Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 10:48:03 GMT -5
I'm almost glad for the current debate... it helps my point in two debates... One is that people constantly say we don't need government because churches/charities could provide a social safety net.... I always try to get people to realize that such a safety net, even if it were to develop, would only be at the expense of indivdiual liberty... you could stay at my shelter... as long as you aren't gay... you can have health care, as long as you don't want birth control... etc... Second... people refuse to believe that if the right succeeds in outlawing abortion, then contraception is next... well, this argument shows that they are one and the same for the religious right... and you better believe if they could they would outlaw both...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 12:18:03 GMT -5
"Have all the faith you want - just don't force it down anyone else's throat."
Are you posting in the correct thread? Because this thread's topic has nothing to do with your statement. ------------------------------------------------------------ "How do i maintain freedom while you are imposing faith?? "
Are you replying to the correct thread? Nothing in this thread involves a group imposing their faith on anyone else. ------------------------------------------------------ "you could stay at my shelter... as long as you aren't gay... you can have health care, as long as you don't want birth control... etc... "
Please post data to support your claim that either of these actually happen. -------------------------------------------- "well, this argument shows that they are one and the same for the religious right... and you better believe if they could they would outlaw both..."
You're making stuff up again. Demonstrate for me evidence that even a few % of the population are in favor of outlawing birth control. Earlier in the thread, it was pointed out that even Catholics overwhelmingly thing using birth control is OK.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 12, 2012 12:53:53 GMT -5
Perhaps just less accessable. Anyone hearing Santorum preaching on the dangers to society contraceptives bring us would have to wonder. Plus the fact he thinks Griswold v Connecticut was a bad decesion and should be overturned might make people think there could be reason to think there are people that would like to see them harder to obtain.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 12:58:46 GMT -5
Cute, bob. To your last comment, oped was commenting on the actions of the "religious right." Generally speaking, Catholics do not identify with the religious right. religions.pewforum.org/portraitsThe central issue of this thread is objections raised by officials of the Catholic church - who are quite distinct from most Catholic voters.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 13:04:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 13:52:31 GMT -5
"I assume you know this thread is about employers choosing not to provide birth control, so you shouldn't really need a link to support that"
This does not in any way deny a person access to it. No church has any ability to prevent a person from having access to birth control.
"And yes, this extends to safety net housing like homeless shelters." ------------------------------------------------------
The example you gave about that GA homeless shelter is inconclusive. They kicked the two women out for "practicing" homosexual acts. Depending on the context, this may or may not have been appropriate. However the shelter was pretty clear that they were not kicked out for simply being gay. The article you posted was an opinion piece that did not give an objective description of the events. For all you know, the two women could have been going at it in a public area.
If you read the CBS article, you get a different picture. First, it says that "non-practicing" gays are accepted (clearly a bit discriminatory), and that no sexual activity at all is tollerated (not discriminatory). Second, one Christian homeless shelter that fails to live up to the teachings of their religion (i.e. accepting sinners is pretty explicitly taught in the Bible) doesn't make for a pattern.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Feb 12, 2012 14:11:03 GMT -5
So setting up counseling for people to come to the conclusion to kill themselves or their unborn child is okay but setting up a system system to counsel people about the effects of abortion is bad.
At least we know the priorities of some of our medical "professionals".
I think a good abortion program / system, should cover the full effects of abortion, not just "here's the coat hanger and be on your way now".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 14:42:53 GMT -5
Sorry, bob, I'm not playing. You asked for an example, I gave you one. I'm not going to research the pattern for you because the thing about legal forms of discrimination is that they are legal. So there isn't this big pile of legal precedent to go with them.
expat, I don't think these laws are about counseling. Informed consent is a requirement of any medical procedure. Counseling is pretty much standard of care for women planning to terminate a pregnancy. And even if you wanted to formalize that process and set some minimum standards, there is a way to do it without charging a woman $300 for an invasive and unnecessary medical procedure.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 15:48:49 GMT -5
"You asked for an example, I gave you one."
