Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Oh oh!; Justice Blocks Obamacare Birth Control Mandate
Topic Started: Jan 2 2014, 07:51 PM (1,488 Views)
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 08:36 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 5 2014, 04:33 AM
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 03:57 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 4 2014, 09:48 PM
People who work in the health care business, specifically hospitals, aren't able to just quit and go to work at another hospital because, in most cases, the other hospitals are also owned by the Catholic church. I would have no problem with the church rejecting contraception or anything else it feels violates its beliefs, but I would also not pay them for anything that is paid for by the public at large. I think, contrary to Mike's comments that the churches motive is altruistic, the motive is financial. They have discovered many ways to make huge amounts of money through businesses, not religion, by being able to claim non-profit status and thus, paying no taxes. It's a scam, imo. As is the concept of tithing and passing the collection plate at every opportunity.

MR, can you show that most hospitals in the US are owned by the Catholic Church as you say?

Your total post here is your opinion, not to mention absurd in terms of "payment for services."
Apparently 12% of the hospitals in the US are owned by the Catholic church. Here in central Nebraska, the only full service hospitals are in Grand Island and Kearney and they are both Catholic owned. I'm not knocking the hospitals service though. I've had two occasions to use those hospitals in the past three years and the care was superb. My concern is with the notion that anyone working for those hospitals can just go somewhere else if contraception isn't provided is ludicrous.
But you wrote "in most cases, the other hospitals are also woned by the Catholic Church" which isn't true as you now mention. Someone reading your first post might take your word for it unless they challenged you by doing their own research.

"My concern is with the notion that anyone working for those hospitals can just go somewhere else if contraception isn't provided is ludicrous."

Yes, it is ludicrous. I can't imagine someone having a job in a hospital (or anywhere else) and leaving just because their health care plan did not include "contraception."
It's true in many rural areas. Here ya go, Ban. Read this.

Here
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I don't know if there aren't any.... particularly if they don't feel it's against their religious beliefs.... as many are secular institutions.

What difference does it make! I'm still waiting for that answer.

What difference does it make even if there is only one Catholic institution out of all the Catholic institutions that wishes to exclude contraception from the health insurance it offers based on religious beliefs while all the rest of the Catholic world collapses from governmental, social and individual pressures and go against their beliefs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Jan 5 2014, 09:06 AM
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 08:36 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 5 2014, 04:33 AM
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 03:57 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 4 2014, 09:48 PM
People who work in the health care business, specifically hospitals, aren't able to just quit and go to work at another hospital because, in most cases, the other hospitals are also owned by the Catholic church. I would have no problem with the church rejecting contraception or anything else it feels violates its beliefs, but I would also not pay them for anything that is paid for by the public at large. I think, contrary to Mike's comments that the churches motive is altruistic, the motive is financial. They have discovered many ways to make huge amounts of money through businesses, not religion, by being able to claim non-profit status and thus, paying no taxes. It's a scam, imo. As is the concept of tithing and passing the collection plate at every opportunity.

MR, can you show that most hospitals in the US are owned by the Catholic Church as you say?

Your total post here is your opinion, not to mention absurd in terms of "payment for services."
Apparently 12% of the hospitals in the US are owned by the Catholic church. Here in central Nebraska, the only full service hospitals are in Grand Island and Kearney and they are both Catholic owned. I'm not knocking the hospitals service though. I've had two occasions to use those hospitals in the past three years and the care was superb. My concern is with the notion that anyone working for those hospitals can just go somewhere else if contraception isn't provided is ludicrous.
But you wrote "in most cases, the other hospitals are also woned by the Catholic Church" which isn't true as you now mention. Someone reading your first post might take your word for it unless they challenged you by doing their own research.

"My concern is with the notion that anyone working for those hospitals can just go somewhere else if contraception isn't provided is ludicrous."

Yes, it is ludicrous. I can't imagine someone having a job in a hospital (or anywhere else) and leaving just because their health care plan did not include "contraception."
It's true in many rural areas. Here ya go, Ban. Read this.

Here
SO WHAT

Are you going to quit your job when there is no other place to go, as you say, just because you don't respect the rights of the institution and are too cheap to provide your own contraception?

This gets more ridiculous as it goes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
double post, sorry.
Edited by Banandangees, Jan 5 2014, 09:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 08:25 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 5 2014, 04:28 AM
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 03:52 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 4 2014, 09:41 PM
Same ole BS from the right wing. Ms. Fluke hasn't asked anybody, but those who would be covered by birth control, to pay for it. She simply asked that contraception be included in the insurance policies she and others are paying for.

