 years?), that an employer choosing not to pay for health insurance coverage for contraception due to religious reasons is discrimination against women.

Yet if the employer chooses not to offer health insurance for financial reasons, then there is no discrimination?

What about if the employer chooses not to offer health insurance which covers contraception for financial reasons, is this also discrimination?

I agree that some form of national health care providing should be created as a public good in the US, but I don't see how beating up on Catholic organizations as employers in any way furthers this goal.


True but you certainly did seem to be suggesting age and size of a religion has an effect on its legal existence.

You're again inferring something which is wrong. I specifically wrote that there are requirements for a legally recognized religion, and pointed toward the IRS as a concrete example.


From my POV it isn't. I've explained why to the best of my ability which as noted before either isn't enough and/or we can't agree on the fundamentals of the issue.

Your opinion is quite clear.

However, your opinion is in direct contradiction to US law as well as the Golden Rule.


No. Most people if you say something that contradicts their core beliefs often take personal offense but that doesn't mean offense was intended.

Nice attempt to reorient. You still refuse to admit that
a) You attempted to put words in my mouth
b) The beliefs you attempted to assign to me was wrong
c) The combination of the above was offensive

Very well, clearly you can say whatever you feel like and find justification for it.


Even if it is other numbers still show usage to be ubiquitous which was the originial point anyways. The latter point I wasn't aiming for. The point I was shooting for was since the usage is ubiquitous the laws should reflect society's expectations of having the contraceptives covered. Whether the Catholics liked it or not was their problem, after all Catholic law should only effect and apply to Catholics, which it still could since a change in their beliefs wasn't required.

Again you attempt to invoke consensus.

And again, I completely, categorically disagree. According to you, we should all conform legally to societal consensus.

By this belief, the Union had no right to provoke the Civil War over slavery. The consensus in the South was quite clear, to the point where that region attempted secession in order to be able to continue its societal consensus.

Equally so can a multitude of other examples be found where the consensus is wrong, yet actions were undertaken under this false umbrella.

You also are still refusing to address the point that religious belief and practices are specifically protected under US law and the Constitution, in contrast which health insurance payments for contraception are not.


People with extreme religious views such as this exist but are fairly rare in the US, most will take the contraceptives.

Rare or not, they exist. I don't personally think they are as rare as you seem to believe, but frankly neither of our opinions on this matter. The practices of the devout are protected under US law and the Constitution.

You're again attempting to invoke consensus to justify getting your own way, with the assumption that your way is representing the consensus.


Whether a company should offer health insurance at all is a different matter. I'd like them all to offer it of course but would rather prefer a UHS/Medicare for All/etc.

So you've answered the question. If the Catholic organizations just stop offering health insurance at all, then no problem.

I'm sure their employees will all appreciate that.


Depends on how they handled it. If they dropped health care coverage but raised wages appropriately to compensate for the difference I'd be fine with that.

If they dropped health care coverage but kept wages the same then yea I'd have a problem with that since they'd be screwing over their employees big time.

And what exactly is illegal about that?

Employees do get screwed, all the time, over all sorts of things. You may have a problem with that, but ultimately it is the employer's prerogative, just as the employees have the prerogative to walk away.

Employers get screwed too. Employees may show up drunk, may quit with no notice to go somewhere else, may steal, may be lazy, etc etc.

To say all employers are always wrong is itself wrong.


Nearly everyone wouldn't be able to afford health care coverage at all without the employer paying for it in part or fully. Morally I'd consider the employer to be the antagonist there since they'd decided to act like immature man children with their "all or nothing" stance and would hope employees would protest and vote in UHS/Medicare for All. Much more realistically I'd understand if and expect people to protest vote the mandate since they don't know or are misinformed about a UHS/Medicare for All. Most don't understand how broken our health care system is until they get sick and those that are already sick couldn't afford to go without coverage for long so that would be my "more realistic moral" choice under that scenario.

No, morally the antagonist here is you.

The employer is seeking to offer a benefit excluding only a specific portion which said employer finds objectionable. Health care is a large expense as well as a bureaucratic headache.

You are seeking not only to take what the employer is offering on good faith, but to force additional concessions.

As an employer in such a situation, the temptation to just fix the problem exactly through the most expedient solution (dropping health insurance coverage) would be tremendous. I'd then point out to all the employees just who created this situation, and let 'consensus' work itself out.


There is real reason to believe that Americans today are much more self centered and narcissistic (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-2519593.html) than they were in the past unfortunately. I won't bother to defend that study too much if you disagree with it since that is difficult subject matter to study in a less than biased matter, but it does reflect what I've seen personally change in the past 10 years or so.

As someone who is interested in the past, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Americans of the 'Manifest Destiny' era, of the 'Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick' era, of 'Over There', and so forth were so much more noble.

I guess you prefer blatant nationalism to lotus eating.

mesyn191
03-27-12, 02:28 PM
Yet if the employer chooses not to offer health insurance for financial reasons, then there is no discrimination? What about if the employer chooses not to offer health insurance which covers contraception for financial reasons, is this also discrimination?
If they're going to offer health care coverage they should offer the whole deal unless there is some sort of financial issue there. But this isn't a financial issue at all.