No, you didn't. The shelter you referenced explicitly accepts homosexuals, and you referenced a story with facts that are far from clear.
You also seemed to say that if a religious organization's insurance plan does not pay for contraceptives, it somehow amounts to a church forcing it's beliefs on someone else, even though they are doing no such thing. Are you changing your story?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 17:01:21 GMT -5
The Catholic church does not want women to access birth control. They want to label birth control methods as abortion. I'm all of exempting a church if they don't want to pay for something they don't believe in... they are a church, you should know what you are getting in to, and they are also exempt from other things, like politicing and recieving public funds.
But if you are a hospital or a university, employing and serving secular employees/customers, then you should be held to the same standards as everyone else...
If they give faith based hospitals/etc a pass, i hope it comes along with a rider that that organization also gets NO public funds, including federal student grants, etc.... lets fund public hospitals and public universities, etc...
Doctors and patients shoud make health care decisions... NOT employers... we need universal access...
And we need to make choices.... we can pay for more abortions, more pregnancies, more deliveries, more nicu etc., more social programming for low income children.... or we can provide public access to free birth control... Seems like an easy choice to me...
As far as shelters, i was actually thinking of DC faith based services saying they will shut down if equal rights for homosexuals passed... there is much anecdotal evidence for the shelters discrimating, but not a lot of compiled research i found, Americans for Progress has some, but to be honest, it shows how both faith based and other shelters are failing gay and transgendered, youth in particular...
I also used religious right, haphazardly... I don't know where Catholics/Evangelicals other fundamentalists fall in line and don't, honestly... i was referring to those who take a hard social concervative position based on religious tenent.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 12, 2012 17:05:28 GMT -5
If they give faith based hospitals/etc a pass, i hope it comes along with a rider that that organization also gets NO public funds, including federal student grants, etc.... lets fund public hospitals and public universities, etc... That would be one way to get the republicans excited enough to turn out this season. I think they would even rally behind Romney if their funding was on the line.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 17:10:31 GMT -5
What? They should be able to say they ARE a religious organization when it comes to covering birth control... but NOT a religious organization when it comes to funding? ... I think that is hypocritical...
I'm ok with the 'fix' being offered though, the insurance companies covering the contraception instead of the religious orgainzation, makes sense for both... but i hear the Bishops still don't like it...
|
|
ungenteel
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 20:26:26 GMT -5
Posts: 560
|
Post by ungenteel on Feb 12, 2012 18:23:56 GMT -5
it appears that some simple minded righties are cracky enough to think that Catholics might vote as a block
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 19:31:53 GMT -5
"Doctors and patients shoud make health care decisions... NOT employers... we need universal access... "
You don't seem to get it. No employer is making any attempt to deny access. This thread has nothing to do with denying access. No employer, religious or otherwise has any ability to deny a person access to birth control. Why is that so hard to understand?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 12, 2012 19:40:00 GMT -5
"Should all employers be able to be excused from any laws they claim to morally object to?" Actually, the gov't should just avoid excessive regulation, and then everything will be fine. Hasn't the fed govt already given you 1000s of exemptions to special interests(IE: political supporters), regarding Obamacare.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 20:00:39 GMT -5
The Church is trying to say that birth control pills are different than all other forms of medication... forget that they are used for things besides birth control, forget that birth control decisions should be made by a woman and her doctor... the church is saying that they should dictate the perameters of care...
Don't try to suggest that by controlling insurance, the organization does not control care... people ARE limited by their coverage... insurance does dictate access... and the longer the Bishops continue to fight the compromise, the more they show their hand that inhibiting access to birth control IS their primary agenda...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 21:18:45 GMT -5
"Don't try to suggest that by controlling insurance, the organization does not control care... people ARE limited by their coverage... insurance does dictate access... "
So since the Catholic church currently does not cover birth control for their employees, you're telling me that their employees have no access to birth control? Fascinating.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 21:39:09 GMT -5
Having insurance that does not cover birth control does place limitations on women's ability to access birth control. That is why the current initiative is being put forth ... to give all those with insurance easy access to birth control. The purpose of exchanges is to get all people into an insurance program. At that point, when the mass are covered, and all plans must cover preventative birth control, then women's access will not be limited. The Catholic church is exempting itself, and therefore, yes it will limit access for those women...
