RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate

RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TrekkieLP -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 12:03:14 PM)
deleted post.

tazzygirl -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 12:04:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance YOU arent paying for it DS ISNT paying for it GOD ISNT paying for it Catholics ARENT paying for it. MY 87.43 every two weeks IS 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. 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. 99% of women between the ages of 15 and 44 have used some form of birth control. There are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15–44) Seven in 10 women of reproductive age (43 million women) are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they and their partners fail to use a contraceptive method. The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades. Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using a method Almost one-third (31%) of these 62 million women do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had intercourse; or are not sexually active Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives Among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception Thats a lot of women who are paying into the insurance pools You don't give a shit about what comes out of someone else's pocket as long as you get what you want. I have a feeling more than just SR feels that way.

dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 12:07:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun And interestingly enough, my intial analogy was going to be purchasing firearms rather than heroin. I naively thought that heroin would be less likely to be used to spin to claim things I never claimed. Rather than working by analogy (which is always tricky), let's try a real example: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. If I understand correctly, JW's have a scripturally-based moral opposition to receiving blood products. So should they have a "conscience exemption" from paying, via insurance, for transfusions, even for non-JW employees?

searching4mysir -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 12:08:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance YOU arent paying for it DS ISNT paying for it GOD ISNT paying for it Catholics ARENT paying for it. MY 87.43 every two weeks IS 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. 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. 99% of women between the ages of 15 and 44 have used some form of birth control. There are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15–44) Seven in 10 women of reproductive age (43 million women) are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they and their partners fail to use a contraceptive method. The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades. Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using a method Almost one-third (31%) of these 62 million women do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had intercourse; or are not sexually active Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives Among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception Thats a lot of women who are paying into the insurance pools You don't give a shit about what comes out of someone else's pocket as long as you get what you want. I have a feeling more than just SR feels that way. And if you don't like the insurance your employer offers, you have other choices other than to make THEM pay for options that YOU want but that they don't. I would fight for a JW employer not to have to cover blood transfusions as well. IF I didn't like the insurance I would either find a different job or get other insurance (either completely or as an add-on). Just because I want blood transfusions covered by my insurance doesn't mean that I have to force MY morals on my employer.

tazzygirl -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 12:12:17 PM)
The mandate is for all insurance companies to pay, unless its for a church. Your argument is that, unless its for a church, or one of their "businesses" they dont have to pay. Churches dont have to be in the area of business. It works both ways.

dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 12:15:23 PM)
quote: Or maybe it's that they can't in good conscience let a service they provide be an enabler of "immoral" behavior. Emphasis mine. That turn of phrase caught my eye. Is health insurance a service that employers provide, or is it part of an employee's compensation? Historically, employment and insurance got coupled during World War II, when wage controls made it hard to attract talent. So employers turned to providing insurance as a backdoor way of paying more. We would all agree, I trust, that it would be out of line for an employer to tell an employee not to spend part of his or her paycheck on contraception, even though the money orginally came from the employer.

xssve -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 12:33:34 PM)
quote: And if you don't like the insurance your employer offers, you have other choices other than to make THEM pay for options that YOU want but that they don't. I would fight for a JW employer not to have to cover blood transfusions as well. IF I didn't like the insurance I would either find a different job or get other insurance (either completely or as an add-on). Just because I want blood transfusions covered by my insurance doesn't mean that I have to force MY morals on my employer. Huh uh, if you're taking taxpayer money, you are required to follow the law. You can't make a religious exception, it violates both the equal protection and establishment clauses, it would require a constitutional amendment. And morally, it's a much larger human rights issue than a religious one, that your religion happens to be on the wrong side of. i.e., your religious beliefs cause people to unnecessarily die every day, you may find that morally defensible to place your principles above the lives of others, but it's not ethically defensible in terms of public policy, and I think giventhe fact, most people will conclude the real moral values here coincides with the ethical values. In fact what you got isn't really even a "value", it's a "belief". You're entitled to your beliefs, but we're not going to cause people to die for the sake of your moral pretensions, deal with it.

farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 3:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: You are offering that up for a valid argument for their position. Defend it. Offering what up as a valid argument for their position? I need to know if I really have something to defend, or if it's something you fabricated again. You need to defend sticking your nose into OTHER PEOPLE'S PRIVATE business where you don't belong and haven't been invited.

farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 3:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Yet they do not find sex with little boys "morally wrong"? Yes, they do. The Catholic Church has NEVER said that child molestation is moral or a good thing. Child molestation is far more likely to happen by a teacher, coach or family member than by a priest. The Church's moral high ground on this would be a lot higher if we all didn't know about Ratzinger's memo instructing a cover up and to refuse cooperation in criminal and civil investigations. Once they CONSPIRED to COVER UP MULTIPLE FELONIES it became just another fucking gang of criminals...

SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 3:20:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance YOU arent paying for it DS ISNT paying for it GOD ISNT paying for it Catholics ARENT paying for it. MY 87.43 every two weeks IS 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. 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. 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)

DaddySatyr -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 3:37:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Or maybe it's that they can't in good conscience let a service they provide be an enabler of "immoral" behavior. Emphasis mine. That turn of phrase caught my eye. Is health insurance a service that employers provide, or is it part of an employee's compensation? Historically, employment and insurance got coupled during World War II, when wage controls made it hard to attract talent. So employers turned to providing insurance as a backdoor way of paying more. We would all agree, I trust, that it would be out of line for an employer to tell an employee not to spend part of his or her paycheck on contraception, even though the money orginally came from the employer. 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). In the good ol' days, before lawyers and insurance companies (which are essentially the same things) became such powerful entities in this country, those "percs" were not required by law. It was companies, looking after their own best interests by "being nice" to employees. Those "percs" used to be tax detuctable. By-and-large, they're not, anymore. Some companies still pay a portion of the insurance premiums for their employess but, once the lawyers got involved and employees started being professional victims, the premiums cost the companies too much for them to be able to compete with over-seas companies, offering the same or similar products with much less over-head ("percs"). Enter Big Brother ... You MUST make health insurance available to your employees. They are entitled to it. The companies, still trying to be competative with one hand tied to their balls, insisted that the employees had to shoulder at least some of the premiums burden. Some companies are completely out of the premiums loop (my company, for example offers group rates to employees simply because they are a group by virtue of their employment with a certain company). They no longer pay any portion of the premiums. The employees only get access to those group rates because the company exists, at all. That's the only reason they qualify for such reduced rates. Was it unfair for Big Brother to insist that companies act as a conduit for their employees to have access to (more) affordable health care? Probably not. However, if the company were to just toss in the towel, the employees would be covered by COBRA for up to 18 months (in my state) and then, they'd be out on their ass. By the way, COBRA is, damn-near a quadrupling of the group rates, across the board. Now, enter in the current situation... The church(es) could absolutely, legally stop paying any portion of the premiums. So you say: "What's the fuckin' problem then, Michael?" That's an easy one. The church(es) are still required, by law, to act as a conduit for the insurance to get to the employees. DC, if you'll allow, I am going to give you an assumed position? You are 150% anti guns. You hate them. You want them all melted down. You think anyone other than military and law enforcement that owns a gun is a cold blooded killer, waiting to happen. Unfortunately, the law doesn't agree with you and anyone not convicted of a violent crime or having certain mental illnesses is legally allowed to carry a gun. I want you to try and get in that mental state for me. You live next door to me and one morning, I say to you: "DC, you work downtown, right? My car is in the shop. I need to get down to the intersection where you work so I can buy some bullets for my AK-47 and my M-60. Could you hook me up with a ride?" I'm asking you to be a conduit for me, re-arming myself. I'm not asking you to pay for the bullets. I'm not even asking you to drive out of your way. "Joe's Guns & Ammo" is catty-corner to the building in which you work. You're going there, anyway. Why the fuck would you say: "Sure, Michael! Jump on in!"? Of course you're not going to say that if you think that the activity in which I'm engaging is so wrong. The only difference between that analogy and the current BC fight is that your position on guns is deemed to be more politically correct than the church(es)' position on BC. It's that simple, really. It's intolerence and prejudice (which have always worked out well in this country. No?). Peace and comfort, Michael

xssve -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 3:46:25 PM)
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.

