Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:27:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 3:02:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:27:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 8:19:36 GMT -5
"No one is forcing the Roman Catholic believers who have these policies to use the contrceptives." No, but they're forcing them to participate in an activity they consider to be morally wrong. ------------------------------------------- "It is not the right place for the laws of the land to enforce them upon us!" Dem, I think you have it backwards. The law forcing the religious organizations to participate in acts they believe to be morally objectionable is the gov't forcing its beliefs on others. Those who participate in these health plans currently are not being denied any rights. Either people can buy contraceptives out of their own pockets, or the health plan can raise rates and then pay for them. Either way, the participants pay. So this isn't even a matter of health insurance. And these employees are free to choose other employers or other health plans if they believe so strongly that they think someone else should pay for their contraceptives. My health plan doesn't pay for orthodontics. Do we also need a law to force plans to pay for that?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 7, 2012 8:56:24 GMT -5
The way I understand it, the church, and direct affiliations employees did get an exemption.The Bishops are arguing to get the exemptions broadened to include such things as hospital workers, etc...IMO, Obama can not win this one in the court of media or public opinion.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 7, 2012 9:09:59 GMT -5
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 7, 2012 9:14:29 GMT -5
approving new regulations that compel religious organizations to include morning-after pills
This isn't true, the morning after pill RU-486 was specifically left out of this regulation.
Funny that the Catholic hierarchy has suddenly developed a problem with this. The regulation to provide coverage for birth control already exists in 28 states and not all of those provide an exemption for religious organizations. Unless the Catholic church is trying to be political in an election year, one would think that they would have raised this issue and stripped health care for many of their non-Catholic employees long before now. In fact states like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin will have to adopt exemptions for religious organizations to keep in line with these regulations.
The law forcing the religious organizations to participate in acts they believe to be morally objectionable is the gov't forcing its beliefs on others.
Who is forcing the Catholic church to hire non-Catholics? If they Catholic church is hiring people who do not share the Catholic view that contraception is morally objectionable, then the Catholic church is bringing this crisis down upon themselves. IMO, the Catholic church is well within their rights to say that they believe contraception is morally objectionable, but they are not within their rights to expect non-Catholics in their employ to agree with them.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 7, 2012 9:19:44 GMT -5
Theoreticaly, even if churches were not exempt, it should not even be an issue because no Catholics should put in a claim for them... Lol..If Obama wanted to be a smart a## he could lift the exemption on churches and exempt hospitals.There should be no issue or claims then. Before the claimsof I am attacking religion start, will the disclaimer of I was raised in a pretty strict Catholic family help?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 7, 2012 10:02:28 GMT -5
28 states already mandate contraceptive coverage. 8 of those states have no exemptions whatsoever, according to a USA Today article I read . How does the church rationalize it or get agound it in those states, I wonder.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:27:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 10:04:40 GMT -5
The law forcing the religious organizations to participate in acts they believe to be morally objectionable is the gov't forcing its beliefs on others.
I have ALWAYS felt that one of the big problems in the republican party is that to vote republican you are in fact supporting their religious agenda. By putting that agenda in their politics they are cutting their own throats with a large number of voters. I find it funny as hell that the democrats have watched this happen & then come along & done the exact same thing.
Who is forcing the Catholic church to hire non-Catholics?
Sorry but can you see the lawsuits that would happen if you were told that you didn't get a job because you were the wrong religion? Or how about a class action suit showing that for 1,000 secretary jobs not one Baptist was hired? Just substitute the word black for non catholic & you will get the idea how well that would go over in a court of law. The same laws against prejudice would cover both possibilities.
You can't legislate morality & the government shouldn't be trying to. That is another area that the government shouldn't be allowing into.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 7, 2012 10:05:22 GMT -5
It seems to me covering contraceptives should bring down healthcare costs for insurance companies in the long run.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Feb 7, 2012 10:09:11 GMT -5
That would be the EEOC. eeoc.com/The EEOC has stated that one cannot be discriminated against due to religion. Which means that one cannot ask hey, are you Catholic during a job interview, it also means that one cannot put "non-Catholics need not apply" on job ads.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 7, 2012 10:16:30 GMT -5
DELETED BY ME
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:27:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 10:27:59 GMT -5
"It seems to me covering contraceptives should bring down healthcare costs for insurance companies in the long run."
