thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,443
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 7, 2012 13:40:23 GMT -5
Is that still true? (I mean, besides me giving my husband the snip or cooch ultimatum.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:57:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 13:44:56 GMT -5
A woman recently won a settlement for being forcibly sterilized from NC. It was allowable there under state law until the 1990's.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 7, 2012 13:55:11 GMT -5
Many of these "services" have a very ugly history too. The Catholic Church has traditionally stood against sterilization and sterilization has often been a "service" forced on people against their will. Tubal ligations and vasectomies are considered sins in the Catholic church.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,443
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 7, 2012 13:57:23 GMT -5
We just had a nun ex-communicated because she approved a "sin" as medical treatment in the catholic hospital.
|
|
Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on Feb 7, 2012 13:57:44 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. Will the bishops be going without Health insurance? I doubt it. It's the janitors/maintainance workers, secretaries, etc., who will be losing their Healthcare coverage. The bishop's housekeeper will be stuck needing public assistance to get treatment for her fibroid tumors, or dialysis... but His Excellency will be just fine. You may notice the pattern that has emerged...
|
|
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 14:01:46 GMT -5
Many of these "services" have a very ugly history too. The Catholic Church has traditionally stood against sterilization and sterilization has often been a "service" forced on people against their will. Tubal ligations and vasectomies are considered sins in the Catholic church. Only if they are your choice. For instance, if a woman is having female issues and has to have one.. they do not consider that a sin. However, like I said.. no one believes 100% in their Churches teachings. I had a tubal in 1992, my choice.. Then the hysterectomy in 2007, not my choice..
|
|
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 14:27:07 GMT -5
So much for the "Stupak" amendment...
I'm so surprised they lied. Wait. No I'm not.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,057
|
Post by teen persuasion on Feb 7, 2012 14:39:26 GMT -5
I read the letter our Bishop put out to all the local parishes. I think that he will find that instead of all the "faithful" sending emails to our politicians against this idea (his urging), most that contact the politicians will be in favor of the idea. The rest won't bother to do anything.
If the Catholic church were to drop employee health insurance, ther would be a HUGE uproar in this area, since it would have far reaching effect in a locale w/ a large RC population. Our family's health insurance is thru DH's employer, which just formed a consortium in an effort to form a larger group for better bargaining. That consortium includes Catholic Charities. Half of the hospitals in the area are in the Catholic network. Most private schools are Catholic, and many of the colleges.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,057
|
Post by teen persuasion on Feb 7, 2012 14:48:59 GMT -5
It's going to be a bloodbath. Especially since most of the employees are in the "helping" professions and not overpaid to begin with. I think it will be the Bishop's head that will roll, though. He's not too popular around here, after he closed all those churches. Journey in Faith and Grace, indeed.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 7, 2012 14:55:11 GMT -5
Let's call a spade a spade here. This rule is an effort to either close all Catholic hospitals or force them to secularize. They've already successfully closed the Catholic adoption agencies in many states by requiring them to adopt to gay couples. This is no different and neither are the government's intentions.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 7, 2012 14:58:54 GMT -5
Universal Healthcare is not the Solution and needs to be repealed., IMO ------------------------------------ ?? What Universal Healthcare? I didn't realize it was even on the table.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Feb 7, 2012 15:18:48 GMT -5
Let's call a spade a spade here. This rule is an effort to either close all Catholic hospitals or force them to secularize. They've already successfully closed the Catholic adoption agencies in many states by requiring them to adopt to gay couples. This is no different and neither are the government's intentions. After reading what Denninger has researched and written about this issue lately, I do not think the Catholic Church has a leg to stand on. market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=201281market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=201366
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 7, 2012 15:41:32 GMT -5
Very True.. There is not one person that believes 100% of their Churches teachings. How can you say that? Just as some muslims strictly follow (their interpretation of) the Quran, I'm sure some christians strictly follow (their interpretation of) the bible.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 7, 2012 15:45:12 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. Will the bishops be going without Health insurance? I doubt it. It's the janitors/maintainance workers, secretaries, etc., who will be losing their Healthcare coverage. The bishop's housekeeper will be stuck needing public assistance to get treatment for her fibroid tumors, or dialysis... but His Excellency will be just fine. You may notice the pattern that has emerged... lmao...Where do you guys come up with this crap?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,443
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 7, 2012 15:46:32 GMT -5
No - Christians are all unique - just like everyone else.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 7, 2012 15:51:36 GMT -5
Unless what I read was wrong, the church did get an exemption.Did you see something otherwise?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 7, 2012 15:58:34 GMT -5
28 states already mandate contraceptives be covered. Eight of them do not have exemptions such as the one Obama gave churches from what I have read. Are those states trying to close hospitals and churches or secularize them? I doubt it.They are probably trying to broaden access to birth control in an attempt to lower their aid to families costs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:57:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 16:03:06 GMT -5
"They are probably trying to broaden access to birth control in an attempt to lower their aid to families costs."