You're again inferring something which is wrong. I specifically wrote that there are requirements for a legally recognized religion, and pointed toward the IRS as a concrete example.
No before that you said this: "Catholicism is a long standing religion accepted all over the world" as if that meant anything vs my "bogus religion" in my example using an atheist employer pushing his beliefs on others.


However, your opinion is in direct contradiction to US law as well as the Golden Rule.
Perhaps. We'll see what the SCOTUS says and later on what happens with the voters and if they decide to have a say on this issue.


Very well, clearly you can say whatever you feel like and find justification for it.
No, that is your claim, I already told you that wasn't my intent. If you want to read intent despite my explanation that is your problem.


And again, I completely, categorically disagree. According to you, we should all conform legally to societal consensus. By this belief, the Union had no right to provoke the Civil War over slavery. Equally so can a multitude of other examples be found where the consensus is wrong, yet actions were undertaken under this false umbrella.
Society often isn't right, slavery would be a better example than the South's secession IMO, but for better or worse society changes the laws to reflect its beliefs as a whole. If a majority of society wants something for long enough they'll probably get it, you don't have to like it or even agree with it, I sure don't much of the time but I will continue to invoke it. Prop 8 in CA for instance is a pretty terrible law IMO, but it passed...and eventually got shot down by the courts.


You also are still refusing to address the point that religious belief and practices are specifically protected under US law and the Constitution, in contrast which health insurance payments for contraception are not.
I've already addressed this by saying its inherently a form of discrimination against women and projecting their beliefs on to others when Catholic organizations decide not to pay for contraceptives, which you've disagreed with for reasons that have already been hashed over, there isn't anything more to talk about there since I think its pretty clear by now we're not going to agree.


with the assumption that your way is representing the consensus.
Except I've pointed out polls and studies, which you refuse to accept, in particular the former so I haven't posted one but have noted them, which strongly suggest a consensus. You can certainly disagree with me or even entirely reject any proof I present but its not really correct to say I'm trying to argue from assumption.


So you've answered the question. If the Catholic organizations just stop offering health insurance at all, then no problem.
If there was a UHS/Medicare for All or they paid more to compensate for the lack of health care coverage then sure.


And what exactly is illegal about that?
Its not illegal but definitely immoral if done for solely religious beliefs or to improve profits when the company is already making money. Employees and employers do get screwed over all the time for lots of things but in that latter situation I was referring to the employer would clearly be in the wrong. I don't know where you're getting, "To say all employers are always wrong is itself wrong." from. You're uh, reading my posts in a very odd way I think.


As an employer in such a situation, the temptation to just fix the problem exactly through the most expedient solution (dropping health insurance coverage) would be tremendous. I'd then point out to all the employees just who created this situation, and let 'consensus' work itself out.
"He is the bad guy, blame him not me!" probably wouldn't go over as well as you'd think it might since everyone would know you'd canned the health care coverage just because you couldn't deal with a perceived slight upon your beliefs.


As someone who is interested in the past, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Americans of the 'Manifest Destiny' era, of the 'Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick' era, of 'Over There', and so forth were so much more noble.
Well I mentioned, "seen personally change in the past 10 years or so" for a good reason so I'm not sure why you're going back that far. I wasn't alive back then to see how things personally were you know.

LazyBoy
03-27-12, 03:23 PM
Well, my shots at The Church came late in the evening and I don't really stand by them. And you're right that I have a (very!) "little knowledge of theology". I don't really care to get any more.

But c1ue's earlier thoughts on "not paying != denial of rights" already had me (mostly) on the side of the Good Christians in this one. So I wasn't really shifting the argument as much as asking a related question.

Why does it seem like the Christian Right is always more eager to do battle over issues like contraception and gay marriage than other (mortal) sins? OK. So some Bishops and the Vatican opposed an unjust war, once. Did they rile up their flocks? I don't remember hearing about it. Did they tell their followers to take to the streets? To write their congress critters? To not fund it through taxes? (Oh yeah, there's an excuse for that one, the render unto Caesar thing.) Why wasn't Fox News spreading the word that it was unjust?


And yes, c1ue, even I know churches don't pay taxes. It was sloppy writing. Thanks for the laser focus on that.

lektrode
03-27-12, 03:39 PM
If the amount of litigation and other legal issues truly haven't grown since the 80's, then it'd make sense for it not to. Outside of legal expenses what do you believe is driving healthcare costs?

assuming thats true - besides CYA?
the insurers getting as far out in front of the coming wave of utilization/claims as possible?
gouging for anything/everything they can get away with?
getting over-run by large group claimants which they offer lowball rates to, and then cover costs on by overcharging everybody else/individuals? (that dont have 'group buying power')

what galls me is how little i utilize the plan thats now costing me nearly 6grand/year and being declined for a cheaper/less-covered/catastrophic plan - as if to suggest to me that they dont want to let people in otherwise good health/low utilization off the hook - but i bet they will once they get swamped - too bad (for me) that will be after i've been drained dry for something that i seldom use and when i do need something, the copays are prohibitively expensive (like 1500 'copay' for a ct scan?) so i gamble and do without em (x fingers, so far)

and THEN, if you do go in every time you have some issue, that is then used against you, far as premium rates ?
(which has already been done: 'sorry, you came in to the clinic 5times last year, so you dont qualify for that plan')

this is 'no way to run an airline' in my observation, in that if the treatment suggested req's something as commonplace as a ct scan is these daze - how does it help me or them by nailing me with a 1500copay - on top of the nearly 6grand i'm already paying? on top of the 4000max supplemental chgs, or 10grand out of pocket 1st time anything major happens - so i dont get the ct scan and then my condition dramatically worsens? (which thankfully didnt happen) - how does that help either party?