Why? How hard is it to go to the store and pay a few bucks for some condoms? You're telling me people are going to simply take the risk of getting pregnant because they don't want to spend $5? The hard part of getting contraceptives is getting in a car and driving to the store. ------------------------------------- "Actually, I believe that the Catholic Church and other religious organizations are legally empowered to do exactly that, i.e. hire only those of their own faith."
You're talking about churches, not organizations that are associated with churches.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Feb 7, 2012 10:31:00 GMT -5
Actually, I believe that the Catholic Church and other religious organizations are legally empowered to do exactly that, i.e. hire only those of their own faith. There are exceptions in the law to allow that. After all, you don't want to force a synagogue to hire a Methodist rabbi. Nonetheless, many trained doctors, nurses, schoolteachers etc. are non-Catholic and services to clients will suffer. Then too, many Catholics are aware of a history of anti-Catholic bigotry such as what surfaced during the 19th Century in the name of the Know-Nothing Party and the infamous "Tunnel to the Vatican" slanders against Kennedy. Most Catholics would balk at firing innocent people in the name of religion. It would cause them terrible suffering for no good reason. The way the bill is now written, it essentially requires the firing of multitudes or the removal of health coverage. If the Catholic Church is doing this then it is in volation of the EEOC All the exemption does is allow a bias for hiring one who shares faith. It does not allow for out right discrimination based on someone not being of your religion. ETA:
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2012 10:35:13 GMT -5
Oh Goodie! We have the Jewish vote, now we're getting the Catholic vote, too! It's like Christmukkah!
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,971
|
Post by bean29 on Feb 7, 2012 10:38:22 GMT -5
I think the article that Tennesseer posted above says it very well. I think the issue goes a little deeper than what the catholic church is claiming their issue is (right now). The Catholic Church says no birth control but 98% of their members ignore this teaching. Saying it should be a matter of conscious obviously does not work, because Catholics are largely conscious free with this decision. If the church is successful in eliminating the morning after pill and IUD's from the list of Birth control choices American Women have, will they next go after eliminating birth control coverage entirely? I am an confirmed ala carte Catholic. In this instance I would prefer that the government protect my right to have access to birth control. I don't trust the Church. I think the Catholic Church is very misguided on Women's issues. It is all about preserving their power. It is my understanding that Universities and Say Catholic Grade Schools/Hospitals receiving/accepting tax $$ to provide services must accept the law of the land in hiring decisions and in providing health care. If they give up their piece of the government pie, they don't have to abide by the government rulings. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
|
|
TD2K
Senior Associate
Once you kill a cow, you gotta make a burger
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 1:19:25 GMT -5
Posts: 10,931
|
Post by TD2K on Feb 7, 2012 10:54:48 GMT -5
Roman Catholic leaders have furiously criticized other changes in the past, they are no longer the power they used to be.
|
|
gavinsnana
Senior Member
If we forget we are One Nation Under God, then we are a Nation gone under. Ronald Reagan
Joined: Oct 13, 2011 11:02:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,201
|
Post by gavinsnana on Feb 7, 2012 11:10:35 GMT -5
No, I am not mistaken. By "believers" I mean individuals, as in employees receiving care, not the organizations paying for the plans. Presumably these employees also share these Catholic beliefs, and therefore are not going to partake of birth control methods of any kind, whether offered by the health care plan or not. I am Catholic and many Catholics are not against birth control, despite the Church teachings, but they are against the Government paying for it. They are also against Abortion as well as the Government paying for that. There are some that are not against either.. Universal Healthcare is not the Solution and needs to be repealed., IMO Insurance Across State Lines 03/27/11 | SOURCE: Florida Tribune Republicans across the country have contended that one alternative to the controversial federal health care reform plan is to let Americans buy health insurance across state lines. A House panel on Wednesday approved a bill that would let Florida become the first state in the nation to start doing that. But the legislation may trigger a firestorm of opposition from Florida-based insurers if the bill isn’t substantially changed. The measure by Rep. John Wood, HB 1117, would allow insurance agents to sell health insurance policies in Florida from out-of-state companies with little regulatory oversight, including control over pricing or the type of coverage offered. Regulators would be allowed to review whether the company was solvent. Wood said the legislation would help provide Floridians with more access to lower-priced health insurance since out-of-state companies could offer coverage without mandated coverages. But HMOs and health insurers in Florida say they would be at a competitive disadvantage if they were forced to compete against out-of-state insurers that can sell policies that aren’t required to follow the 49-plus mandates in state law. Mandates are requirements that insurers offer coverage for such items as mammograms or autism. Michael