If the president does not back off on this

[Sum Dum Gai]

What part of "This has nothing to do with whether an entity is a church or not," did you not understand?

Because the exemption for churches makes it pretty clear that this does indeed have something to do with whether an entity is a church or not. There's an exemption for religious institutions, however it only applies to the actual religious institution. Nobody is forcing the Catholic church, or any church, to provide birth control to their priests, bishops, ministers, or whatever. They're also free to ignore equal opportunity laws in hiring. If a religious organization opens a business under the church (like a hospital, college, or non-profit) they will be required to follow the same rules as every other business.

Again, big fraking deal! They should be required to follow the same rules. If they don't like it, they're free to stick to the church thing and stay out of business.

[Deleted]

"Aspirin is available OTC. If BC pills were available OTC, then you could compare the two. But, otherwise your comparison sucks."

Condoms and the "emergency contraception" pill are available OTC. How it's available is irrelevant. Except in the case where the medicine is needed to treat some condition, buying BC is no different than buying toilet paper or aspirin. You buy it because it's convenient, not medically necessary.

Speaking of toilet paper, perhaps health plans should cover that as well? I mean, without toilet paper, medical costs would also go up. Same rationale, different product.

------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because the exemption for churches makes it pretty clear that this does indeed have something to do with whether an entity is a church or not."

That's great. For like the fourth time, I'm not talking about the exemption for churches, but rather laws compelling any entity to include certain things in their health plans. I do want church-affiliated organization to follow the same rules as everyone else. And I want those rules to say the gov't doesn't get to decide what the health plan covers.

[Sum Dum Gai]

And I want those rules to say the gov't doesn't get to decide what the health plan covers.

Health insurance has always been heavily regulated. It's one of the most regulated industries in the country, and for good reason. You don't want to find out your insurance company decided to stop covering cancer treatment right after you're diagnosed with it, for example. Birth control saves health insurance companies and the general public money in the long run. Nobody is forcing anyone to take the actual pills. If they're against your religion, or just personal beliefs, don't use them. All this says is that they should be offered as part of routine preventative measures for those that want them. They make business sense. Pills are a hell of a lot cheaper than a pregnancy. Especially for women who've already had troubled pregnancies in the past, but can't get their tubes tied because the church says they'll spend eternity in hell if they do.

[973beachbum]

Feb 7, 2012 10:38:22 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Feb 7, 2012 9:09:59 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Most Catholic women of child bearing age use some type of birth control.

Bishops don't speak for most Catholics on contraception

www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/opinion/soko-catholic-contraception/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9

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.

for saying it so well.

[Deleted]

"Health insurance has always been heavily regulated."

And for good reason, I'm sure. I tried to keep my statement short and did not mean to imply it shouldn't be regulated. Requiring plans to cover stuff they don't want to is over the top.

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Birth control saves health insurance companies and the general public money in the long run."

Probably so. And not having it covered by a health plan doesn't impede a person from choosing to use it. It's not magically cheaper to add a third party to pay for something vs having a person just pay for it out of their own pocket. It's actually more costly when a middle-man gets involved.

[Sum Dum Gai]

It's actually more costly when a middle-man gets involved.

Not if your employer subsidizes your health insurance plan. Anything I pay for out of pocket has to come out of after tax dollars. Anything my employer provides comes out before taxes.

[Deleted]

"Not if your employer subsidizes your health insurance plan. Anything I pay for out of pocket has to come out of after tax dollars. Anything my employer provides comes out before taxes."

That has nothing to do with the actual cost, only the affect on your wallet. And since employers typically target paying for a certain amount of total healthcare costs, increases get passed along. Or raises are smaller.

[Deleted]

Obama sandbags the Archbishop

In November, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, held what he describes as an “extraordinarily friendly” meeting with Obama at the White House.

The president assured the archbishop of his respect for the Church, and the archbishop came away persuaded Obama would never force the Church to adopt any policy that would violate her principles.

Ten days ago, Obama sandbagged the archbishop He informed Cardinal-designate Dolan by phone that, with the sole concession of the Church being given an extra year, to August 2013, to comply, the new policy, as set down by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, will be imposed. All social and educational institutions of the Catholic Church will offer health insurance covering birth control, or face fines.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Archbishop Dolan, who went on:“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable. … This represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty.”

oriensjournal.com/media-reports/obama-sandbags-the-archbishop

Free contraception is a greater right than religious freedom to this President.
Confirmation of what he has been accused of and that he can't be trusted from the religious right.