"Law Center student Sandra Fluke petitioned the university to change its health insurance policy to include coverage for contraception for three years prior to addressing the issue before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee in 2012".


MR, can you show that Ms Fluke, who was a 3rd law student at Georgetown University when she addressed the US senate, was paying anything for her University provided healthcare insurance or was it included in her grant in aide?
First thing you need to recognize is that she wasn't asking for this for herself, but for other women at the school. Here's what she said: "I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy -- that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school -- wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it
That was a quote from a friend of hers. I have no idea whether Ms. Fluke pays for her insurance or not, but that wasn't the question.

"See more at: http://angrybearblog.com/2012/03/will-we-really-be-paying-sandra-flukes.html#The government doesn’t pay student medical insurance premiums; the students do "- [/color

Source

If she received the grant, the money was hers and she paid for her insurance from that, I suppose.

Obviously, she wasn't asking it solely for herself, but as the quote you included shows: "I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy -- that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school -- wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.

What a totally ridiculous statement for a supposedly "intelligent" law student to say. Has she no will power?, no good judgment, no other means to purchase, or have her "partner" purchase relatively cheap contraception... cheap as compared to bearing a child? The institute has a right to include/exclude what ever it wants in it's chosen health care plans. Why should he institution include everything every student wishes to have included?

The fact is, the students have choices, just like the institutions do. The Constitutional has a church vs state clause which is exercised in many ways by federal, state and local public entities. This is one of them... so says the judge.
She is blowing this way out of proportion as are the rest of you.

Sprintec, the generic version of Ortho-Cyclen birth control pills, is available at these places for pretty low prices (Sprintec @ Kroger is $24 for three months with no insurance.) That figures out to about 25 cents a day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

What diference does it make? Already explained. Without such a list, bowing to the Catholic Church would constitute the "establishment" of a State Church in direct violation of the Constitution. Do remember those on the right that argue against "separation of Church and State" are the ones that used to argue the constitution only prohibited the "establishment" of a State Church.

Why did you ignore the prior explanation of the difference it makes, Ban? Surely the Constitution is important to you, isn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 09:10 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 5 2014, 09:06 AM
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 08:36 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 5 2014, 04:33 AM
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 03:57 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 4 2014, 09:48 PM
People who work in the health care business, specifically hospitals, aren't able to just quit and go to work at another hospital because, in most cases, the other hospitals are also owned by the Catholic church. I would have no problem with the church rejecting contraception or anything else it feels violates its beliefs, but I would also not pay them for anything that is paid for by the public at large. I think, contrary to Mike's comments that the churches motive is altruistic, the motive is financial. They have discovered many ways to make huge amounts of money through businesses, not religion, by being able to claim non-profit status and thus, paying no taxes. It's a scam, imo. As is the concept of tithing and passing the collection plate at every opportunity.

MR, can you show that most hospitals in the US are owned by the Catholic Church as you say?

Your total post here is your opinion, not to mention absurd in terms of "payment for services."
Apparently 12% of the hospitals in the US are owned by the Catholic church. Here in central Nebraska, the only full service hospitals are in Grand Island and Kearney and they are both Catholic owned. I'm not knocking the hospitals service though. I've had two occasions to use those hospitals in the past three years and the care was superb. My concern is with the notion that anyone working for those hospitals can just go somewhere else if contraception isn't provided is ludicrous.
But you wrote "in most cases, the other hospitals are also woned by the Catholic Church" which isn't true as you now mention. Someone reading your first post might take your word for it unless they challenged you by doing their own research.

"My concern is with the notion that anyone working for those hospitals can just go somewhere else if contraception isn't provided is ludicrous."

Yes, it is ludicrous. I can't imagine someone having a job in a hospital (or anywhere else) and leaving just because their health care plan did not include "contraception."
It's true in many rural areas. Here ya go, Ban. Read this.

Here
SO WHAT

Are you going to quit your job when there is no other place to go, as you say, just because you don't respect the rights of the institution and are too cheap to provide your own contraception?

This gets more ridiculous as it goes.
You're the one being ridiculous. Contraception includes other medical treatments. Unless you are going to accept that fact, I'm done trying to talk sense to you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Jan 5 2014, 09:13 AM
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 08:25 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 5 2014, 04:28 AM
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 03:52 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 4 2014, 09:41 PM
Same ole BS from the right wing. Ms. Fluke hasn't asked anybody, but those who would be covered by birth control, to pay for it. She simply asked that contraception be included in the insurance policies she and others are paying for.