and then theres all the mandated politically correkt coverages, prev mentioned

and how about the biggie: BECAUSE THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, as there simply is no mechanism to enable any form of competition (pricing comparison)

jiimbergin
03-27-12, 04:20 PM
Why does it seem like the Christian Right is always more eager to do battle over issues like contraception and gay marriage than other (mortal) sins? OK. So some Bishops and the Vatican opposed an unjust war, once. Did they rile up their flocks? I don't remember hearing about it. Did they tell their followers to take to the streets? To write their congress critters? To not fund it through taxes? (Oh yeah, there's an excuse for that one, the render unto Caesar thing.) Why wasn't Fox News spreading the word that it was unjust?


Lazyboy, this paragraph seems strange based on your signature :Labeling something as left/right/-ism/-ist means you don't have to think critically!

Raz
03-27-12, 04:23 PM
Well, my shots at The Church came late in the evening and I don't really stand by them. And you're right that I have a (very!) "little knowledge of theology". I don't really care to get any more.

But c1ue's earlier thoughts on "not paying != denial of rights" already had me (mostly) on the side of the Good Christians in this one. So I wasn't really shifting the argument as much as asking a related question.

Why does it seem like the Christian Right is always more eager to do battle over issues like contraception and gay marriage than other (mortal) sins? OK. So some Bishops and the Vatican opposed an unjust war, once. Did they rile up their flocks? I don't remember hearing about it. Did they tell their followers to take to the streets? To write their congress critters? To not fund it through taxes? (Oh yeah, there's an excuse for that one, the render unto Caesar thing.) Why wasn't Fox News spreading the word that it was unjust?


And yes, c1ue, even I know churches don't pay taxes. It was sloppy writing. Thanks for the laser focus on that.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your question as "shifting".

Society at large is not claiming that greed is okay, or that cheating people out of their wages is perfectly acceptable. But fornication has practically become a national badge of "enlightenment" and huge sections of American society have apparently lost all sense of shame. So the church is defending those parts of traditional christian morality that are under direct attack by almost everyone from psychiatrists to journalists to special interest groups like the homosexualist lobby.

Fox News? They're owned, operated and empowered by the NeoCons, so what should we expect? These idiots have traded our republic for an empire and now have such arrogance and vested interest that they WILL not see the part it plays in ruining the United States.

A large part of the Christian Right is made up of non-denominational christians who are far removed from the full Orthodox and catholic Faith and are somewhat selective in their focus. But I deem that far less offensive than the mainstream Protestant apostates who actually sanction the mass murder of the preborn through procured abortion.

Christ had much to say about the poor and we ignore them at our peril.

jiimbergin
03-27-12, 04:30 PM
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your question as "shifting".

Society at large is not claiming that greed is okay, or that cheating people out of their wages is perfectly acceptable. But fornication has practically become a national badge of "enlightenment" and huge sections of American society have apparently lost all sense of shame. So the church is defending those parts of traditional christian morality that are under direct attack by almost everyone from psychiatrists to journalists to special interest groups like the homosexualist lobby.

Fox News? They're owned, operated and empowered by the NeoCons, so what should we expect? These idiots have traded our republic for an empire and now have such arrogance and vested interest that they WILL not see the part it plays in ruining the United States.

A large part of the Christian Right is made up of non-denominational christians who are far removed from the full Orthodox and catholic Faith and are somewhat selective in their focus. But I deem that far less offensive than the mainstream Protestant apostates who actually sanction the mass murder of the preborn through procured abortion.

Christ had much to say about the poor and we ignore them at our peril.


Raz, thanks again for your post. We appear to think so much alike you would think I was Orthodox. Actually I am Missouri Synod Lutheran, about as close to Roman Catholic you can get without being one.

shiny!
03-27-12, 04:45 PM
assuming thats true - besides CYA?
the insurers getting as far out in front of the coming wave of utilization/claims as possible?
gouging for anything/everything they can get away with?
getting over-run by large group claimants which they offer lowball rates to, and then cover costs on by overcharging everybody else/individuals? (that dont have 'group buying power')

what galls me is how little i utilize the plan thats now costing me nearly 6grand/year and being declined for a cheaper/less-covered/catastrophic plan - as if to suggest to me that they dont want to let people in otherwise good health/low utilization off the hook - but i bet they will once they get swamped - too bad (for me) that will be after i've been drained dry for something that i seldom use and when i do need something, the copays are prohibitively expensive (like 1500 'copay' for a ct scan?) so i gamble and do without em (x fingers, so far)

and THEN, if you do go in every time you have some issue, that is then used against you, far as premium rates ?
(which has already been done: 'sorry, you came in to the clinic 5times last year, so you dont qualify for that plan')

this is 'no way to run an airline' in my observation, in that if the treatment suggested req's something as commonplace as a ct scan is these daze - how does it help me or them by nailing me with a 1500copay - on top of the nearly 6grand i'm already paying? on top of the 4000max supplemental chgs, or 10grand out of pocket 1st time anything major happens - so i dont get the ct scan and then my condition dramatically worsens? (which thankfully didnt happen) - how does that help either party?

and then theres all the mandated politically correkt coverages, prev mentioned

and how about the biggie: BECAUSE THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, as there simply is no mechanism to enable any form of competition (pricing comparison)

I'm in the same leaky boat you are. $344/month for COBRA. I still have to pay the first $1250 out of pocket 100%, even doctor office visits and lab tests. Need a test or a procedure? Where's my up-front pricing before I schedule it?