Garner, president and chief executive officer of the Florida Association of Health Plans, said that his group supports the bill, but added that he wants to work with Wood to come up with a proposal that could help out Florida-based insurers. Wood told members of the House Health & Human Services Access Subcommittee that he was open to changes. Garner’s idea, however, could also draw opposition. He said on Wednesday that he will ask Wood to amend his bill to include a provision that the out-of-state insurers cannot start selling policies in Florida until after the state repeals all existing health insurance mandates. Garner explained that mandates would be repealed by July 2012, giving time for a study commission to look at which mandates should remain in place, and which ones are driving up the cost of health insurance. Ven Sequenzia, president of the Autism Society of Florida, lobbied the Legislature more than a dozen years trying to get the current autism mandate passed into law. He said it was a hard uphill battle but isn’t surprised there is an interest in repealing the requirements. “Honestly, the HMO and insurance companies are looking at the bottom line. That’s all they tend to look at.” The Legislature, he said, should resist the temptation to repeal the mandates though noting that they are there to ensure access to certain services and providers that keep people well. “The reality is these are human beings that need coverage, that need insurance, that need medical care,” Sequenzia said. The Florida Medical Association reserved comment because it had not seen the amendment. Wood’s bill on Wednesday cleared the committee by a 10-5 vote after Democrats on the panel expressed concerns about allowing the sale of health insurance policies that may not include mandates consumers expect in a health insurance policy. Sen. J.D. Alexander, chairman of the powerful Budget Committee, is the Senate sponsor of the legislation.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 7, 2012 11:12:36 GMT -5
The Church has a decision to make. They are simply being asked to play by the same rules everyone else plays by. The Church should also mind to it's own flock, not everyone else. They are trying to politically force their views regarding gay rights on the people of the state of Maine right now. Not cool. I have heard many annalist on this topic..one that has me worried, and being a over all supporter of him and the health policy..at least believe all should have a way to be covered , is a realistic political one that one made in the discussion I heard.. Politically, 77 million catholics..and even those who might not be practicing all the Churches wants on this topic, they too are upset with the ban of.. Possible the advisers of Obama, according to this annalist feelings, feel that those who will really be objecting to this demand on the Church are super conservative anyway so they , Obama/ Dems politically, wouldn't be losing any to speak of votes anyway..people who wouldn't b supporting him, them anyway..however this annalist suggests that is not true , and I believe that too..a bad political mistake and to suggest politics shouldn't enter into the discussion, who are we kidding..politic in our country always at least enters into all decisions in some way..some times in the last analysis ignored and at times considered and actions acted on because of..it's the way it is.. This one to me..should have been in the least, ignored, tabled..IMHO..
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 7, 2012 11:18:27 GMT -5
Another good question is who is forcing non-Catholics to choose to work at Catholic institutions? The answer is nobody. Nobody is forcing non-catholics and cafeteria catholics to work for Catholic hospitals. So if you choose to work for a Catholic institution, you are hardly in a positon to expect your employer to PAY for something they find morally objectionable. It's not like these Catholic institutions are preventing their employees from getting abortions or sterilized. They just don't want to sponsor it.
If I went to work for Greenpeace, I doubt they would prevent me from buying stock in a company that pollutes the environment, but I sure as heck wouldn't be in a position to complain if their 401k plan didn't include a 'Oil industry and whale killing companies' mutual fund.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 7, 2012 11:19:20 GMT -5
The problem is having an employer be forced to buy what he morally objects to.
Actually I think the problem is an employer hiring what they consider to be morally objectionable employees then not having any degree of tolerance for them.
Sorry but can you see the lawsuits that would happen if you were told that you didn't get a job because you were the wrong religion?
This has nothing to do with the employees religion, its about what the employer considers morally acceptable. The Catholic church has made their position well known, as a condition of employment, candidates can be asked to sign a statement which explains why the employer is only offering a certain type of health care policy. Then its up to the employee to determine if they want to accept the job based on those policies. No one forces anyone.
That would be the EEOC.
Please show me where the EEOC has mandated that the any church hire non-Catholics. In fact the EEOC say that you cannot base your decision on a candidates religion.
it also means that one cannot put "non-Catholics need not apply" on job ads
But it doesn't say that the church cannot make a candidate aware of restrictions placed on the offered health care and allow the candidate to make up their own mind. Look at the job market, some employers offer 4 weeks vacation others offer 2, some offer bonuses others do not. This is the health care coverage we offer, take it or leave it.