GotSteel -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 4:22:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So while you may recite statistics about abuse being far more likely to happen by a teacher, coach or family member than by a priest. There is no way to prove your statement as the under reporting is widely acknowledged by professionals in the field among these victims by priests. Yep, VASTLY. The Catholic Church is the only organization out there who has been threatening the victims with eternal torture if they talk. Sure other organizations initially didn't do everything that they could have to prevent this from happening out of denial. But the Catholic Church knew and just didn't give a shit. That's not conjecture on my part, here's the documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7745088455537169028 I should warn people, it actually made me throw up some in my mouth.

GotSteel -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 4:29:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel But the Catholic Church knew and just didn't give a shit. That's not conjecture on my part, here's the documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7745088455537169028 Check out 0:23-0:25

DesideriScuri -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 7:04:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Yeah, because there is no need for a kosher deli. That's why we have them. I did notice you didn't seem to bother commenting on the Maneschevitz anecdote, including the precautions they take to ensure their products are certified kosher. Ill Spell it out for you, the point is while a kosher deli, does help for those who keep kosher, it is not required to be of the jewish faith, to be a practicing and good standing jew, you do not need to eat at said deli. Ah, but would a kosher deli be able to be run as a kosher deli if it had items in it that would bar it from being certified as kosher? No one said Jewish have to eat at a kosher deli to be practicing and in good standing. But, for a kosher deli to maintain it's kosher certification, there are things it can't have cross it's threshold. quote: To be a good catholic you dont have to run a hospital. You want to run a business? Then run a business, Your faith, has NOTHING to do with your BUSINESS.. You cant run a business with out shoving your religion down my throat? Dont run that kind of business a Kosher deli is a choice to go into.. A Catholic hospital, when your bleeding to death and need emergency care, RIGHT THEN not as much of a choice. Again YOUR religion is not MY religion, I am not required to be catholic to go to a catholic hospital... However these laws are trying to mandate that I have to follow things like the catholic belief, If i wish to utilize their services or be employed. The question was asked blood transfusions are against Johavas witnesses belief, should those be denied to people who run johavas witness businesses? Everyone says NO those are life saving and necessary Guess what Birth control to over 50% of women, is LIFE SAVING, and NECESSARY almost every one of those things has nothing to do with a kosher deli's requirements to stay kosher. quote: No ones paying for me to have contraceptives but me... My 87.43 every two weeks goes to paying for my birth control.. YOU arent paying for it DS ISNT paying for it GOD ISNT paying for it Catholics ARENT paying for it. MY 87.43 every two weeks IS So Shut up about what i use MY insurance that I and ONLY I PAY FOR for regardless of what YOU believe is right wrong or indifferent... Oh, btw, I have no problem with your insurance covering birth control. I never have. I support your having the ability to choose to take or not to take birth control, to have or not to have an abortion, etc. I do not, however, support you not paying for those things. However you figure out to pay for that stuff is between you, the service provider, and the "baby daddy" (in the case of abortion).

Hillwilliam -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 7:25:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam You seem to be saying that it is ok for the Catholics (or anyone else for that matter) to force another to follow the tenets of their religion. Strawman. I've said very much the opposite. Then, enlighten us. If all you ever say is "Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman,Strawman, Strawman,Strawman, Strawman,Strawman, Strawman,Strawman, Strawman,Strawman, Strawman" people won't take you seriously. 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.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/18/2012 9:39:12 PM)
Wrong, I am not suggesting they pay their employees with birth control pills. In either case, the employer is not buying it themselves, it is going through a middle man. Stupid comparison, Ral. 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: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet And what is the difference between paying for insurance that includes contraception as an employee benefit and having that same employee take their salary and buy birth control? Probably the same difference in their eyes as an employer compensating his employees with heroin, or the employees taking their salary and going out to buy that heroin.

BitaTruble -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/19/2012 1:00:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance YOU arent paying for it DS ISNT paying for it GOD ISNT paying for it Catholics ARENT paying for it. MY 87.43 every two weeks IS This, this, this, this and I'd say this again but my insurance is $156.93. I know that for a fact because that's what I put on the check I send to Aetna every month and I don't see anyone else putting even [sm=2cents.gif] into my checking account to help cover that cost.. so no one else has any say over it.. (Well, except Himself if he wants, but he don't so he doesn't.)

GotSteel -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/19/2012 6:35:02 AM)
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.

GotSteel -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/19/2012 7:16:29 AM)
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. [sm=idea.gif] 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.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625