Last year I called the insurance company before having a thyroid biopsy to learn all the charges beforehand: hospital, pathology, doctor fees... The representative "read the procedure code wrong" and failed to tell me about the huge charges from "Radiology". I found out about it months later when I got the bill.

If I have a problem now I'm likely to let it get real bad in the hope it gets better on its own.

Raz
03-27-12, 04:52 PM
Raz, thanks again for your post. We appear to think so much alike you would think I was Orthodox. Actually I am Missouri Synod Lutheran, about as close to Roman Catholic you can get without being one.

Actually, jiim, if you're Lutheran (and I don't confuse the LCMS with your heretical "brethren" in ELCA) you're far closer theologically to Orthodoxy than Rome!

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/lutheran_colloquium

Although Luther himself never had the chance, Martin Chemnitz, Phillip Melanchthon and some others made contact with the Eastern Church and found much agreement. Sadly they weren't able to agree on some points and the communications ended.

http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/lutheran.htm

jiimbergin
03-27-12, 05:58 PM
Actually, jiim, if you're Lutheran (and I don't confuse the LCMS with your heretical "brethren" in ELCA) you're far closer theologically to Orthodoxy than Rome!

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/lutheran_colloquium

Although Luther himself never had the chance, Martin Chemnitz, Phillip Melanchthon and some others made contact with the Eastern Church and found much agreement. Sadly they weren't able to agree on some points and the communications ended.

http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/lutheran.htm



Raz, thanks for the information. I did know that Melanchton had made contact with the Eastern Church, but that was all I knew. And yes it is realy sad what has happened to the ELCA over the past 20 years or so.

mesyn191
03-27-12, 08:23 PM
the insurers getting as far out in front of the coming wave of utilization/claims as possible?
gouging for anything/everything they can get away with?
getting over-run by large group claimants which they offer lowball rates to, and then cover costs on by overcharging everybody else/individuals? (that dont have 'group buying power')
AFAIK pretty much what you say here is what is driving the costs.

FWIW in theory Obamacare was supposed to fix or at least blunt the worst of this by mandating that insurance companies spend 80-85% of all the money (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/) they take in on actual medical coverage (aka medical loss ratio) rather than over head and profits. Which sounds pretty good at first but once you start digging around the point is largely moot: in 2008 (note table 15) the average medical loss ratio was already 87-82% (http://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf) depending on whose numbers you look at. This won't have hardly any effect at all on insurance companies profits or the insurance coverage cost to the end individual such as you or myself. I've read elsewhere, but can't find a good source so I'd understand if you disregard this, overseas the MLR is 90% or more. The Obamacare bill is loaded with stuff like this, in theory lots of it sounds good, in practice it really doesn't do much at all to improve the situation while still allowing health care costs to continue to climb.

But then that is what happens if you require every one to get insurance without also fixing the costs too. The worst of both worlds.


i've been drained dry for something that i seldom use and when i do need something, the copays are prohibitively expensive (like 1500 'copay' for a ct scan?) so i gamble and do without em (x fingers, so far)
Doesn't surprise me. 62% of all bankruptcies are due to high health care costs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf), 75% of those who went bankrupt due to medical costs had insurance too. The awful truth is that as expensive as the insurance is half the time when you really do need it for something big they'll deny coverage in part or fully and you end up getting screwed.

aaron
03-28-12, 12:59 AM
Does health insurance pay for condoms? As far as I know, the answer is no. Why should women be afforded special rights?

You want to force Catholics to commit sins? While I think they are a crazy lot, their right to be insane is enshrined in the Constitution.

Insurance companies tend to pay for birth control because it is a heck of a lot cheaper than maternity care; plus there will be an extra family member to take care of. The State encourages the use of birth control / abortion because it costs a lot of money to take care of unwanted children. They will also have a higher chance of needing state support all of their lives (in prison, for example).

c1ue
03-28-12, 12:21 PM
I don't know where you're getting, "To say all employers are always wrong is itself wrong." from. You're uh, reading my posts in a very odd way I think.

I get this impression from your ongoing pattern of laying all blame at the foot of the employer. Perhaps it is just this issue, but I don't see any cognizance of the positive that employers bring to this situation.

The reality is that in this present environment of high unemployment, any benefits offered by an employer can be abrogated because employees have far less choice. A truly bottom line seeking employer would be constantly considering the dropping of benefits.

An employer who chooses to stay on the high expense bandwagon of offering health insurance for employees is doing so for the employee's benefit, not their own. Certainly some employers choose to offer health insurance because they feel it benefits employees, who in turn will be better employees.

Were we in a 4% unemployment situation, then the tables would be turned. The employer is offering the benefits in the hopes of retaining/attracting employees.

The point I'm trying to make is that attacking a good faith (so to speak) extension of health insurance by an employer because it doesn't offer everything any possible employee would want is quite one sided.

I've said before, and I say again, that the premise for your attack is flawed as follows:

1) There is no legal requirement that employers pay for health insurance coverage whatsover, much less health insurance coverage of contraception

2) Failure to pay health insurance is not the same as discrimination. You are saying that because the basis for this failure to pay is religious (as opposed to financial), therefore it is discrimination, when in fact if 1) was true, it would mean any employer who fails to pay for health insurance coverage of contraception is discriminating against women.

I'd further note that motive does matter as racial discrimination laws demonstrate, but the problem is that there is no law concerning contraception being broken while there are laws against racial discrimination in employment.

Thus the substance of your argument is that you feel there is some societal obligation for employers to support contraception, even though significant parts of the same society are adamantly against it. That your view of society is prevalent over these other's.

Consensus, even were it to exist on this issue, has no place in American society, at least not the American society described by the Constitution.

I remind you again that we are all theoretically enabled to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the laws we pass are to enable everyone to attain this to the extent feasible under conflicting agendas.

This doesn't mean everyone gets everything they want, how they want it, when they want it.


"He is the bad guy, blame him not me!" probably wouldn't go over as well as you'd think it might since everyone would know you'd canned the health care coverage just because you couldn't deal with a perceived slight upon your beliefs.

As an employer, I can tell you from personal experience that people focus on the one who rocked the boat.

You're trying to say that somehow most employees will focus on the moral inflexibility of the employer, when a particular employee is the specific and proximate cause of them losing thousands of dollars in health insurance benefits because of said employee's inflexibility over something which costs perhaps $200 or $300 a year according to birthcontrol.com


Why does it seem like the Christian Right is always more eager to do battle over issues like contraception and gay marriage than other (mortal) sins?

My view is that it is a flagship problem, much like 'terrorism' is the flagship problem for the US government today.

I also think that most religions, even Catholicism, are more focused on personal belief and action. Gay rights and contraception are brought to the fore in no small part due to the frenetic activity of gay rights activists and pro-abortion (and pro-life) activists in the legal arena.

If you look at it objectively, gay rights and contraception are all linked to the same issue (in opposition) in Catholicism: original sin, with later examples of Soddom and Gomorrah, etc etc.

There are good points in what the Catholic Church says regarding lascivousness, but equally I find abhorrent the persecution of women entering abortion clinics.

mesyn191
03-29-12, 01:02 AM
Does health insurance pay for condoms? As far as I know, the answer is no. Why should women be afforded special rights?
AFAIK they don't but should given how cheap they are and their function. I too think its silly that women should get their contraceptives paid for but not men.


You want to force Catholics to commit sins?
They wouldn't be committing sin here. FWIW the church appears to be OK this idea so long as its couched in silly semantics (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIRTH_CONTROL_POLITICS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-10-10-12-15):

"All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services," the official said. "The insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge," if the employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefit package.

both Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, issued statements Friday morning applauding the compromise (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/both-catholic-health-assn-and-planned-parenthood-say-theyre-pleased-with-contraception-rule-announcement/)
Note the insurance costs would go up accordingly to adjust for this so this wouldn't really be "free" at all, the church would still end up effectively paying for contraceptives, just not directly to save face.

edit: Stumbled across this too recently, seems like it might apply here but IANAL:


"It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."
This particular section was written by Scalia who isn't anywhere near a liberal BTW.

mesyn191
03-29-12, 01:38 AM
I get this impression from your ongoing pattern of laying all blame at the foot of the employer.
OK fair enough I guess. I do tend to rail on employers on these forums, but not because they're "always wrong", its over specific issues.


The point I'm trying to make is that attacking a good faith (so to speak) extension of health insurance by an employer because it doesn't offer everything any possible employee would want is quite one sided.
But contraceptives are widely used...I'm not arguing for something like penis enlargements or whatever to get covered.


Thus the substance of your argument is that you feel there is some societal obligation for employers to support contraception, even though significant parts of the same society are adamantly against it. That your view of society is prevalent over these other's.
There are some who will be against most anything at any time, but current polls show that a large majority exists for having contraceptives covered irregardless of what the employer's beliefs are. Even among Catholics. I know you don't accept polls, but I and most others do, so we're not going to agree on this.


Consensus, even were it to exist on this issue, has no place in American society, at least not the American society described by the Constitution.
So voting isn't a way of society to demonstrate its consensus on a given subject? Yea they're voting for people as representatives...who back and will supposedly implement their ideas


As an employer, I can tell you from personal experience that people focus on the one who rocked the boat.
As an employee I can tell you from personal experience, after having watched several nurses' strikes over the years on things such as "mere" 15 minute breaks, the employer would be viewed as the one who rocked the boat here. edit: Some food for thought:
http://i.imgur.com/3GbrU.png (http://imgur.com/3GbrU)

c1ue
03-29-12, 03:23 PM
There are some who will be against most anything at any time, but current polls show that a large majority exists for having contraceptives covered irregardless of what the employer's beliefs are.