Nonetheless, many trained doctors, nurses, schoolteachers etc. are non-Catholic and services to clients will suffer.
Or it will create an opportunity for insurance companies to offer supplemental coverage to make up the difference.
If the Catholic Church is doing this then it is in violation of the EEOC
Forcing any religion to hire clergy or religious teachers outside of that faith would be in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, EEOC can't change that.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 7, 2012 11:32:45 GMT -5
Republicans across the country have contended that one alternative to the controversial federal health care reform plan is to let Americans buy health insurance across state lines.
So much for republican support of states rights.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:27:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 11:50:08 GMT -5
Catholic hospitals are funny creatures. Some of them are independent and not affiliated with the church even though they are Catholic. A good chunk of them already provide contraceptive coverage. So the Church will probably issue a directive and some will follow it, some will unaffiliate, and some will close. I tend to think that this will offend religious conservatives of all faiths. I don't think it's going to affect the election though because I don't see religious conservatives voting for Obama in any case.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,443
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 7, 2012 11:52:15 GMT -5
If 98% of Catholics don't agree, I doubt it will change their vote. I'll be interested to see who pulls out first in this game of chicken. ETA: Oops - sorry - pun not intended.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:27:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 11:53:25 GMT -5
A lot of Catholics support the personal use of contraceptives. Whether they support Church institutions being forced to provide them is another question.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Feb 7, 2012 12:49:44 GMT -5
I am not Catholic but for years religious groups have provided good and in many cases charitable health care to communities. The church does not believe in abortion so do we say they must provide abortions. These hospitals were founded on church principals and a service to the communities. And I must say they have done an excellent job. So if these rules are against the churches beliefs what right do we have to meddle in their affairs? If a person does not agree with their principals go to work someplace else. Or if a person does not like what a hospital provides in the way of services go to another hospital. It is not like we don't have a choice. I do not like at all the insidious creeping into religious affairs by the government. We have a seperation of church and state in this country. I see a trend of government inch by inch trying to take away the shield of protection of churches to work and worship as to what their long held tenents dictate. As the old saying goes (freedom of choice can be lost inch by inch if we are not diligent).
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,443
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 7, 2012 12:53:17 GMT -5
What's to stop Kellog's from saying they don't agree with treating cancer? Or GE thinks we shouldn't waste time on children with severe disabilities, because they have a strict ROI policy, and those kids just don't cut it, and therefore they should not have to pay for the treatment of any of those disabilities. When do employers get to hold all the cards? I guess when god tells them to.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:27:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 13:03:02 GMT -5
"Birth control and family planning is an essencial part of planning the whole structure of one's life."
But what does it have to do with health insurance? Like I said, my plan doesn't include orthodontics. Does the gov't also have to mandate that orthodontics be included?
I understand the church's aversion to the birth control pill and morning after pill and any other form that can terminate a fertilized egg, but don't get the aversion to, say, condoms. But quite frankly, in this setting, I don't care about that. And it doesn't matter what 98% of Catholics do. Why should the gov't tell them what they have to cover? It's not like they're denying coverage for cancer or something.
Birth control is not a matter of health insurance except in rare cases. It is simply something "extra" that a plan can provide.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:27:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 13:04:22 GMT -5
"What's to stop Kellog's from saying they don't agree with treating cancer?"
If you can tell me what common disease is treated by the morning after pill, we can continue this discussion. My companies plan covers dentistry but not orthodontics. Should they be required to cover orthodontics? ----------------------------------------------------
"When do employers get to hold all the cards?"
They never do. They are in competition for employees with other companies. People are free to choose employers based on what sort of healthcare coverage is offered. All else being equal, a company that offers terrible health coverage will lose quality employees to those that have good coverage. Hence employers generally try to have good coverage.
|
|
gavinsnana
Senior Member
If we forget we are One Nation Under God, then we are a Nation gone under. Ronald Reagan
Joined: Oct 13, 2011 11:02:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,201
|
Post by gavinsnana on Feb 7, 2012 13:19:11 GMT -5
A lot of Catholics support the personal use of contraceptives. Whether they support Church institutions being forced to provide them is another question. Very True.. There is not one person that believes 100% of their Churches teachings.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Feb 7, 2012 13:20:58 GMT -5
Ever business has it's rules. You don't like their rules, go work someplace else.As I say I am not a Catholic but I agree with them on this.
|
|