Obama Forces Abortion, Condoms and Mornnig After Pills on Catholics

[MachZer0]

No, they're only demanding that an employees' insurance carriers not provide something they disapprove of.

Sounds reasonable

Out of their own pocket only. Not as part of the medical insurance they are provided by their employer.

Sounds very reasonable

Since when does an employer get to make decisions about what medical issues your insurance is allowed to grant you?

Since employers started offering medical insurance

-- A2SG, you have heard of griswold v connecticut, haven't you?

Griswold dealt with a state law and thus has no bearing on this situation

 

[A2SG]

Sounds reasonable

What's reasonable about it? How is it any of their business? Since when is their approval necessary?

Sounds very reasonable

Again, what's reasonable about it? How is it the Catholic church's business to determine what an insurance plan covers?

Since employers started offering medical insurance

Nope. Employers have never had the right to approve or disapprove of any employee's health care decisions.

But if you feel this is reasonable, how far are you willing to go? Would you feel the same if an employer who feels their employee should lose weight should be able to disallow their lipitor prescription? Should the employer be present for all doctor visits, so he can okay or disallow all prescriptions or medical treatments?

This, to you, is reasonable?

Griswold dealt with a state law and thus has no bearing on this situation

Yes, it does. The right to privacy has been used as precedent in cases that do not involve state laws, it's application has been very far reaching.

-- A2SG, you'd be surprised what other cases have cited Griswold......

 

[MachZer0]

What's reasonable about it? How is it any of their business? Since when is their approval necessary?

It's reasonable because a person should never have to be forced to provide or facilitate something they consider sinful

Again, what's reasonable about it? How is it the Catholic church's business to determine what an insurance plan covers?

When you pay for something, you have a right to determine the results you want

Nope. Employers have never had the right to approve or disapprove of any employee's health care decisions.

That isn't the case here. This is a case about what the employer wants to pay for, not what decisions the employee can make.

But if you feel this is reasonable, how far are you willing to go? Would you feel the same if an employer who feels their employee should lose weight should be able to disallow their lipitor prescription? Should the employer be present for all doctor visits, so he can okay or disallow all prescriptions or medical treatments?

This, to you, is reasonable?

In a sense, the employers will is present in all doctor visits. But to answer your question as to how far I would go, I would let the employer decide what they are willing to cover. I'm not sure if you are aware, but some employers are now charging more for employees who are in poorer physical condition, requiring them to take part in certain health improvement programs in order to reduce their contribution to the premium.

Yes, it does. The right to privacy has been used as precedent in cases that do not involve state laws, it's application has been very far reaching.

-- A2SG, you'd be surprised what other cases have cited Griswold......

Irrelevant since privacy is not at issue. As I said, any employee of a Catholic organization can walk into any pharmacy that dispenses birth control, and, with a valid prescription, make the purchase.

 

[A2SG]

It's reasonable because a person should never have to be forced to provide or facilitate something they consider sinful

If so, why did they hire that person in the first place? Why not fire them the instant they find out they're doing something sinful? After all, since they're providing that person's livelihood, does that mean they should have a say in every decision that person makes? If you're disrespectful to your parents or if you covet your neighbor's wife or something, you're fired!

What if that employee decides to go to a strip club? The employer is providing the funds, so he should have a say in how they're used. That is what you're saying, after all.

When you pay for something, you have a right to determine the results you want

You do? Wow! I'll have to remember that the next time I buy a lottery ticket! By the way, you may get a call from the lottery clerk, so you can explain this to them when they don't give me the result I want.

That isn't the case here. This is a case about what the employer wants to pay for, not what decisions the employee can make.

It is exactly the case. You're saying an employer can approve of or disallow insurance coverage for specific procedures or medication based on the employer's personal opinions, which directly affects the health care decisions the employer makes. This, according to you, is reasonable.

In a sense, the employers will is present in all doctor visits.

And you're still calling this reasonable????????

But to answer your question as to how far I would go, I would let the employer decide what they are willing to cover.

Really? Should the employee consult the employer after every doctor visit to get an okay, or should they run their medical questions past the employer first, to avoid anything the employer disapproves of ahead of time?

I'm not sure if you are aware, but some employers are now charging more for employees who are in poorer physical condition, requiring them to take part in certain health improvement programs in order to reduce their contribution to the premium.

And you're still calling that reasonable???????