"Law Center student Sandra Fluke petitioned the university to change its health insurance policy to include coverage for contraception for three years prior to addressing the issue before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee in 2012".


MR, can you show that Ms Fluke, who was a 3rd law student at Georgetown University when she addressed the US senate, was paying anything for her University provided healthcare insurance or was it included in her grant in aide?
First thing you need to recognize is that she wasn't asking for this for herself, but for other women at the school. Here's what she said: "I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy -- that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school -- wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it
That was a quote from a friend of hers. I have no idea whether Ms. Fluke pays for her insurance or not, but that wasn't the question.

"See more at: http://angrybearblog.com/2012/03/will-we-really-be-paying-sandra-flukes.html#The government doesn’t pay student medical insurance premiums; the students do "- [/color

Source

If she received the grant, the money was hers and she paid for her insurance from that, I suppose.

Obviously, she wasn't asking it solely for herself, but as the quote you included shows: "I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy -- that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school -- wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.

What a totally ridiculous statement for a supposedly "intelligent" law student to say. Has she no will power?, no good judgment, no other means to purchase, or have her "partner" purchase relatively cheap contraception... cheap as compared to bearing a child? The institute has a right to include/exclude what ever it wants in it's chosen health care plans. Why should he institution include everything every student wishes to have included?

The fact is, the students have choices, just like the institutions do. The Constitutional has a church vs state clause which is exercised in many ways by federal, state and local public entities. This is one of them... so says the judge.
She is blowing this way out of proportion as are the rest of you.

Sprintec, the generic version of Ortho-Cyclen birth control pills, is available at these places for pretty low prices (Sprintec @ Kroger is $24 for three months with no insurance.) That figures out to about 25 cents a day.
That would indicate that coverage of that prescribed medication would not significantly increase the cost of an insurance policy. Right, Pat?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
colo_crawdad
Jan 5 2014, 09:17 AM
Pat
Jan 5 2014, 09:13 AM
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 08:25 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 5 2014, 04:28 AM
Banandangees
Jan 5 2014, 03:52 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 4 2014, 09:41 PM
Same ole BS from the right wing. Ms. Fluke hasn't asked anybody, but those who would be covered by birth control, to pay for it. She simply asked that contraception be included in the insurance policies she and others are paying for.

"Law Center student Sandra Fluke petitioned the university to change its health insurance policy to include coverage for contraception for three years prior to addressing the issue before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee in 2012".


MR, can you show that Ms Fluke, who was a 3rd law student at Georgetown University when she addressed the US senate, was paying anything for her University provided healthcare insurance or was it included in her grant in aide?
First thing you need to recognize is that she wasn't asking for this for herself, but for other women at the school. Here's what she said: "I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy -- that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school -- wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it
That was a quote from a friend of hers. I have no idea whether Ms. Fluke pays for her insurance or not, but that wasn't the question.

"See more at: http://angrybearblog.com/2012/03/will-we-really-be-paying-sandra-flukes.html#The government doesn’t pay student medical insurance premiums; the students do "- [/color

Source

If she received the grant, the money was hers and she paid for her insurance from that, I suppose.

Obviously, she wasn't asking it solely for herself, but as the quote you included shows: "I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy -- that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school -- wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.

What a totally ridiculous statement for a supposedly "intelligent" law student to say. Has she no will power?, no good judgment, no other means to purchase, or have her "partner" purchase relatively cheap contraception... cheap as compared to bearing a child? The institute has a right to include/exclude what ever it wants in it's chosen health care plans. Why should he institution include everything every student wishes to have included?

The fact is, the students have choices, just like the institutions do. The Constitutional has a church vs state clause which is exercised in many ways by federal, state and local public entities. This is one of them... so says the judge.
She is blowing this way out of proportion as are the rest of you.

Sprintec, the generic version of Ortho-Cyclen birth control pills, is available at these places for pretty low prices (Sprintec @ Kroger is $24 for three months with no insurance.) That figures out to about 25 cents a day.
That would indicate that coverage of that prescribed medication would not significantly increase the cost of an insurance policy. Right, Pat?
Right. Probably a few penny's per policy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Summer
No Avatar
Sr. Member
[ * ]
It's an Rx, ordered by a Dr., it needs to be covered. There are many reasons for using the "pill", not just contraception.

Get informed. move on dinosaurs!

I guess some don't like the side benefits of decreased abortion and decreased birthrate among poor women that utilize "the system"...whatever
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis