Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/19/2012 7:47:28 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.
A doctors visit is 135 dollars... Add the insurance adjustment its 43 add the copay its 23 that the insurance pays out..
Remove the insurance and the adjustments, the price goes way up.
Planned parent hood covered my shot for free, because my insurance refused to cover it, and it was medically necessary. If it would have covered my birth control my costs would have been higher.
I pay 112 dollars for car insurance, Ive been in one not fault accident, however ive paid since i was 16 for insurance, I have it In case i need it.
Same with disability insurance, I have it in case i need it.
If i need knee surgery that 10k i paid in will be eaten up...
My issue is with all the shit thats going on, they have made planned parenthood change their policies, what was once offered for free... is now 97 dollars. thats my Electric bill for 4 months, thats almost my car payment...
I can now have my life saving shot covered because i fought my employer on the grounds his moral belief was not mine and forcing me to follow his when he is a business was discrimination. He could either get it covered, or he could face a lawsuit... Its now covered...
With out the laws that are there to protect me, Id have to pay out of pocket for something that should be covered by what i pay for. Because he is a catholic, mind you the business isnt catholic nor does it have any religious base.. just his ideals


Interesting. What, then, did you mean in post #170?

quote:


so that other 10,321 dollars ive paid in... Where has that gone, and why am I not entitled to use it...


Apparently, it was used to gain you access to "negotiated" rates. Was it worth it? Only you can truly answer that question.



_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to SpiritedRadiance)
Profile   Post #: 201
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/19/2012 7:49:49 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

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.




What special privileges are they used to getting?

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 202
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/19/2012 7:50:57 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
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.




Well, by that logic, if you don't like the insurance coverage your employer is offering, change jobs or buy gap coverage.

Sandra Fluke knew before going to Georgetown that they didn't cover BC. She went anyway. How is it she has any standing to demand they cover it? If she didn't like the rules of the insurance offered by Georgetown, she shouldn't have taken that coverage, or she should have bought her own.

_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 203
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/19/2012 7:54:07 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


I would like nothing better than to see "negotiated" pricing die a long tortuous death. In the case you described, I am all for there being punitive awards to the patient to repay his frustration, time, etc.


_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 204
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/19/2012 7:56:55 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
How about if they want to participate in our secular political world, they pony up all those back taxes for the past... Oh, just call it 200 years, since there's no reason to be dicks about it...


I am all for religious institutions having to pay taxes if they enter the political world. However, fighting to make sure they aren't forced to cross their moral lines by government, isn't a political event. Regardless of whodunit, the Catholic Church would have reacted the way they did.

_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 205
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/19/2012 8:02:54 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
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.

Is the church acting as a middleman if an employer uses part of his or her wages--which orginially came from the church--to buy birth control? Why does the church still "own" part of an employee's compensation but not other parts?


You aren't seeing the point. The compensation (I see your point, but employee-paid insurance was definitely started as a perc, but is definitely part of a compensation package) isn't for full coverage for everything. The Church has the right to offer you insurance and to negotiate with the insurance company regarding the coverage levels. That negotiation has nothing to do with the employee at that point. When the Church decides to compensate you for your work, they aren't offering coverage for BC. That is not part of your compensation package. You have the right to try to negotiate inclusion of coverage for BC, but you don't have the right to use the blunt force of government to do so.

_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 206
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/19/2012 9:49:22 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
What special privileges are they used to getting?