Wow, you and I have quite different concepts of what's reasonable!!!

Irrelevant since privacy is not at issue.

Um, yeah, it is. Medical decisions are private between a doctor and patient, but you're saying the employer should have the right to approve of or disallow any and all medical decisions made. Where's the privacy?

As I said, any employee of a Catholic organization can walk into any pharmacy that dispenses birth control, and, with a valid prescription, make the purchase.

But not have it covered by health insurance. Which is supposed to cover things like this. And only because the employer has a personal issue with that medication, not for any valid, medical reason.

-- A2SG, and you're still calling this reasonable?????????????????

 

[MachZer0]

If so, why did they hire that person in the first place? Why not fire them the instant they find out they're doing something sinful? After all, since they're providing that person's livelihood, does that mean they should have a say in every decision that person makes? If you're disrespectful to your parents or if you covet your neighbor's wife or something, you're fired!

Interesting. The Catholic employers don't fire people for doing things like that in their time off, but public schools do fire teachers for things they do in their private lives. Anyway, I'll repeat what I said before. Once the employer pays a wage, that money belongs to the employee. How he uses it is his business.

What if that employee decides to go to a strip club? The employer is providing the funds, so he should have a say in how they're used. That is what you're saying, after all.

While the employer could fire said employee, it's irrelevant because the employee is expending his own funds.

You do? Wow! I'll have to remember that the next time I buy a lottery ticket! By the way, you may get a call from the lottery clerk, so you can explain this to them when they don't give me the result I want.

I didn't say you get to determine the result. You get to determine the result you want.

It is exactly the case. You're saying an employer can approve of or disallow insurance coverage for specific procedures or medication based on the employer's personal opinions, which directly affects the health care decisions the employer makes. This, according to you, is reasonable.

Exactly. If you have have employer based health insurance, try to get them to cover breast enhancement surgery

And you're still calling this reasonable????????

Yes, it's reasonable since they are paying for it

Really? Should the employee consult the employer after every doctor visit to get an okay, or should they run their medical questions past the employer first, to avoid anything the employer disapproves of ahead of time?

They do that now. If you see a doctor, the bill goes to the insurance company and they determine if the visit is covered or not.

And you're still calling that reasonable???????

Wow, you and I have quite different concepts of what's reasonable!!!

You might have a different perspective if you were the one footing the bills.

Um, yeah, it is. Medical decisions are private between a doctor and patient, but you're saying the employer should have the right to approve of or disallow any and all medical decisions made. Where's the privacy?

You relinquish some of that privacy when you use the insurance. When you see the doctor, he reveals the purpose of your visit to your insurance company. Otherwise, the insurance won't pay. You voluntarily relinquish your right to privacy when you ask the doctor to bill your insurance.

But not have it covered by health insurance. Which is supposed to cover things like this. And only because the employer has a personal issue with that medication, not for any valid, medical reason.

-- A2SG, and you're still calling this reasonable?????????????????

Uh, nothing says birth control is supposed to be covered by insurance. Only the things the policy covers are things the insurance is supposed to cover. I recall researching health insurance policies about a year ago and discovered that most of the policies didn't cover pregnancies and childbirth. Most policies of which I am aware, do not cover cosmetic surgery. So what is covered depends on the policy and in some cases what's covered in the policy is determined by the employer.

 

[Incariol]

But not have it covered by health insurance. Which is supposed to cover things like this. And only because the employer has a personal issue with that medication, not for any valid, medical reason.

-- A2SG, and you're still calling this reasonable?????????????????

It's obviously nuts. But then again, the RCC's social agenda has always struck me personally as being punitive politics more than any actual concern for people, so yeah...

 

[A2SG]

Interesting. The Catholic employers don't fire people for doing things like that in their time off, but public schools do fire teachers for things they do in their private lives.

Really? Teachers are fired for disrespecting their parents or coveting stuff? Where is this, because I don't recall it happening around here.

Anyway, I'll repeat what I said before. Once the employer pays a wage, that money belongs to the employee. How he uses it is his business.

Why? If you feel its reasonable that an employer can pick and choose what kind of medical care he'll pay for, why can't he pick and choose what other forms of sinful behavior he's subsidizing through the wages he pays? Why are health benefits so special?

While the employer could fire said employee, it's irrelevant because the employee is expending his own funds.