I am still waiting to see you explain how to reconcile the open expression of religious belief - a practice explicitly protected by the Constitution and American law, in this case concerning the unwillingness to pay for health insurance coverage of contraception, with what the majority wants.

If the majority is truly of the opinion you are stating, there are plenty of avenues for change - including modification of the Constitution by an amendment to subjugate religious expression to the will of the majority.

I personally do not see this type of effort going anywhere, thus indicating that the majority opinion you're espousing is nowhere as strong as you think it is.

Be that as it may, since there are plenty of perfectly legal ways by which to bring about change of the fundamental problem: i.e. the primacy of the majority vs. the legal rights of religious expression.


So voting isn't a way of society to demonstrate its consensus on a given subject? Yea they're voting for people as representatives...who back and will supposedly implement their ideas

I'd think that observing the progress of voting in the past 20 years, whether at the Presidential, Congressional, state, or whatever level would have made it quite clear just how powerful the 'consensus' is. Or isn't.


As an employee I can tell you from personal experience, after having watched several nurses' strikes over the years on things such as "mere" 15 minute breaks, the employer would be viewed as the one who rocked the boat here.

I think the nurse's union is doing what it feels is right; this does not guarantee that what it does is actually right nor that the employer must agree.

If the nurses have the power to force the employer to change via strike, then that is exactly the balance of power in employer/employee relations and I have no issue with that.

Unfortunately most employees don't have legal and certification barriers to entry protecting them like nurses do, thus the employer/employee relationship is far more one sided.

If the employees - female or otherwise - of said Catholic institutions feel strongly enough on this health insurance coverage of contraception issue to stage a strike, they are perfectly entitled to do so. Once again the consensus is irrelevant; the employees even in your own words thus have some ability to influence the employer.

mesyn191
03-29-12, 05:59 PM
I am still waiting to see you explain how to reconcile the open expression of religious belief - a practice explicitly protected by the Constitution and American law, in this case concerning the unwillingness to pay for health insurance coverage of contraception, with what the majority wants.
Take a look at the SCOTUS quote I posted above in reply to aaron. Essentially in that case and others previous it was decided that open expression of religious belief is protected only up to a certain extent, where those beliefs conflict with others and with the laws of the US they can and will be over ridden so long as the law applies to everyone and doesn't single out specific religions. More context if you like from the same case, note the parts in bold particularly:


We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. . .

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said. . .are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.


If the majority is truly of the opinion you are stating, there are plenty of avenues for change - including modification of the Constitution by an amendment to subjugate religious expression to the will of the majority. I personally do not see this type of effort going anywhere, thus indicating that the majority opinion you're espousing is nowhere as strong as you think it is.
Constitutional amendments are very difficult to do to say the least, you're placing the bar unnecessarily high. Being a student of history you know well and good that change doesn't always come easy or quick too. Look how long labor had to fight to get the 40 hour work week for instance or women had to march and rally to get the right to vote. For better or for worse our government and laws are relatively slow to change compared to society.


I'd think that observing the progress of voting in the past 20 years, whether at the Presidential, Congressional, state, or whatever level would have made it quite clear just how powerful the 'consensus' is. Or isn't.
If a given system is corrupted to the point of being effectively broken then yea surprise surprise you won't see the will of the majority or even minority respected, only the select special few get their views represented.


I think the nurse's union is doing what it feels is right; this does not guarantee that what it does is actually right nor that the employer must agree.
Meh, you're shifting goal posts here over to another topic entirely. I never said that the employees are not able to influence their employers either BTW.

c1ue
03-30-12, 11:37 AM
Take a look at the SCOTUS quote I posted above in reply to aaron. Essentially in that case and others previous it was decided that open expression of religious belief is protected only up to a certain extent, where those beliefs conflict with others and with the laws of the US they can and will be over ridden so long as the law applies to everyone and doesn't single out specific religions.

The problem with what you are quoting is you are attempting to read into it what you want, as oppose to what it says.

As I alluded to before, no religious person can impose their belief on another person. However, there is no such imposition in this case.

To argue that lack of payment for health insurance cover of contraception is imposition of belief is very weak, because the fundamental right to contraception is not being violated.

If in fact contraception was a very expensive affair like hospitalization, an economic argument could then be used, though there would be first a bar where the necessity of the employer to provide said benefit would first have to be demonstrated as well, which then leads to whether said benefit is a legislated right: there is no law anywhere or precedent I am aware of which states that employers must pay for health insurance coverage for contraception.

While contraception for females does cost money, it doesn't cost any more than say the difference in annual spending between driving a gigantic SUV or a passenger car.


Constitutional amendments are very difficult to do to say the least, you're placing the bar unnecessarily high. Being a student of history you know well and good that change doesn't always come easy or quick too. Look how long labor had to fight to get the 40 hour work week for instance or women had to march and rally to get the right to vote. For better or for worse our government and laws are relatively slow to change compared to society.

I agree, the bar is high, but the problem with your other examples is that none of them were explicitly spelled out - either way - in the Constitution.

Freedom of religion is.

Therefore attempts to violate even personal expression of religion both in belief and in practice, especially in the context of government mandated positive action (as opposed to negative action which not paying for health insurance coverage of contraception is) should require such a high bar.

