Grumps 3,704 Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 Conscientious objections to combat is something that has never exclusively applied to religious concerns. Tax exemptions exist for all sorts of non-profit organizations. This is not some newfound worry that continuing a long held practice of opt-outs for religious organizations would suddenly cause to crash down on us. And you disregard some of my concerns based on a perception that they are slippery slope arguments? This is a complete red herring. I've never disregarded your concern. In fact, I think it is sincere and in some regards, well-founded. However, what I vehemently disagree with is the hyperbole (i.e., 'shredding the Bill of Rights') manner in which you present it. As for the slippery slope, we can agree to disagree about 'exceptions' for certain sects who scream the loudest. Never, in the history of recorded time, have churches been forced by their government to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients. Now, if we continue the practice of not requiring them to pay for it then we are carving out an exception because they are screaming the loudest? That is incredible reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,487 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Conscientious objections to combat is something that has never exclusively applied to religious concerns. Tax exemptions exist for all sorts of non-profit organizations. This is not some newfound worry that continuing a long held practice of opt-outs for religious organizations would suddenly cause to crash down on us. And you disregard some of my concerns based on a perception that they are slippery slope arguments? This is a complete red herring. I've never disregarded your concern. In fact, I think it is sincere and in some regards, well-founded. However, what I vehemently disagree with is the hyperbole (i.e., 'shredding the Bill of Rights') manner in which you present it. As for the slippery slope, we can agree to disagree about 'exceptions' for certain sects who scream the loudest. I'm still trying to ascertain what new problem with exemptions leaving the previously existing policy on religious exemptions would suddenly create. You've asserted that allowing religious organizations to keep the opt-out they've had for decades on this matter would lead to all sorts of shenanigans by other groups trying to shoehorn their way into the religious exemption. But I fail to see how and you haven't given a viable demonstration to the contrary. Any time a new exception is made, especially one this politicized and media-followed, a new precedent is set. Another words, my concern is that an exception here could potentially be used as an authoritative example by those opposed to Healthcare Reform to circumvent the law and wiggle their way out of providing coverage. As I stated previously, a historical search shows this has happened when groups have fought for tax exempt status, conscience objection and other key issues directly related to our freedoms of religious expression and choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,510 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Conscientious objections to combat is something that has never exclusively applied to religious concerns. Tax exemptions exist for all sorts of non-profit organizations. This is not some newfound worry that continuing a long held practice of opt-outs for religious organizations would suddenly cause to crash down on us. And you disregard some of my concerns based on a perception that they are slippery slope arguments? This is a complete red herring. I've never disregarded your concern. In fact, I think it is sincere and in some regards, well-founded. However, what I vehemently disagree with is the hyperbole (i.e., 'shredding the Bill of Rights') manner in which you present it. As for the slippery slope, we can agree to disagree about 'exceptions' for certain sects who scream the loudest. I'm still trying to ascertain what new problem with exemptions leaving the previously existing policy on religious exemptions would suddenly create. You've asserted that allowing religious organizations to keep the opt-out they've had for decades on this matter would lead to all sorts of shenanigans by other groups trying to shoehorn their way into the religious exemption. But I fail to see how and you haven't given a viable demonstration to the contrary. Any time a new exception is made, especially one this politicized and media-followed, a new precedent is set. Another words, my concern is that an exception here could potentially be used as an authoritative example by those opposed to Healthcare Reform to circumvent the law and wiggle their way out of providing coverage. As I stated previously, a historical search shows this has happened when groups have fought for tax exempt status, conscience objection and other key issues directly related to our freedoms of religious expression and choice. It's not a 'new' exception. Such exceptions to health care requirements have a long history in this country. It's why Catholic hospitals (currently) aren't forced to perform abortions, even if they perform other women's reproductive health services for instance. You're behaving like the Obama HHS policy was the standard and somehow the Catholics are suddenly trying to create a new aberration when it's exactly the opposite. Such exemptions have been the standard and HHS is creating a new restriction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,487 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Conscientious objections to combat is something that has never exclusively applied to religious concerns. Tax exemptions exist for all sorts of non-profit organizations. This is not some newfound worry that continuing a long held practice of opt-outs for religious organizations would suddenly cause to crash down on us. And you disregard some of my concerns based on a perception that they are slippery slope arguments? This is a complete red herring. I've never disregarded your concern. In fact, I think it is sincere and in some regards, well-founded. However, what I vehemently disagree with is the hyperbole (i.e., 'shredding the Bill of Rights') manner in which you present it. As for the slippery slope, we can agree to disagree about 'exceptions' for certain sects who scream the loudest. I'm still trying to ascertain what new problem with exemptions leaving the previously existing policy on religious exemptions would suddenly create. You've asserted that allowing religious organizations to keep the opt-out they've had for decades on this matter would lead to all sorts of shenanigans by other groups trying to shoehorn their way into the religious exemption. But I fail to see how and you haven't given a viable demonstration to the contrary. Any time a new exception is made, especially one this politicized and media-followed, a new precedent is set. Another words, my concern is that an exception here could potentially be used as an authoritative example by those opposed to Healthcare Reform to circumvent the law and wiggle their way out of providing coverage. As I stated previously, a historical search shows this has happened when groups have fought for tax exempt status, conscience objection and other key issues directly related to our freedoms of religious expression and choice. It's not a 'new' exception. Such exceptions to health care requirements have a long history in this country. It's why Catholic hospitals (currently) aren't forced to perform abortions, even if they perform other women's reproductive health services for instance. You're behaving like the Obama HHS policy was the standard and somehow the Catholics are suddenly trying to create a new aberration when it's exactly the opposite. Such exemptions have been the standard and HHS is creating a new restriction. Yes, but the new Healthcare law changes the game. It's very hard to provide broad coverage and allow for 'preferential' treatment (in this case, out-clauses) to certain groups. It's why the whole mandate is in place - if you let people choose whether or not to pay-in, some would forgo this opportunity for insurance ... which, is all good in well until tragedy strikes and they come walking back shaking the tin cup. Then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,487 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Allow me to do so in return...how are situations of life and death analogous to the non-life threatening sexual choices of some? And also, we aren't talking about a personal contract entered into with a private company. We are talking about the government mandating you and I subsidize other people's lifestyle choices in the bedroom. And I know a number of life insurance and health insurance plans take into account age, health, smoker vs non-smoker, etc. Who do you think takes care of people in our country when private insurance companies don't pickup the tab? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,510 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yes, but the new Healthcare law changes the game. It's very hard to provide broad coverage and allow for 'preferential' treatment (in this case, out-clauses) to certain groups. It's why the whole mandate is in place - if you let people choose whether or not to pay-in, some would forgo this opportunity for insurance ... which, is all good in well until tragedy strikes and they come walking back shaking the tin cup. Then what? But that's not what is happening here. The Catholic Church isn't the irresponsible 20-something that doesn't want to have insurance on themselves then come by and ask for free treatment when they get diagnosed with cancer or need a liver transplant. They simply want to continue to serve the communities they are in with needed services, employ people without discriminating according to religion but not be newly forced to violate their religious beliefs based on some newfound government mandate that contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients are "essential health care." And they aren't opting out over some newly minted objection either. This is a well-established, 2000-year old religious tenet that has been understood to be part of the free exercise clause since this country was founded. You're reaching to make this fit under some broad principle when I think you know it doesn't, just to be supportive of the President. Not to mention it's not even practical because in the end, unless HHS and the Obama administration come to their senses and quit picking needless fights, the Church organizations will mostly refuse to violate their beliefs on this. So the folks who work there will simply lose all their employer based coverage or lose their jobs because the organization will close shop or only hire Catholic employees. And the community will likely lose out as well. It's what happens when you foist immoral requirements on people who have principles. Unintended consequences. But it won't be that you get to bring the Church to heel like you thought. Brilliant plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Who do you think takes care of people in our country when private insurance companies don't pickup the tab? For contraception? Right now, nobody. And studies have already been posted that show cost hasn't traditionally been the mitigating factor when choosing not to use contraception. Which further shows me that this is less about "women's health" and more about the complete miscalculation by the Obama administration as it relates to someone standing their ground on a moral issue. I don't see how this is any different from the government requiring you to pay for a 25 year old males recreational viagra pills. It is a CHOICE people are making in the bedroom. Birth control isn't a right. Especially not when it tramples on a long standing sacred position of religious institutions. And as previously stated before, it also shows that those in control now are only 'for' religious freedoms as long as they are out of sight, out of mind, and don't interfere with whatever item is on their agenda for the day. You can practice your religion, as long as your religion doesn't object to anything under the sun as it relates to morality. Want to keep your tax exempt status? Better be willing to marry gays. Want to keep running your hospital? Better not be opposed to providing abortions or birth control. In 2012, no one in America is allowed to disagree with anything. Liberals get their way 100% of the time. Eventually. If they don't deem something prudent (like a freaking standard lightbulb) its gone. But if they want something: abortion on demand, gay marriage, whatever...they get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 Allow me to do so in return...how are situations of life and death analogous to the non-life threatening sexual choices of some? And also, we aren't talking about a personal contract entered into with a private company. We are talking about the government mandating you and I subsidize other people's lifestyle choices in the bedroom. And I know a number of life insurance and health insurance plans take into account age, health, smoker vs non-smoker, etc. Who do you think takes care of people in our country when private insurance companies don't pickup the tab? Right here Run nails the problem! The answer is: the taxpayer takes care of the people in our country who don't have insurance via government mandate. The answer should be: anyone the people who can get to pick up the tab, but it should not be the government's (or the taxpayer's) problem. It is not hard for children, the elderly, and truly disabled people to get insurance coverage. They SHOULD be taken care of. The rest should fend for themselves. If the government will quit messing with the church, then the church will take care of MANY of the needy. We are all going to die. We need to quit assuming that death means the government didn't do its job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,686 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Allow me to do so in return...how are situations of life and death analogous to the non-life threatening sexual choices of some? And also, we aren't talking about a personal contract entered into with a private company. We are talking about the government mandating you and I subsidize other people's lifestyle choices in the bedroom. And I know a number of life insurance and health insurance plans take into account age, health, smoker vs non-smoker, etc. Who do you think takes care of people in our country when private insurance companies don't pickup the tab? Right here Run nails the problem! The answer is: the taxpayer takes care of the people in our country who don't have insurance via government mandate. The answer should be: anyone the people who can get to pick up the tab, but it should not be the government's (or the taxpayer's) problem. It is not hard for children, the elderly, and truly disabled people to get insurance coverage. They SHOULD be taken care of. The rest should fend for themselves. If the government will quit messing with the church, then the church will take care of MANY of the needy. We are all going to die. We need to quit assuming that death means the government didn't do its job. AMEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,487 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 If you needed yet another poll showing that people think birth control is a good thing and health insurance plans should provide it, while simultaneously showing the importance of how poll questions are worded, here you go... Quinnipiac. 2/14-20 Q: Do you think that health insurance plans should cover birth control as preventive care for women or not?Yes: 71 No: 24 Q: Do you think the federal government should require private employers to offer free birth control coverage as part of their health insurance benefit plans or not? Yes: 47 No: 48 Q: As you may know, President Obama recently announced an adjustment to the administration's health-care rule regarding religiously affiliated employers providing birth control coverage to female employees. Women will still be guaranteed coverage for birth control without any out-of-pocket cost, but will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's decision? Approve: 54 Disapprove: 38 So, when asked in a "what should happen" vein, without reference to government, people want their insurance plans to cover birth control. Again, if the GOP wants to keep pounding this drum - have it. It's a losing argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,487 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 But that's not what is happening here. The Catholic Church isn't the irresponsible 20-something that doesn't want to have insurance on themselves then come by and ask for free treatment when they get diagnosed with cancer or need a liver transplant. They simply want to continue to serve the communities they are in with needed services, employ people without discriminating according to religion but not be newly forced to violate their religious beliefs based on some newfound government mandate that contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients are "essential health care." And they aren't opting out over some newly minted objection either. This is a well-established, 2000-year old religious tenet that has been understood to be part of the free exercise clause since this country was founded. You're reaching to make this fit under some broad principle when I think you know it doesn't, just to be supportive of the President. You were being rational ... until the last sentence. You just had to get it in there didn't you? Anyways, I still disagree. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree: You view it as big government forcing the church to violate their tenets, I view it as blocking employees of the church access to basic preventive measures. Not to mention it's not even practical because in the end, unless HHS and the Obama administration come to their senses and quit picking needless fights, the Church organizations will mostly refuse to violate their beliefs on this. So the folks who work there will simply lose all their employer based coverage or lose their jobs because the organization will close shop or only hire Catholic employees. And the community will likely lose out as well. It's what happens when you foist immoral requirements on people who have principles. Unintended consequences. But it won't be that you get to bring the Church to heel like you thought. Brilliant plan. Maybe. But the flamboyant "your not going to bully me" hyperbole (there seems to be a lot of it these days) needs to stop. It's about access to basic healthcare not treading on personal freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,487 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Who do you think takes care of people in our country when private insurance companies don't pickup the tab? For contraception? Right now, nobody. And studies have already been posted that show cost hasn't traditionally been the mitigating factor when choosing not to use contraception. Which further shows me that this is less about "women's health" and more about the complete miscalculation by the Obama administration as it relates to someone standing their ground on a moral issue. I don't see how this is any different from the government requiring you to pay for a 25 year old males recreational viagra pills. It is a CHOICE people are making in the bedroom. Birth control isn't a right. Especially not when it tramples on a long standing sacred position of religious institutions. And as previously stated before, it also shows that those in control now are only 'for' religious freedoms as long as they are out of sight, out of mind, and don't interfere with whatever item is on their agenda for the day. You can practice your religion, as long as your religion doesn't object to anything under the sun as it relates to morality. Want to keep your tax exempt status? Better be willing to marry gays. Want to keep running your hospital? Better not be opposed to providing abortions or birth control. In 2012, no one in America is allowed to disagree with anything. Liberals get their way 100% of the time. Eventually. If they don't deem something prudent (like a freaking standard lightbulb) its gone. But if they want something: abortion on demand, gay marriage, whatever...they get it. Well, I would disagree that this is a political calculation. Although, if so, that would be pretty much brilliant as every poll we've seen favors the President. Again, I respect your for standing your ground on principle but think you are dead wrong on this issue. And evidently, I'm not the only one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,487 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Allow me to do so in return...how are situations of life and death analogous to the non-life threatening sexual choices of some? And also, we aren't talking about a personal contract entered into with a private company. We are talking about the government mandating you and I subsidize other people's lifestyle choices in the bedroom. And I know a number of life insurance and health insurance plans take into account age, health, smoker vs non-smoker, etc. Who do you think takes care of people in our country when private insurance companies don't pickup the tab? Right here Run nails the problem! The answer is: the taxpayer takes care of the people in our country who don't have insurance via government mandate. The answer should be: anyone the people who can get to pick up the tab, but it should not be the government's (or the taxpayer's) problem. It is not hard for children, the elderly, and truly disabled people to get insurance coverage. They SHOULD be taken care of. The rest should fend for themselves. If the government will quit messing with the church, then the church will take care of MANY of the needy. We are all going to die. We need to quit assuming that death means the government didn't do its job. In other words, as Ron Paul would say, 'let them die.' Is that the country you really want? Really? <iframe width="600" height="400" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yva0VSN1_T4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 If you needed yet another poll showing that people think birth control is a good thing and health insurance plans should provide it, while simultaneously showing the importance of how poll questions are worded, here you go... Quinnipiac. 2/14-20 Q: Do you think that health insurance plans should cover birth control as preventive care for women or not?Yes: 71 No: 24 Q: Do you think the federal government should require private employers to offer free birth control coverage as part of their health insurance benefit plans or not? Yes: 47 No: 48 Q: As you may know, President Obama recently announced an adjustment to the administration's health-care rule regarding religiously affiliated employers providing birth control coverage to female employees. Women will still be guaranteed coverage for birth control without any out-of-pocket cost, but will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's decision? Approve: 54 Disapprove: 38 So, when asked in a "what should happen" vein, without reference to government, people want their insurance plans to cover birth control. Again, if the GOP wants to keep pounding this drum - have it. It's a losing argument. Oh come on, you know it's all about how you ask the questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 That poll is asking people who have no skin in the game. If you have no moral qualms with birth control, then you're probably going to support it being carried on your insurance. But that doesn't and shouldn't give you the right to trample on the catholic church's long standing position. And that's the path we're headed down. Every day America is becoming less and less morally principled. And that's fine. If you personally want to not stand for something, or care one way or another, go for it. But just because you don't care about something, and think everything under the sun should fly, doesn't give you the right to force someone else to give up their rights. And the administration shows time and time again that they are vexed by people standing on moral ground for religious issues. They don't think there's a difference between a devout catholic and someone who's only catholic because their grandma was catholic, who never went to church, and couldn't tell you the difference between John in the bible and John Madden. Because lawmakers, for the most part, aren't religious at all. They just claim a particular religion because it's politically expedient. And it causes great confusion when actual devout followers stand on principle. It's like John Kerry being confused why more Catholics weren't pro-choice. So when these non-catholic catholics are cited in polls or in "studies" that show 98% do this or that...it's all wrong. They're "catholic" but they're pro-choice, pro-birth control, don't believe Jesus was the son of god, etc. It's like saying I'm muslim because I went to the middle east one time -- and that I should speak for all muslims in any poll that might come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,510 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 But that's not what is happening here. The Catholic Church isn't the irresponsible 20-something that doesn't want to have insurance on themselves then come by and ask for free treatment when they get diagnosed with cancer or need a liver transplant. They simply want to continue to serve the communities they are in with needed services, employ people without discriminating according to religion but not be newly forced to violate their religious beliefs based on some newfound government mandate that contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients are "essential health care." And they aren't opting out over some newly minted objection either. This is a well-established, 2000-year old religious tenet that has been understood to be part of the free exercise clause since this country was founded. You're reaching to make this fit under some broad principle when I think you know it doesn't, just to be supportive of the President. You were being rational ... until the last sentence. You just had to get it in there didn't you? Anyways, I still disagree. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree: You view it as big government forcing the church to violate their tenets, I view it as blocking employees of the church access to basic preventive measures. No one's blocking anything. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. That's the thing you still can't seem to grasp, which because I know you to be an intelligent person, is extremely perplexing. I'm left only to believe it's for political reasons that you refuse to engage this portion of the debate rightly. The church isn't preventing one single solitary soul from getting contraception. They just don't want to be forced to pay for it. Not to mention it's not even practical because in the end, unless HHS and the Obama administration come to their senses and quit picking needless fights, the Church organizations will mostly refuse to violate their beliefs on this. So the folks who work there will simply lose all their employer based coverage or lose their jobs because the organization will close shop or only hire Catholic employees. And the community will likely lose out as well. It's what happens when you foist immoral requirements on people who have principles. Unintended consequences. But it won't be that you get to bring the Church to heel like you thought. Brilliant plan. Maybe. But the flamboyant "your not going to bully me" hyperbole (there seems to be a lot of it these days) needs to stop. It's about access to basic healthcare not treading on personal freedoms. It isn't hyperbole just because you don't like it or think they won't have the balls to do it. It is bullying and the result I point out is what's going to happen if the Obama Administration insists on these juvenile election year tactics instead of employing common sense. In the end, the Administration's move will hurt the very people it pretends to help. Which if it weren't so typical of government these days, would kill us all with the irony. If it were about access to healthcare, mostly for elective decisions made by the individual, then I would expect you to produce something that shows how the Church has done something in all of this to prevent these employees from purchasing a small supplemental policy to cover these things, or to prevent them from purchasing them at relatively low costs from family planning and abortion clinics, or preventing various women's and abortion rights groups like NARAL, Emily's List, NOW, Planned Parenthood and so on from stepping up to the plate and providing it for the people who choose of their own free will to work for a Catholic employer. None of these things or anything close to them is happening. Thus you're wrong. It is not about access to anything, it is about treading on religious freedom. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,510 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 If you needed yet another poll showing that people think birth control is a good thing and health insurance plans should provide it, while simultaneously showing the importance of how poll questions are worded, here you go... Quinnipiac. 2/14-20 Q: Do you think that health insurance plans should cover birth control as preventive care for women or not?Yes: 71 No: 24 Q: Do you think the federal government should require private employers to offer free birth control coverage as part of their health insurance benefit plans or not? Yes: 47 No: 48 Q: As you may know, President Obama recently announced an adjustment to the administration's health-care rule regarding religiously affiliated employers providing birth control coverage to female employees. Women will still be guaranteed coverage for birth control without any out-of-pocket cost, but will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's decision? Approve: 54 Disapprove: 38 So, when asked in a "what should happen" vein, without reference to government, people want their insurance plans to cover birth control. Again, if the GOP wants to keep pounding this drum - have it. It's a losing argument. Um, so what? I bet in 1955 you could have gotten a nice poll on civil rights that you wouldn't have cared for either. The majority, when it's wrong, is simply a mob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 Allow me to do so in return...how are situations of life and death analogous to the non-life threatening sexual choices of some? And also, we aren't talking about a personal contract entered into with a private company. We are talking about the government mandating you and I subsidize other people's lifestyle choices in the bedroom. And I know a number of life insurance and health insurance plans take into account age, health, smoker vs non-smoker, etc. Who do you think takes care of people in our country when private insurance companies don't pickup the tab? Right here Run nails the problem! The answer is: the taxpayer takes care of the people in our country who don't have insurance via government mandate. The answer should be: anyone the people who can get to pick up the tab, but it should not be the government's (or the taxpayer's) problem. It is not hard for children, the elderly, and truly disabled people to get insurance coverage. They SHOULD be taken care of. The rest should fend for themselves. If the government will quit messing with the church, then the church will take care of MANY of the needy. We are all going to die. We need to quit assuming that death means the government didn't do its job. In other words, as Ron Paul would say, 'let them die.' Is that the country you really want? Really? <iframe width="600" height="400" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yva0VSN1_T4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to reply. What people need to realize is there is a HUGE difference in what I (and many others)think the government should be doing and what I (and many others) think that individuals should be doing. Yes, I think that the government should accept that fact that it (we) cannot afford to save (make healthy) everyone and even if it (we) could, that everyone does not want to be saved (made healthy). If you want to define that as the government "letting people die" then so be it. I think of it as using the available resources to do the most good. I truly fear that in trying to treat even the people who are not trying to help themselves that the country will go even more broke and will result in our not being able to take care of the truly needy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Titan's points ring especially true since acquiring birth control isn't cost-prohibitive. We aren't talking about some wide sweeping epidemic of super high priced life saving critical care drugs (like the cocktail for HIV/Aids patients). We're talking about something you can get for $10-15 a month. If people are having babies now when they shouldn't have, it's not because they couldn't afford birth control. So please stop framing it as some critical healthcare issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 If you needed yet another poll showing that people think birth control is a good thing and health insurance plans should provide it, while simultaneously showing the importance of how poll questions are worded, here you go... Quinnipiac. 