Sorry, but forcing birth control to be covered does not broaden access. It raises costs which depress wages. People can buy their BC on their own just fine.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 7, 2012 16:06:55 GMT -5
Universal Healthcare is not the Solution and needs to be repealed., IMO ------------------------------------ ?? What Universal Healthcare? I didn't realize it was even on the table. Can someone please 'splain this to me? When did you get Universal Healthcare?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 7, 2012 16:11:13 GMT -5
We didn't Weltz, we didn't. So, there's nothing to repeal, right? I didn't think so.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 7, 2012 16:24:15 GMT -5
I would think insurance covering contraceptives would lower the insurance companies costs in the long run, which would help hold down premiums . Besides I was refering to the majority of states mandating birthcontrol coverage, in an attempt to hold their welfare and family service costs at bay.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,443
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 7, 2012 16:27:05 GMT -5
The government just wants less babies. They want all population growth to come from immigration. It actually isn't a bad plan. It is cheaper to get them ready to work, too expensive to raise them from hatchlings. Plus, all those white ones - once they hit their early 20's, it is nothing but whining, whining about how the government should fail because they can't find a job with a giant tatoo on their face.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 7, 2012 16:30:38 GMT -5
I wonder if Viagra is covered in the plan?
Hell hath no fury like a pecker scorned.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 7, 2012 16:49:47 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. Well, first off, these aren't religious institutions so their objections don't exactly have the same protections. Secondly, many companies offer crappy health insurance that doesn't cover all kinds of stuff. For example, my insurance doesn't really cover physical therapy, so I got stuck with the kind of bill that could buy several year's worth of BC pills from 2 sessions. Why is it ok for my physical therapy to not be covered but someone's morning after pill is a sacred cow? After all you whether or not you sleep with someone, I didn't choose to get injured.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 7, 2012 17:12:24 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. Well, first off, these aren't religious institutions so their objections don't exactly have the same protections. Secondly, many companies offer crappy health insurance that doesn't cover all kinds of stuff. For example, my insurance doesn't really cover physical therapy, so I got stuck with the kind of bill that could buy several year's worth of BC pills from 2 sessions. Why is it ok for my physical therapy to not be covered but someone's morning after pill is a sacred cow? After all you whether or not you sleep with someone, I didn't choose to get injured. There are all kinds of things that are required to be covered by the new bill. I am willing to bet that some sort of physical therapy is on the list. This list of things that has to be covered isn't just limited to BC, that is just the thing that seems to cause an stir though. And, really is Obama going to lose votes over this - I am guessing no. Most of the people that are pissed off over the issue probably weren't voting for him anyway.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 7, 2012 17:16:26 GMT -5
Yes, my insurance does claim to cover physical therapy, but their rate of reimbursement is so low that I could pay cash for an IUD or any other kid of BC for far less than the copays and bills for a year's worth of PT. And you're fooling yourself if you think Obamacare is going to change that. But your sacred cow is protected and that's all that matters.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 7, 2012 17:23:29 GMT -5
Yes, my insurance does claim to cover physical therapy, but their rate of reimbursement is so low that I could pay cash for an IUD or any other kid of BC for far less than the copays and bills for a year's worth of PT. And you're fooling yourself if you think Obamacare is going to change that. But your sacred cow is protected and that's all that matters. Wow, calling me a fool & assuming BC is my sacred cow. You clearly have me pegged I haven't read the bill in a while, so I don't remember details. But, I believe there were rules regarding how high copays could be & when copays could be required. They also are going to have minimum coverage amounts. I couldn't tell you specifically how this would affect your insurance, but if you haven't read the bill, then I would say you are the fool for making a bunch of assumptions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:57:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 17:58:53 GMT -5
This is about more than Catholics and contaception. It is about the 1st amendment and freedom of religion and imo it will not be just the Catholics that will be having some problems with this one.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 7, 2012 18:15:57 GMT -5
So will the states that already have this requirement be forced to drop it?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 7, 2012 18:54:52 GMT -5
It is suprising these charges of " attacking the Catholic church" have just come up. 28 states already have the mandate,8 of them have no exemptions.Obama exempted churches.....<<----"An estimated 11.6 million American women use oral contraceptives, the leading method of contraceptive in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Unintended pregnancies are associated with increased risk for poor birth outcomes. Employer-based coverage is the primary form of health insurance for 64 percent of women of reproductive age. Almost all insurance plans cover prescription drugs, but many still do not cover the range of contraceptive drugs and devices that are approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Federal law requires insurance coverage of contraceptives for federal employees and their dependents, allowing a few religious insurers exemption from the requirements. At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. An additional two states—Michigan± and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion. Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans. Some laws prohibit insurance plans from excluding contraceptive services or supplies. Some states include an exemption for employers who object to such coverage for religious reasons. Twenty states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage (usually for religion) for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia. (These states are indicated with an * in the table below.) Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage. TABLE KEY: ± Religious exemption is found in an administrative regulation or ruling. For more information, please see the State Policies in Brief on Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives by the Guttmacher Institute, which features a state chart of coverage mandates." www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
|
|