I further note that women's right to suffrage was put into the Constitution as the 19th amendment, and the 24th amendment was passed in response to widespread economic discrimination against African Americans voting, thus clearly the mechanism for modifying the Constitution can and does work.


Meh, you're shifting goal posts here over to another topic entirely. I never said that the employees are not able to influence their employers either BTW.

It is interesting you think so. In your nurse's unions view, some number of 15 minute breaks is worth striking over. How many breaks was this? And what was the actual out of pocket cost equivalent in say, average pay per hour per nurse, per year?

The example I saw in Texas was regarding a paid 15 minute break for every 4 hours worked. Assuming $35/hr and 2000 hours/year - these breaks amount to over $4000 per nurse per year (2000 / 4 / 4 * 35). If this estimate is true, then it is quite understandable why nurses would strike.

The cost of birth control pills as I've noted before is not $1000 a year, it seems closer to $300 and as low as $200, and furthermore it seems well established that the Catholic Church doesn't prohibit the use of birth control pills entirely, it only prohibits their use for contraception.

Thus it seems the focus of this disagreement is entirely over whether Catholic employers should be forced to pay for health insurance coverage of contraception specifically for those women who are in direct violation of the Catholic prohibition against contraception, and not those women who require birth control pills for health issues.

mesyn191
03-30-12, 04:26 PM
The problem with what you are quoting is you are attempting to read into it what you want, as oppose to what it says. As I alluded to before, no religious person can impose their belief on another person. However, there is no such imposition in this case.
There absolutely is, you simply refuse to accept any arguments, even legal ones from the SCOTUS apparently, to the contrary. As was noted before we're not going to agree on this, but your position on this subject looks very weak in the face of Scalia's and the SCOTUS's statements.


there is no law anywhere or precedent I am aware of which states that employers must pay for health insurance coverage for contraception.
Actually the health care mandate of the PPACA does just that. That law was passed quite a while ago, its just being phased in slowly over time, which is why this is an issue "suddenly".


While contraception for females does cost money, it doesn't cost any more than say the difference in annual spending between driving a gigantic SUV or a passenger car.
Funny you would say this, most people consider that to be a considerable expense.


I agree, the bar is high, but the problem with your other examples is that none of them were explicitly spelled out - either way - in the Constitution.
There are tons of things that are legal now that aren't spelled out explicitly in the Constitution: its a living document that is subject to interpretation by every new generation that comes a long. Some things that were once considered Constitutional now are not and vice versa, so this is a pretty terrible argument you're making here.


I further note that women's right to suffrage was put into the Constitution as the 19th amendment, and the 24th amendment was passed in response to widespread economic discrimination against African Americans voting, thus clearly the mechanism for modifying the Constitution can and does work.
I didn't say it doesn't work, I said its a very high bar, which you agreed with so why bother to quibble pointlessly over it now? It shouldn't take a constitutional amendment to get a something that the entire society would benefit from like a UHS passed or even just contraceptives covered by all insurers regardless of religious beliefs. The SCOTUS is to be ruling on key parts of the PPACA in a few months too IIRC, so we'll have our answer there soon I think.


It is interesting you think so. In your nurse's unions view, some number of 15 minute breaks is worth striking over. How many breaks was this? And what was the actual out of pocket cost equivalent in say, average pay per hour per nurse, per year?
Haven't got a clue but I can tell you they didn't care how little it was. They formed a strike, the hospital tried to break it with scabs, which didn't work for long since scabs are apparently expensive and they eventually caved to the nurses demands since that was cheaper.


The cost of birth control pills as I've noted before is not $1000 a year, it seems closer to $300 and as low as $200
Actually going by the pic I posted its clearly much higher than $2-300 a year without insurance, and that is without buying the most expensive stuff. Which apparently some women require, not all birth control pills are created equal apparently.

c1ue
03-31-12, 01:38 PM
There absolutely is, you simply refuse to accept any arguments, even legal ones from the SCOTUS apparently, to the contrary. As was noted before we're not going to agree on this, but your position on this subject looks very weak in the face of Scalia's and the SCOTUS's statements.

The statements you posted, as I understand them, state that the requirements to comply with a specific law - presumably one governing employers - is not in and of itself a violation of the 1st amendment. Note that this does not speak to the legality of the law itself with regards to the 1st amendment.

Thus again I fail to see exactly what you are talking about.

There is no law saying employers must pay for health insurance coverage of contraception.

There can therefore be no employer violation if there is no such law.


Actually the health care mandate of the PPACA does just that. That law was passed quite a while ago, its just being phased in slowly over time, which is why this is an issue "suddenly"

Perhaps you can point out the provision where PPACA states that all health insurance plans must cover contraception, and that all employers must provide health insurance.

PPACA does state that major plans must provide coverage of contraception, but all plans do not have to provide coverage for contraception.

PPACA also does not require employers to pay for health insurance.

It only requires individuals to have health insurance.

You don't seem to understand that this is a perfect excuse for an employer to drop health insurance as a benefit: not only is the economy of scale issue removed with the 'exchanges', but individuals are now personally liable to get health insurance. PPACA has now added a debit to the employee's side in the employee/employer relationship since it imposes an additional cost where none existed before.