Have you by any chance read anything from Catholic univeristy students in the last few days which talked about how difficult it is for them to access birth control... birth control is NOT cheap, and those who are least equiped to afford children are those also least equipped to cover the costs of effective birth control...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 21:39:37 GMT -5
There are several states that already require employer plans to cover birth control...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 12, 2012 21:46:11 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 22:19:02 GMT -5
"Doctors and patients shoud make health care decisions... NOT employers... we need universal access... " You don't seem to get it. No employer is making any attempt to deny access. This thread has nothing to do with denying access. No employer, religious or otherwise has any ability to deny a person access to birth control. Why is that so hard to understand? Can we have a go at the slippery slope argument? (The conservatives seem to love that one) Catholic hospitals will not perform elective sterilizations - permanent birth control, if you will. It was a scandal in my community because our public safety net hospital was trying to merge with a Catholic hospital. If successful, women would not have been able to receive tubal ligation or other procedures at the hospital. The argument was that they could still access the services through the outpatient clinic, but it is a lot easier to do a tubal ligation if you are already doing a c section. Women would be put at risk by having to go through the procedures separately. When Plan B - emergency back-up birth control - came on the market, pharmacists who objected to the medication went to great lengths to avoid having to dispense Plan B if they didn't want to. When one employer, one provider, one pharmacy interferes with access to birth control, you can say that women can go elsewhere - but not every community has a multitude of service providers. Not every woman can afford medications and services not covered by her insurance. Not every health consumer is knowledgeable enough to shop around to find the care she deserves.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 22:22:58 GMT -5
And its not just a lack of knowledge... in rural areas there are often limited choices available...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 8:29:36 GMT -5
"Having insurance that does not cover birth control does place limitations on women's ability to access birth control. That is why the current initiative is being put forth ... to give all those with insurance easy access to birth control."
It's really not all that hard to drive to Walmart and pick up a box of condoms. Or an emergency contraception pill. Any plan would also cover the doctor visit to get a prescription for birth control pills, and the woman could then go buy them. It sounds pretty easy to me. --------------------------------------------------
"The Catholic church is exempting itself, and therefore, yes it will limit access for those women..."
Not "will". Already does. And every one of those women can drive to Walmart and buy a box of condoms. Their access is in no way limited. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend.
Besides, in this day and age, it's been made clear that it's not just the woman who is responsible for BC, but also the man. But now, when it's convenient to play the gender card, somehow this is now a woman's issue again. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to change the rules whenever it suits you. ----------------------------------------- "Have you by any chance read anything from Catholic univeristy students in the last few days which talked about how difficult it is for them to access birth control..."
No, and I don't care. Catholic University students have generally the same access as other students. They can go buy them. If they're poor, they can go to clinics that give it out for free.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 8:31:59 GMT -5
"Can we have a go at the slippery slope argument?"
No. And I'm not defending the Church's position, only their right to have it. -------------------------------------------------------- "When one employer, one provider, one pharmacy interferes with access to birth control, you can say that women can go elsewhere...."
Of those three, only a pharmacy could deny access. In that case you'd have a point. But we're not talkng about a pharmacy. We're talking about health coverage that would simply require a person to pay for BC out of their own pocket.
My health plan doesn't pay for orthodontics. Should my employer be required to cover orthodontics? Do I have limited access to toilet paper and soap because my health plan doesn't cover it? Poor people have limited access to food. Should employers be required to buy food for all their employees? Those are all equivalent to the BC issue. By your line of reasoning on BC, employers should just pay for all of life's necessities.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 8:40:33 GMT -5
What's most ironic about this thread is that people have the naive notion that forcing an employer to pay for something will somehow actually benefit a person financially. It doesn't work that way. Employers look at total compensation when they make pay decisions. By driving up an employer's cost of healthcare by forcing them to pay for things at 100%, salaries and other benefits will suffer. Or the employee's share of the premium will rise.