Here's a short article about Christian privilege

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://atheism.about.com/od/christianismnationalism/p/ChristianPriv.htm
Culture Wars and Christian Privilege:
Most “battles” in the Christian Right’s so-called Culture Wars can be best understood if seen, at least in part, as attempts to reassert and enforce Christian privilege in modern society. One of the hallmarks of modernity has been the rooting out of various forms of illegitimate privilege, with Christian and religious privilege being among the last. Thus, it is hoped that reasserting special privileges and deference for Christianity and Christians will help hold the line against modernity.
Christian Privilege, Religious Symbols, and the Law:
Defenders of Christian privilege in the law commonly argue or assume that the absence of explicit endorsements of religion generally and/or their religion in particular (like in Ten Commandments monuments) is unconstitutional hostility towards their religion. This assumes the justification of privileges for Christianity because there are no endorsements of other religions, such as Hinduism, yet no one claims this as an example of hostility towards them.
Christian Privilege and Public Schools:
There are many ways in which Christians have fought for Christian privilege in schools: organized prayers, using schools as permanent churches, Christian-specific prayers and speeches at graduations, holding graduations at churches, etc. It is argued that the religious preferences of the majority count for more than the religious equality of the minority. Non-Christians are told that they must be “tolerant” of Christians using the state to further their own religious interests.
Christian Privilege and Politics:
The most visible example of attempts to assert Christian privilege in the political realm may be the efforts to insert sectarian prayers into political events, like town council or school board meetings. Rather than stick with generic prayers or even permit prayers from multiple religions, Christians insist that Christian-specific prayers are both appropriate and preferable. If the majority is Christian, then their religious beliefs should be accorded a privileged status by government bodies.
Christian Privilege and Entertainment:
The idea that Christians should be privileged in entertainment comes up when there are complaints about negative portrayals of Christians and Christianity. It would be a problem if only negative portrayals existed (imagine if Jews were always depicted negatively), but the existence of any negative images can receive a harsh reaction. There are also complaints about the lack of Christian-specific entertainment in the mainstream media, as if they shouldn’t cater to the widest possible audience.
Christian Privilege and Culture:
Cultural privileges for Christianity come up when Christians insist that their religion deserves special recognition, extra deference, and more respect. Sometimes, Christians act as though other religions are inferior and don’t merit equal consideration. Examples of this include the claim that only “Merry Christmas” is acceptable while “Happy Holidays” is not, or the idea that Christian holidays, but not non-Christian ones, can be recognized as government holidays.
Christian Privilege as Majority Rule:
A common defense of Christian privilege is the idea that Christians are a majority, and in a democracy, the majority rules. If Christians want to shape legal, political, and cultural institutions to express their religious values and to privilege both Christianity, that’s what being a Christian Nation is all about. In a liberal democracy, however, the rights and equality of all are protected. Christians can no more vote to privilege Christianity than whites can vote to privilege their race.
Christian Privilege as Surrogate for Other Privileges:
Is it possible that efforts to assert Christian privilege is a mask, conscious or unconscious, for other sorts of lost privilege that can’t be publicly asserted? Those who most often assert Christian privilege are also those who would benefit most from white privilege or male privilege. Some of the areas where Christian privilege is being asserted, like the context of equal rights for gays, are areas where male or white privilege would also make gains by implication.
De-Christianization vs. Secularization:
Defense of Christian privilege often occurs in the context of complaints about the secularization of society. In reality, people are complaining about the loss of Christian hegemony and unjustified social privilege, not secularization. They are lamenting the de-Christianization of American society rather than its secularization. Both are occurring, but Christians try to create illusory solidarity with other religions by pretending that the losses to Christianity are losses to all religions.
Future of Christian Privilege and Religious Privilege:
What is it about some people that they have such a pressing psychological need to feel superior to someone — anyone — in society? There are men who need women to be inferior, Christians who need non-Christians to be inferior, religious believers who need nonbelievers and atheists to be inferior, citizens who need foreigners to be inferior, and heterosexuals who need gays to be inferior. Why can’t those who are different be equal in their differences?
If we were dealing with actual rights, like the right to speech, then claims about discrimination and persecution would be justified. As it is, though, the truth is that Christians are losing privileges — they are losing the ways in which they have been treated better than everyone else. Because of this, they are not actually being discriminated against; instead, traditional discrimination against others is ending. It’s not unlike how the elimination of “white privilege” was perceived by whites during the Civil Rights era.

Religious privilege — and especially Christian privilege — is one of the few traditional privileges that continues to be openly defended in modern society. Other forms of privilege, like white privilege and male privilege, may continue to exist but it’s regarded as impolite to actually argue in defense of them anymore. Perhaps one day religious privilege will go the way that white and male privilege are going, but it won’t happen without much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of some conservative Christians.

We should expect to see assertions of Christian privilege continuing to play an important role in social and political debates in the coming decades. Look for it behind the scenes in other issues — you can already find it, for example, in the so-called Christmas wars and arguments over gay marriage. In these debates people talk about the importance of religious values, but many are simply seeking to have the state endorse their vision of Christianity over all other possible positions.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 207
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/19/2012 10:48:43 PM   
SpiritedRadiance


Posts: 1341
Joined: 3/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.
A doctors visit is 135 dollars... Add the insurance adjustment its 43 add the copay its 23 that the insurance pays out..
Remove the insurance and the adjustments, the price goes way up.
Planned parent hood covered my shot for free, because my insurance refused to cover it, and it was medically necessary. If it would have covered my birth control my costs would have been higher.
I pay 112 dollars for car insurance, Ive been in one not fault accident, however ive paid since i was 16 for insurance, I have it In case i need it.
Same with disability insurance, I have it in case i need it.
If i need knee surgery that 10k i paid in will be eaten up...
My issue is with all the shit thats going on, they have made planned parenthood change their policies, what was once offered for free... is now 97 dollars. thats my Electric bill for 4 months, thats almost my car payment...
I can now have my life saving shot covered because i fought my employer on the grounds his moral belief was not mine and forcing me to follow his when he is a business was discrimination. He could either get it covered, or he could face a lawsuit... Its now covered...
With out the laws that are there to protect me, Id have to pay out of pocket for something that should be covered by what i pay for. Because he is a catholic, mind you the business isnt catholic nor does it have any religious base.. just his ideals


Interesting. What, then, did you mean in post #170?

quote:


so that other 10,321 dollars ive paid in... Where has that gone, and why am I not entitled to use it...


Apparently, it was used to gain you access to "negotiated" rates. Was it worth it? Only you can truly answer that question.



Post 170 is in reply to searching4mysirs comment that my health insurance costs are more then what i pay in.

My question was if Ive paid in more then i used, why am i not allowed to use what i paid in for what i want covered.

In my case birth control is necessary for me to continue to breath. I like breathing, Im kind of fond of it... So I want my birth control covered, regardless of what my employer feels is morally or ethically okay.

_____________________________

"Theres nothing in life like the feeling of cool leather sliding over your skin, the tears that fill your eyes as you realize someone else thinks you deserve it even if you havent reached that conclusion yet"- Forever to remember 11/5/11

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 208
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/19/2012 10:52:52 PM   
SpiritedRadiance


Posts: 1341
Joined: 3/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Well, by that logic, if you don't like the insurance coverage your employer is offering, change jobs or buy gap coverage.

Sandra Fluke knew before going to Georgetown that they didn't cover BC. She went anyway. How is it she has any standing to demand they cover it? If she didn't like the rules of the insurance offered by Georgetown, she shouldn't have taken that coverage, or she should have bought her own.


Because again, if a religious institution wants or run a business they need to chuck their religious beliefs at the door. A business is a business.

If i open up a business, and i refuse to cover something because its morally wrong to me, i get fined and told to change my policies.

If the catholic church doesnt wish to be "forced" to offer services other businesses are required to.. for moral reasons.. its really simple... They can get out of the business world and go back to only having churches.

You cant have it both ways and thats what the church is trying to do, have a business with out following the laws that are there for businesses.



_____________________________

"Theres nothing in life like the feeling of cool leather sliding over your skin, the tears that fill your eyes as you realize someone else thinks you deserve it even if you havent reached that conclusion yet"- Forever to remember 11/5/11

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 209
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/20/2012 5:04:02 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

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.


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.

That access ... that "middle man service" means their hands are "dirty" also (in their mind). My guns analogy was pretty dead on. Surely, you wouldn't want to help me do something that you felt was a blight to mankind?



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Anything can be INDIRECTLY related to anything else.

They're only "middlemen" if you're a damned COMMUNIST, and don't believe that the EMPLOYEE or INSURER'S money is in fact, theirs. We do not hold our bank accounts COLLECTIVELY. So, only in your socialist dreams is there any connection.

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 210
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/20/2012 5:05:15 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
How about if they want to participate in our secular political world, they pony up all those back taxes for the past... Oh, just call it 200 years, since there's no reason to be dicks about it...


I am all for religious institutions having to pay taxes if they enter the political world. However, fighting to make sure they aren't forced to cross their moral lines by government, isn't a political event. Regardless of whodunit, the Catholic Church would have reacted the way they did.


That's because their viewpoint is predication on the communist lie that once you PAY SOMEONE that money is still 'Yours' somehow.

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!

Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 211
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/20/2012 5:23:21 AM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

However, fighting to make sure they aren't forced to cross their moral lines by government, isn't a political event.


We had bishops testifying before Congress at the behest of a single party, which excluded other viewpoints (and any women) from the discussion. That wasn't political?

In a February 13th pastoral letter, Washington's Cardinal Wuerl advocated for specific legislation, saying "The only complete solution to the problem that this mandate poses for religious liberty is for Congress to pass legislation to protect our freedom. The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act is one of several bills that have been introduced for this very purpose." That wasn't political?



_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 212
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/20/2012 5:27:31 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Catholics don't like Birth Control.


The worst part is that this isn't even true. Catholic women overwhelmingly use birth control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf
Among all women who have had sex, 99% have
ever used a contraceptive method other than natural
family planning. This figure is virtually the same,
98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women.


Catholics even come out on the side of health care paying for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/
Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
Among Catholic voters, support for this requirement is slightly lower at 52%.
Only half (50%) of white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 47% who oppose it.


(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 213
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/20/2012 5:30:24 AM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline
"logic" doesn't seem to enter in to the argument for you.

Not that it matters, but Sandra Fluke is not an employee of Georgetown, she is a consumer of their services. Those services are no doubt costing her a lot of money. As a customer, she has every right to complain about the level of services she is paying for.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


Well, by that logic, if you don't like the insurance coverage your employer is offering, change jobs or buy gap coverage.