So once again, please inform exactly what the rationale is for why Catholic employers must pay for health insurance coverage of contraception?


Funny you would say this, most people consider that to be a considerable expense.

It is a choice, just like so many other fiscal choices.


There are tons of things that are legal now that aren't spelled out explicitly in the Constitution: its a living document that is subject to interpretation by every new generation that comes a long. Some things that were once considered Constitutional now are not and vice versa, so this is a pretty terrible argument you're making here.

I don't dispute that the Constitution doesn't govern everything. However, the Constitution is at least theoretically supposed to govern what is explicitly covered in that set of documents.

I'm still waiting to hear your justification on why a Constitutional right should be ignored.


I didn't say it doesn't work, I said its a very high bar, which you agreed with so why bother to quibble pointlessly over it now? It shouldn't take a constitutional amendment to get a something that the entire society would benefit from like a UHS passed or even just contraceptives covered by all insurers regardless of religious beliefs. The SCOTUS is to be ruling on key parts of the PPACA in a few months too IIRC, so we'll have our answer there soon I think.

You're still refusing to answer the question. In subrogating freedom of religious expression to the consensus of society on contraception, you are explicitly saying that the Constitutional right as spelled out in the 1st amendment is not valid.

However, by US law, so long as the Bill of Rights exists, society's consensus has no right to subbrogate the 1st amendment Freedom of Religion clause unless said clause is modified by Constitutional amendment.

Merely because a bar is high does not give you the right to ignore whether that bar must be crossed because it is inconvenient.


Haven't got a clue but I can tell you they didn't care how little it was. They formed a strike, the hospital tried to break it with scabs, which didn't work for long since scabs are apparently expensive and they eventually caved to the nurses demands since that was cheaper.

$4000 for a $35/hour worker is little? If there is no overtime, we're talking over 5% of income.


Actually going by the pic I posted its clearly much higher than $2-300 a year without insurance, and that is without buying the most expensive stuff. Which apparently some women require, not all birth control pills are created equal apparently.

The data you posted on birth control pills is consistent with the empirical data I posted, except for the high end part and the fact that "doctor's visits" were included in birth control cost. As I noted, the low end is $200 and the average seems to be $300 or $400.

As for cost, well, you can always spend more. Maybe that is a medical necessity, but we've already spoken to the fact that birth control pills in and of themselves are not prohibited by the Catholic Church. Note that even if semantic, there are real and actionable differences between 'contraception' and 'medical treatment'.

Raz
03-31-12, 03:50 PM
...Thus again I fail to see exactly what you are talking about. ...

I'm still waiting to hear your justification on why a Constitutional right should be ignored.

You're still refusing to answer the question. In subrogating freedom of religious expression to the consensus of society on contraception, you are explicitly saying that the Constitutional right as spelled out in the 1st amendment is not valid.

However, by US law, so long as the Bill of Rights exists, society's consensus has no right to subbrogate the 1st amendment Freedom of Religion clause unless said clause is modified by Constitutional amendment.

Merely because a bar is high does not give you the right to ignore whether that bar must be crossed because it is inconvenient. ...

I have never found it profitable to carry on a conversation with someone who continuously denies the obvious.

"No man is so blind as he who will not see." (Elisabeth Elliott)

You're wasting your time, c1ue.

mesyn191
03-31-12, 04:33 PM
I have never found it profitable to carry on a conversation with someone who continuously denies the obvious.

"No man is so blind as he who will not see." (Elisabeth Elliott)

You're wasting your time, c1ue.

Its funny, I would say the same thing about c1ue and yourself. This conversation is going nowhere since we can't even agree on what the facts are here, we're stuck in disagreement.

jiimbergin
04-01-12, 09:07 AM
I have never found it profitable to carry on a conversation with someone who continuously denies the obvious.

"No man is so blind as he who will not see." (Elisabeth Elliott)

You're wasting your time, c1ue.


+1

vt
04-01-12, 12:36 PM
Free condoms are readily available for poor. These women wanting the pill are taking a huge risk by not using condoms with the growth of STDs.

Why does no one mention the payment for protection responsibility of the male partner? There is also a risk to of STDs for the male too. It's only a couple of hundred bucks a year between two people, for a product that can readily be obtained for free from local governments.

This entire charade is a manufactured political ploy to influence a large voting bloc.

Kadriana
04-01-12, 04:00 PM
Free condoms are readily available for poor. These women wanting the pill are taking a huge risk by not using condoms with the growth of STDs.

Why does no one mention the payment for protection responsibility of the male partner? There is also a risk to of STDs for the male too. It's only a couple of hundred bucks a year between two people, for a product that can readily be obtained for free from local governments.

This entire charade is a manufactured political ploy to influence a large voting bloc.

A lot of women who take the pill aren't sexually active. For those who are, there are better forms of birth control, both hormonal and barrier methods, for women to take than the pill. I would say at least half of women who are on the pill are trying to regulate their periods or have some sort of condition that they're treating with bc pills. If you're just not wanting to get pregnant and don't worry about the moral issues associated with chemical bc, then you're probably going to choose something like an IUD, depo, nuva ring or patch where you don't have to worry about taking a pill at the exact same time every day.