In the end, all of these things employers have to pay at 100% will simply result in an equivalent decrease in some other form of compensation. And by adding a middle man make the payment, costs will actually go up. So in the end, the employee will still continue to bear these costs. And so since they continue to bear the cost, access has not actually been improved.
The plans that have actually shown success in controlling healthcare costs are high-deductible plans, which have helped turn health plans back into something that actually more resembles insurance. These plans have been wildly successful for employees and employers alike, and instead we have an administration that insists on going in the other direction, making healthcare more and more expensive. That's fine. And I'm sure you'll all be whining about it when it comes to pass.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 8:49:28 GMT -5
How don't you understand that 1) birth control pills are prescribed for more than birth control... and so not covering them limits health coices beyond birth control... 2) condoms are some of the least effective birth control out there... 3) cost of birth control without insurance is prohibitive... most of all to those people who are not financially able to raise children...
I have never understood how people who are anit-abortion and anti a social safety net for children can also be anti contraception ?? They should be all for easy to acess birth control...
The Catholic Bishops aren't happy with the idea of the insurer paying for the BC instead of them... they don't want ANYONE to pay for it... they know the cost is prohibitive in many cases and want to do all they can to limit access...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 8:53:32 GMT -5
Birth control pills require a prescription... if a doctor refuses to write it, he is limiting access... if insurance does not cover it, they are impacting access... notice the standard we want with contraception is EASY access...
Actually plans that cover birth control are generally CHEAPER... cause guess what... preventative medicine is often cheaper than the alternative... in this case especially, BC is cheaper than labor and delivery, etc. (especially when you consider demographics of populations least likely to be able to readily afford effective birth control...)
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 13, 2012 9:21:16 GMT -5
IMO, the whole thing is sort of funny. Unless you are self insured, and the insurance company is just administering the plan for you, your premiums do not just fund covered expences in your policy.They go into a much bigger pot that pays for any covered expenses in all the policies they underwrite. So unless you do business with a company that does not cover contraceptives in any of their policies, it is a moot point.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 13, 2012 9:56:27 GMT -5
I think if we are serious in finding ways to lower welfare costs without just cutting with a chainsaw, consequences be damned, things like removing barriers to birthcontrol and making them more accessable will have to be accepted with an open mind.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 9:57:49 GMT -5
"How don't you understand that 1) birth control pills are prescribed for more than birth control... and so not covering them limits health coices beyond birth control... "
No, it doesn't. You go to a doctor for a regular office visit, you get a prescription, and you pay for it at the insurance company's discounted rate. Pretty simple. --------------------------------------------------------------------- "I have never understood how people who are anit-abortion and anti a social safety net for children can also be anti contraception ?? They should be all for easy to acess birth control... "
I've never met anyone who is against social safety nets for children. And I am not anti-contraception. Don't ascribe false viewpoints to me, please. My argument is only loosely tied to BC since that is the topic of the thread and everyone here can't seem to move beyond it. I've made my viewpoint clear several pages back if you'd actually like to go back and try to understand it. ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Actually plans that cover birth control are generally CHEAPER... "
Great. Then encorage employers to cover it. Educate them. Don't force anything down their throat. If the Catholic church wants to drive up their healthcare costs, thereby making themselves uncompetitive with other employers, let them.
So again, you want employers to be forced to pay for things to improve access. Great. So my employer should be required to pay for orthodontics, right? Employers should also be required to pay for toilet paper and soap, right? They are far more important to keeping down medical costs than BC is. And food. People have a right to have easy access to food, right? So employers should pay for that, too? Explain why BC is being singled out? There are many, many other equivalent or even more important basic needs that are being over looked in favor of BC.
|
|