jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Small Quick Marriage Catholic Chapels whom perform only basic Catholic marriages are being forced to adhere to state laws which make Same-Sex marriages legal and cannot deny homosexual partnerships because technically the chapel is not a place of worship and thus not a religious denomination despite being backed, funded, and founded entirely on those grounds.
Here is where you run into a bit of a problem with your argument.
A religious institution, such as a church, when it comes to conducting religious services, is exempt from any law that would have them perform an act or service contrary to their religious doctrine.
Meaning they cannot be forced to conduct same sex marriages.
This is based on a court case from back in the 50's when a Catholic family tried to force a Catholic church by lawsuit to bury a person in their church cemetery who committed suicide.
Since this is a cardinal sin, they cannot, by church doctrine be buried in consecrated ground.
The people who filed the lawsuit lost on those grounds.
The argument is that the religious organization must pay for these services in an insurance plan purchased under the Affordable care act.
This is not actually the case.
Under the regulations, the Insurance Carrier must provide all birth control, abortions, the morning after pill, however they are not allowed by law to charge the religious organizations for this part of the coverage.
Which means the Catholic Charity is not paying for this type of coverage, everyone else is with a slightly higher group premium.
So if the Catholic Charity is paying x amount per person for coverage, every other company is paying x + %x to cover what they cannot charge the Catholics for.
And since I am Catholic and do not believe abortion or some forms or birth control are morally or ethically proper, I still think this is bullshit.
Of course, I think that 90% of the affordable health care act is nothing more than bureaucratic bullshit that was a joke from the word go.
As far as the affordable health care act is concerned, the following is a limited rant on the bullshit bill.
When the mandate to have insurance was a GOP idea under Clinton it was a good thing, under Obama it was not a good thing.
Hell for that matter if the GOP alternative proposed under Clinton would have been adopted (which included input from insurance companies as well as the health care industry) the US health care system and the insurance would be in a lot better shape than it is now. (not to mention it would cost the US government a third to administer than obamacare does.)
One of the lesser known (but major Clinton headache) parts of the GOP plan then included an INDEPENDENT self governing agency paid for by both insurance and health care providers to monitor all aspects of the health care industry including cost of premiums, copays, cost of services and most importantly, cost of malpractice insurance as well.
Completely independent of the Federal Government.
Of course the Democrat argument was "that is like hiring a fox to guard the hen house."
But then the Democrat party's and liberal stand is that big business is always out to screw the little guy.
I know for a fact that health insurance companies and health care have been working together for years on independent ways to save everyone money, from the patient to the insurance carriers.
I also know that half the ideas they have come up with have met with government resistance.
My information comes from my brother in law (who I cannot stand) and my sister, both certified accountants in the health care industry, and my sister also happens to be a licensed nurse practitioner.
One of the arguments during the Affordable health care act was denial for pre-existing conditions, something only the smaller insurance carriers made a practice of.
Of course, smaller means less capital to cover high costs some of those conditions have.
Another was the denial of life saving but experimental procedures. Insurance companies typically have a problem with experimental procedures. The key word is 'experimental.'
Experimental means that the procedure in question has a tenuous approval by the FDA, and usually means that if done outside a University research hospital, they can cost 5 to 20 times the cost of any other procedure, with no guarantee of a good result, in fact they can and have in some cases made things worse.
Finally the cap on catastrophic health care costs.
This I have mixed feelings about, simply because if a person has been treated for something like cancer past the normal treatment period with no positive results, the odds are against any kind of treatment specifically for the cancer working.
So, you are paying for treatments that are prolonging life at best and not improving quality of life in the least.
At some point someone has to say, enough is enough. Go for treatment that will improve the quality of what time the person has left.
I also do not agree with forcing an insurance company to pay for life support for a patient that has zero brain function.
I mean, seriously, if the brain damage is so severe that it cannot even regulate basic body functions, why keep the body alive?
But if the family so desires, the Insurance company has to go to court to stop the damn treatment, which costs thousands per day.
That cost has to be recouped somewhere, so it is everyone else who has to pay for it.
Again, bullshit.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: Something to consider - 
Profile
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