quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance
Actually my insurance costs are less then 175 a month, I only have gone to the doctor 7 times in the last 5 years...(4 of those 7 times were to planned parnethood where i paid those out of pocket because i didnt like the insurance balance and paying for it with out my insurance was less then if they billed my insurance)
I havent been to the hospital since i was 19...
The only thing ive used my insurance for is to cover my birth control and that was only in the last 6 months..
So Yes I do believe the 175 ive been paying into my insurance for the last 3 years and the 203 a month i was paying for the two years previous..
More then covers the expenses ive used my insurance for...
Ive paid 11,172 into my insurance in the last 5 years.
Birth control costs my insurance(in a perfect world) one doctors visit a year at 48 dollars after insurance adjustment and 53 dollars for the prescription of which i pay 20.. so 33 dollars. So because my company is morally opposed, ive had two doctors visit at 48 a piece and 33 dollars twice so 162
The other 3 doctors visit were 48 a piece so 144.. plus the 162 makes my total insurance costs so far 306 dollars.
then the hospital visit, it was 645 dollars after insurance adjustment, 100 of which i had to pay via copay. so 545 dollars...
So my total insurance costs in the last 5 years have been 851 dollars total.
so that other 10,321 dollars ive paid in... Where has that gone, and why am I not entitled to use it...
Do kindly stop trying to say what I do and dont use via my insurance and what comes out of someone elses pocket.. so far.. Everyone else has taken over 10 grand out of mine to use for things like smoking, cancer, and babies...
I have no problems sending you copies of all the bills if youd like...
(Edited because i have math issues and issues with numbers)

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Catholics don't like Birth Control. You seem to be saying that it is their right to not offer it to non Catholics as part of employment . This would have the effect of forcing non Catholics to follow their religion.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Not paying for BC for any of their employees

quote:

I fail to see why, when operating a business for the purpose of earning a profit, a church should not be subject to the same laws as every other employer. Otherwise, they are being granted a competitive advantage.

If they don't like the rules an employer has to follow, then they shouldn't run a business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance

Incorrect DS
With out insurance and buying my healthcare at some place other then planned parenthood my costs in the last five years would have been 7500. just to get my depo shot alone....375 per visit every 10 to 12 weeks.

Because The thing about insurance that most people dont know or understand unless they work in insurance is a large part of the balance is adjusted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
The simple answer to that one is "No, of course not."
Anybody who thinks otherwise is making an argument for special privileges. WTF is there any debate about?

Christians are used to getting special privileges, pointing out the inequality isn't going to phase a group that expects things to be that way.

quote:

Paychecks are an exchange. The employee works (hopefully) and the employer pays them (hopefully, well).

Insurance, vacations, company cars, etc. used to be called "percs". They're little "gimmes" thrown in to sweeten the pot (presumably to lure the best of the best to that company).

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Paychecks are an exchange. The employee works (hopefully) and the employer pays them (hopefully, well).

Insurance, vacations, company cars, etc. used to be called "percs". They're little "gimmes" thrown in to sweeten the pot (presumably to lure the best of the best to that company).

I've had the good fortune to score some nice perks over the years: two trips to New Zealand, a stint at adventure school, an interview with the guy who found the Titanic, a lovely afternoon with Jane Goodall, a staring contest with a lion (he won), the chance to feed an anteater. Also some nice offices and access to a fine library. No car, though. I'm very grateful for the cool perks that my work life has thrown my way.

Not for a minute, though, would I count my health insurance among them. Perhaps I'm one of those "professional victim" employees, but I have always considered my insurance to be part of my compensation--and my employers have always framed it that way, taking pains to point out that my total compensation comprised far more than my paycheck.

To my "entitled" mindset, compensation ceases to be the employer's money once it's paid to a worker or to a third party on behalf of that employee. So it's really not the church's money that's being used to fund contraception or blood transfusions or what-have-you.

quote:

But, DC, once again: it isn't the money. It's asking the church to be a "middle man". It is only through the existence of the job, created by the church that the employees get group health rates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

That is exactly right, SpiritedRadiance.  I had a case a few months ago where a health insurance company denied an obviously valid claim.  My client started getting collection letters from the hospital, so he paid the bill, while continuing to contest the denial with the insurance company.  Once the insurance company came to their senses, and agreed to pay, we requested they reimburse my client, since the hospital wasn't owed anything.  That started another hassle with the insurance company, since it turned out that the rate they paid was about a third less than what a patient was billed.  God I hate insurance companies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance

Incorrect DS
With out insurance and buying my healthcare at some place other then planned parenthood my costs in the last five years would have been 7500. just to get my depo shot alone....375 per visit every 10 to 12 weeks.

Because The thing about insurance that most people dont know or understand unless they work in insurance is a large part of the balance is adjusted.

quote:

What's going to wind up happening is the church is going to wind up firing people, needlessly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

What's going to wind up happening is the church is going to wind up firing people, needlessly.

Why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir
If you actually look at the numbers, though, that doesn't come to fruition. As the use of birth control rose, so did abortions.

Huh? Every time I've actually looked at the numbers I've never seen that. I only spent about 5 seconds at it this time but that was long enough to notice the exact opposite.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/2009/10/14/abortion-down-contraception-up-recipe-for-health-reform
Global abortion rates are down—from an estimated 45.5 million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003, according to a report issued Tuesday by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research center that supports abortion rights. A key reason for that drop, the report said, was that the proportion of married women using contraception worldwide increased from 54 percent in 1990 to 63 percent in 2003 as pregnancy prevention methods became more available and socially acceptable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

Do you really think that your insurance cost is only $175 a month? You are ignoring the part that your EMPLOYER pays. That is only YOUR cost, not the total cost. And THAT is part of the problem.

Employers share of benefits including FICA and other health insurance premiums, is commonly passed on to the employee in the view of mainstream economics, i.e., if they didn't have to pay half of FICA, they would use the extra money to retain employees by paying them higher wages.

The loophole in mandated insurance coverage is that it only applies to full time employees, which has led to a relative scarcity of full time positions (which include healthcare benefits) being offered, leading to people working 60 hours a week in Two part time jobs, with no benefits, making too much money to qualify for medicare, but not enough to pay for adequate healthcare, or cover the expenses of catastrophic illness.

These are the people who are bankrupted by a difficult delivery or the birth of a medically fragile child, and even without that, having a child in a hospital is practically like buying a car.

There are basically huge gaps in the middle.

quote:

You think what comes out of your pocket is the only thing that matters. You don't give a shit about what comes out of someone else's pocket as long as you get what you want.

Couldn't have said it better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Not paying for BC for any of their employees

Stop lying. NO ONE BUT THE INSURED PAYS FOR THEIR BENEFITS.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)