[Deleted]

"Frankly, I am puzzled at the insistence of including contraceptive coverage at a time when contraceptives are so cheap and available."

Thank you!!!!! They might as well include toilet paper and hand soap as well....

[resolution]

I doubt that this will influence much of the vote. Most Catholics actually support the requirement for contraception to be covered in employer plans. There is actually a higher percentage of Catholics supporting it than Protestants. In my own parish, the people that expressed they would vote Republican in response were already voting Republican to oppose abortion.

publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/

[resolution]

Feb 8, 2012 17:22:50 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

"Frankly, I am puzzled at the insistence of including contraceptive coverage at a time when contraceptives are so cheap and available."

Thank you!!!!! They might as well include toilet paper and hand soap as well....

Condoms are cheap and have a high failure rate with typical use (approx 20% of women will become pregnant within one year). The Pill is cheap and is very effective, but some women have medical problems with them. It also requires a prescription, which requires a doctor's appointment. The other methods available are expensive and some require medical procedures.

[Tennesseer]

Feb 8, 2012 15:13:31 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Unless you think the Catholic Church will back down, I don't know how you can argue in favor of not giving them an exemption on their hosptals, schools, whatever. Thousands of employees will wake up with no coverage.

And the hospitals and schools will wake up with few employees.

That's the decision the hospitals are going to have to make.

Potential employees want medical benefits. To work for a business, and a hospital is a business, that does not offer benefits is very unattractive.

The best of the best will go work for hospitals and schools that do offer medical benefits which meet their needs.

[Sum Dum Gai]

That has nothing to do with the actual cost, only the affect on your wallet.

True, but when most people talk about "cost" all they care about is the amount coming out of their wallet. I don't really know or care what treating a broken arm truly costs. I know with my insurance it'll only cost me a max of $2,500. That's the only cost I personally care about when it comes down to it.

[Sum Dum Gai]

No, I don't think hospitals and schools will end up with few employees, at least not right away. You would have to be insane to leave in the middle of the worst recession in a generation, especially if you are near vesting in a pension or an older worker with years of service.

Let's be honest here, I don't think the Catholic Church has the cajones to stop offering health insurance over this. They're still sporting the black eye from the sex abuse scandal. Offering the coverage is popular with their flock anyway. The backlash they'll take for cutting health insurance in the middle of the worst recession in decades would be obscene. I respect their right to grandstand, but I really think any threat to stop offering insurance is a bluff. Times changed. The vast majority of Catholic women are using birth control. I just don't see this as a big enough issue with rank and file Catholics for them to honestly go through with it.

[resolution]

Feb 8, 2012 17:35:33 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Quite possibly, but how do they feel about their workers being stripped of insurance coverage over it?

There is no data on it because it hasn't happened yet so I can't answer with anything other than my opinion. This was a subject for discussion at my parish and at my in-laws parish. In both parishes there were a number of angry older women that were doing a lot of talking about forced abortion coverage (I think thats not really in the law) and no one else was saying anything. I would think the younger ones would be more likely to blame the church and the older ones would be more likely to blame the government if the church canceled its insurance.

Right now, about 98% of Catholic women use contraception and there are some Catholic theologians that are saying it doesn't violate anything Biblical. At the time I joined the church I discussed contraception with our priest and he said as long as we cherished any life that did come along, then go ahead and make our decision and don't confess it again. So in my opinion this is more of an issue for the Bishops and the old school Catholics, but the more liberal parish priests and younger members are looking at it differently. However, this is just an opinion and I don't have any data to support it.

[Tennesseer]

Feb 8, 2012 17:49:09 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

No, I don't think hospitals and schools will end up with few employees, at least not right away. You would have to be insane to leave in the middle of the worst recession in a generation, especially if you are near vesting in a pension or an older worker with years of service.

Those near vesting and those older workers with years of service aren't the ones who would like contraceptives as part of their medical benefits package. It is the younger employees who have less vested time and are no where near retirement age.

There is an impending nursing shortage on the horizon. Nursing schools cannot graduate nurses fast enough. The demand for nurses is going to rise drastically with the baby boomers soon to need more medical care.

Who do you think is going to attract the nurses-a hospital that offers a complete medical benefits package or one that offers little to none because of principle?

[Deleted]

When did pregnancy become a illness/disease anyway?

[Tennesseer]

It's up to the church at this point. Time will tell.

[Tennesseer]

Feb 8, 2012 18:26:57 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

When did pregnancy become a illness/disease anyway?

When did erectile dysfunction become an illness or disease? In the olden days you simply limped along. Men survived no worse the wear.

[Deleted]

Feb 8, 2012 18:33:03 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Feb 8, 2012 18:26:57 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

When did pregnancy become a illness/disease anyway?

When did erectile dysfunction become an illness or disease? In the olden days you simply limped along. Men survived no worse the wear.

Erectile dysfunction means disfunction, something is wrong.
It's entirely different .
Pregnancy is not a disfunction or an illness or a disease.

[Tennesseer]

Never needed to be treated in the past. Men lived with it. Many women were thankful for it. Mankind survived.

[Deleted]

And it has nothing to do with my question.

[Tennesseer]

Feb 8, 2012 18:45:11 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

And it has nothing to do with my question.

Are there any serious (possibly fatal) llnesses that can strike women if they become pregnant? Are women with certain medical conditions advised not to become pregnant? Under certain circumstances, are their any fatal congenitial diseases a mother and father could pass along to their child?

Becoming pregnant is not an illness or disease but there may be severe to fatal consequences down the line for mother and child. Those women who know they are carriers of congenital illnesses should not become pregnant.

[Tennesseer]

Dental is a separate insurance. I have medical, dental and eye care insurance.

[handyman2]

I don't know that dropping coverage would cause a nursing shortage. The church trains a lot of their own nurses. Many are nuns. Many of the Catholic hospitals at one time were run by senior Nuns. Some that i did work in were tough gals. They demanded the best out of everybody and took no prisoners. I know one that brought in outside management when the head sister retired but I do not know if others have.

[Tennesseer]

Feb 8, 2012 20:06:04 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

I don't know that dropping coverage would cause a nursing shortage. The church trains a lot of their own nurses. Many are nuns. Many of the Catholic hospitals at one time were run by senior Nuns. Some that i did work in were tough gals. They demanded the best out of everybody and took no prisoners. I know one that brought in outside management when the head sister retired but I do not know if others have.

Handyman-it's not dropping coverage that would cause a nursing shortage. There is already a nursing shortage due to a lack of teaching staff for nurses. Schools with nursing programs cannot graduate enough to meet the increasing demand for nurses. There simply are not enough teachers.

[Deleted]

"It also requires a prescription, which requires a doctor's appointment. The other methods available are expensive and some require medical procedures."

Doctor visits are already covered. I don't care if other methods are more expensive. They're optional.

---------------------------------------------------------
"I know with my insurance it'll only cost me a max of $2,500. That's the only cost I personally care about when it comes down to it."

You need to look at the big picture, i.e. total compensation, because your employer does. Higher medical costs for your employer equals lower salary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"When did erectile dysfunction become an illness or disease? In the olden days you simply limped along. Men survived no worse the wear."

Impotence is a medical condition and fits under the concept of insurance. However, I'd support a company's right to choose not to cover ED drugs, too.

---------------------------------------------
"Dental is a separate insurance."

Mine isn't separate.

[vandalshandle]

I find it hard to believe that there are many people who can not afford birth control pills out of their own pocket. In fact, when they first came out in the 1960's, they were not a covered expense unless the doctor diagnosed menstrual problems which the pills helped. The whole thing is a mountain from a mole hill.

[handyman2]

Tennesseer: I can remember when there was not a nursing shortage. That was when most hospitals of any size had their own nursing schools. The cost was low and in some cases no charge at all if they signed a contract to work for a specific period at that hospital. Aside from their training classes they also did floor work at the facility after classes. That gave them all around hospital experience.
Then states changed the mandates and it has been down hill ever since.

[dumdeedoe]

Naaa there is no social plan for this country...www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/pop994.doc.htm

meaning the more educated women are the fewer kids....

but....Since 1980, fertility rates have been relatively stable, remaining between 64 and 71 births per 1,000 women, although rates have increased slightly from 1997 to 2005 (from 64 births per 1,000 women to 67 births per 1,000 women)*.

www.childtrendsdatabank.org/archivepgs/79.htm


Now lets look at womens education levels from that time period:
According to national statistics, the level of education that working women age 25 to 64 are achieving went up substantially between 1970 and 2005. In 2005, about 30% of working women held college degrees, compared with only about 10% in 1970.
resources.courseadvisor.com/online-learning/women-in-higher-education

So if my math is correct the uneducated are producing more children in the US than ever before.........
result: the IQ in the US has falling by 5 points over the last 20 years...
www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/
So what could be the solution???
www.commondreams.org/views/072100-106.htm

kinda chilling huh???