2/14-20 Q: Do you think that health insurance plans should cover birth control as preventive care for women or not?Yes: 71 No: 24 Q: Do you think the federal government should require private employers to offer free birth control coverage as part of their health insurance benefit plans or not? Yes: 47 No: 48 Q: As you may know, President Obama recently announced an adjustment to the administration's health-care rule regarding religiously affiliated employers providing birth control coverage to female employees. Women will still be guaranteed coverage for birth control without any out-of-pocket cost, but will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's decision? Approve: 54 Disapprove: 38 So, when asked in a "what should happen" vein, without reference to government, people want their insurance plans to cover birth control. Again, if the GOP wants to keep pounding this drum - have it. It's a losing argument. Based on those numbers and a wild guess, what do you think the numbers would have been if the poll question was: Q: Do you think the federal government should require the Catholic Church to offer free birth control coverage as part of their health insurance benefit plans or not? My guess would be: Yes: 35 No: 60 Anyone else care to guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I want to see the results of this question: Understanding the Catholic church has always opposed birth control, and never been required to provide it because it violates their religious principles, do you agree with a federal mandate for catholics to no longer have this exemption? Because I wonder how many people outside of the catholic church are even aware that catholics fervently oppose birth control, or have ever had the exemption before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,510 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 To me, all that shows is a country full of people completely ignorant of the Constitution. Check that, many of them are ignorant. The other big hunk of them just don't give a damn. They want what they want, Constitution be damned, and if they get to poke the Catholic Church in the eye in the process, all the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,686 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 To me, all that shows is a country full of people completely ignorant of the Constitution. Check that, many of them are ignorant. The other big hunk of them just don't give a damn. They want what they want, Constitution be damned, and if they get to poke the Catholic Church in the eye in the process, all the better. Agreed! And I am no Catholic. I have a bad taste in my mouth for the Catholic Church when it comes to the historical role they played in England prior to the Colonial Period, but I am not in favor of trampling the Constitution in the name of "fairness" by the socialists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,510 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I'm not Catholic either. Neither am I opposed to birth control. But our wants don't trump constitutional freedoms our Founding Fathers were wise enough to put in from the beginning. And government is not the granter of these rights. Our Creator is. The Constitution merely reflects what already exists. There's a reason the freedom of speech and freedom of religion were put into the 1st Amendment. They are our dearest freedoms. If we cannot speak our minds nor practice our faith according to the dictates of our consciences without government coercion to violate them, what good are the other freedoms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,487 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 The church isn't preventing one single solitary soul from getting contraception. They just don't want to be forced to pay for it. Read this back to yourself again... I know you don't think contraception is cost prohibitive but by not providing coverage, the outcome is clearly less access. That's undeniable IMO. It isn't hyperbole just because you don't like it or think they won't have the balls to do it. It is bullying and the result I point out is what's going to happen if the Obama Administration insists on these juvenile election year tactics instead of employing common sense. In the end, the Administration's move will hurt the very people it pretends to help. Which if it weren't so typical of government these days, would kill us all with the irony. Do you really think it's Obama who is the one playing election year politics with social issues? Because I don't. Side note: Have you been keeping up with what's going on in Virginia? If it were about access to healthcare, mostly for elective decisions made by the individual, then I would expect you to produce something that shows how the Church has done something in all of this to prevent these employees from purchasing a small supplemental policy to cover these things, or to prevent them from purchasing them at relatively low costs from family planning and abortion clinics, or preventing various women's and abortion rights groups like NARAL, Emily's List, NOW, Planned Parenthood and so on from stepping up to the plate and providing it for the people who choose of their own free will to work for a Catholic employer. None of these things or anything close to them is happening. Thus you're wrong. It is not about access to anything, it is about treading on religious freedom. Period. I've never heard of a small contraception supplement plan. Have you? Again, sure they can purchase in other places but the church is adding an unnecessary hurdle IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.