Sandra Fluke knew before going to Georgetown that they didn't cover BC. She went anyway. How is it she has any standing to demand they cover it? If she didn't like the rules of the insurance offered by Georgetown, she shouldn't have taken that coverage, or she should have bought her own.


_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 214
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/20/2012 5:39:02 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance
Post 170 is in reply to searching4mysirs comment that my health insurance costs are more then what i pay in.
My question was if Ive paid in more then i used, why am i not allowed to use what i paid in for what i want covered.


You did use it. You used to gain access to the negotiated pricing. You can't question why you can't use what you've paid in for whatever you want and then claim that without the insurance you would not have access to the pricing. That's what your premiums, in part, get you.

quote:


In my case birth control is necessary for me to continue to breath. I like breathing, Im kind of fond of it... So I want my birth control covered, regardless of what my employer feels is morally or ethically okay.


I have no problem with your BC being covered. I don't have a problem with the Catholic Church choosing to cover BC. What I do have a problem with is Government coming in and forcing the Church to cover something that goes against it's tenets. BC is not necessary for all women. It is for you. Sandra Fluke's testimony brings in both the medically necessary (like your case) and the non-medically necessary.

If you don't like the insurance package your employer is offering, you can always approach an insurance coverage for increased coverage or specific coverages.

_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to SpiritedRadiance)
Profile   Post #: 215
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/20/2012 5:44:46 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Well, by that logic, if you don't like the insurance coverage your employer is offering, change jobs or buy gap coverage.
Sandra Fluke knew before going to Georgetown that they didn't cover BC. She went anyway. How is it she has any standing to demand they cover it? If she didn't like the rules of the insurance offered by Georgetown, she shouldn't have taken that coverage, or she should have bought her own.

Because again, if a religious institution wants or run a business they need to chuck their religious beliefs at the door. A business is a business.
If i open up a business, and i refuse to cover something because its morally wrong to me, i get fined and told to change my policies.
If the catholic church doesnt wish to be "forced" to offer services other businesses are required to.. for moral reasons.. its really simple... They can get out of the business world and go back to only having churches.
You cant have it both ways and thats what the church is trying to do, have a business with out following the laws that are there for businesses.


Government doesn't have the authority to dictate the private negotiations between a business and an insurer, though. I'm not just against Government forcing Churches to offer something against it's moral tenets. I'm against government forcing business to make specific business choices.

Is it discriminatory for a business to only offer managers company-vehicles? If the managers get vehicles, shouldn't all employees get company vehicles? I can't say I know this for sure, but I'm willing to bet that if your employer sponsors a life insurance policy for its employees, not all employees get the same level of coverage. Is anyone griping about that? Shouldn't everyone have the same office? A secretary? A direct phone line? Where is the Federal Government on these things?!?!?!?!?!?

_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to SpiritedRadiance)
Profile   Post #: 216
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/20/2012 5:46:25 AM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

What I do have a problem with is Government coming in and forcing the Church to cover something that goes against it's tenets.


Would you agree that Jehovah's Witnesses should be exempt from covering blood transfusions or that a church which viewed AIDS as a punishment from God should be exempt from covering HIV drugs?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 217
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/20/2012 5:53:53 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
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.

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.
That access ... that "middle man service" means their hands are "dirty" also (in their mind). My guns analogy was pretty dead on. Surely, you wouldn't want to help me do something that you felt was a blight to mankind?
Peace and comfort,
Michael


Anything can be INDIRECTLY related to anything else.
They're only "middlemen" if you're a damned COMMUNIST, and don't believe that the EMPLOYEE or INSURER'S money is in fact, theirs. We do not hold our bank accounts COLLECTIVELY. So, only in your socialist dreams is there any connection.
Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!


You are absolutely correct. As soon as the Church pays the employee, it's the employee's money. However, since the insurance negotiations occur prior to giving them to the employee, the coverage negotiations are not the employee's. Let's say the insurance coverage is cash money. The Church negotiates this cash money with the insurer. Until that cash money is paid to the employee, it isn't the employee's. If the Church is negotiating the inclusion of BC into that pile o' cash money, isn't it acting as a conduit for you? That answer is, yes, yes it is.


_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 218
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/20/2012 5:58:09 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


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.




What special privileges are they used to getting?

Not paying taxes or one.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 219
RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate - 3/20/2012 6:01:33 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
Thanks, that was too fucking funny. It reminds me of the neighbor kid who used to cry like a baby every year because his sister has her birthday on the same day and the parents wouldn't change it. Of course he was about 12 when he finally stopped and I am assuming the idiots on that webpage are adults.

< Message edited by thishereboi -- 3/20/2012 6:02:19 AM >


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 220
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094