Funds the employer provides, just like he provides health coverage. What's the difference?

After all, it's reasonable to withhold health coverage due to sinful behavior, why isn't it also reasonable to withhold other funds that may go to sinful activity?

I didn't say you get to determine the result. You get to determine the result you want.

And I want to win the lottery. So expect that call, you can explain it to the lottery commission.

Exactly. If you have have employer based health insurance, try to get them to cover breast enhancement surgery

Why stop there? Deny lipitor for employees you feel need to lose weight or exercise more, deny lithium for employees you feel aren't really depressed and should just get over it.

Yes, it's reasonable since they are paying for it

They're also paying a salary that the employee can spend in any sinful way they like. Why draw the line at health coverage?

They do that now. If you see a doctor, the bill goes to the insurance company and they determine if the visit is covered or not.

The insurance company. Not the employer. You're saying the EMPLOYER should have say over what is covered and what isn't, not the insurance provider.

You might have a different perspective if you were the one footing the bills.

Actually, I'm of the belief that people should be free to make their own decisions, even with the money I provide them as an employer. You seem to feel that way too, but only up to a point. Me, I don't agree with your arbitrary dividing line between a salary and health care coverage.

You relinquish some of that privacy when you use the insurance.

No, you don't. And your employer is most definitely not in the loop at any point. But that's how things are.

You're simply saying it'd be reasonable to include the employer in these medical decisions so he can decide what to allow and what to disallow, based on his own personal opinions, not on the criteria a doctor or an insurance provider uses, ie medical necessity or expense.

When you see the doctor, he reveals the purpose of your visit to your insurance company. Otherwise, the insurance won't pay.

No, he doesn't. The insurance company provides a list ahead of time for which procedures or medications the cover, and the doctor makes his decision based on that. If he suggests a course of treatment or medication the insurance company feels is too expensive, they may deny coverage, but the basis for this denial is almost always economic, not personal.

(Now, I'm not saying this is a good arrangement, I personally believe the doctor should use his best medical knowledge as an arbiter, not insurance company economic concerns, but that's beside the point.)

None of these decisions, by the way, are based on the employer's personal opinions or religious beliefs.

You voluntarily relinquish your right to privacy when you ask the doctor to bill your insurance.

No, you don't. They pay the bills, and that's it. They don't pass judgment on your care based on their own personal opinions or religious beliefs, as you feel it'd be reasonable for an employer to do.

Uh, nothing says birth control is supposed to be covered by insurance.

In 28 states, the law says exactly that.

Only the things the policy covers are things the insurance is supposed to cover. I recall researching health insurance policies about a year ago and discovered that most of the policies didn't cover pregnancies and childbirth. Most policies of which I am aware, do not cover cosmetic surgery. So what is covered depends on the policy and in some cases what's covered in the policy is determined by the employer.

Some plans do cover more than others, that's true...but coverage is based on economic issues, how expensive a procedure or medication is. None base their coverage on the personal opinions or religious beliefs of the employer.

At least, not yet.

-- A2SG, still not sure why you're okay with employers subsidizing sinful behavior with salaries, but not with health care coverage....seems unreasonable to me.....

 

[A2SG]

It's obviously nuts. But then again, the RCC's social agenda has always struck me personally as being punitive politics more than any actual concern for people, so yeah...

Yeah, they need to have laws created to force people to follow their doctrine.

-- A2SG, seems to me, they've lost the battle already, but are just hanging on out of sheer spite.....

 

[szechuan]

delete.

 

[MachZer0]

Really? Teachers are fired for disrespecting their parents or coveting stuff? Where is this, because I don't recall it happening around here.

No, but there are cases of teachers being fired for visiting strip clubs, posting racy pictures on Facebook and the like.

Why? If you feel its reasonable that an employer can pick and choose what kind of medical care he'll pay for, why can't he pick and choose what other forms of sinful behavior he's subsidizing through the wages he pays? Why are health benefits so special?

Funds the employer provides, just like he provides health coverage. What's the difference?

The funds no longer belong to the employer, they are the employee's and he is free to do with them as he wishes. He can even take those funds and purchase contraceptives if he desires. That's not the same as the employer actually providing the contraceptives through an employer based health insurance plan

After all, it's reasonable to withhold health coverage due to sinful behavior, why isn't it also reasonable to withhold other funds that may go to sinful activity?

It's the difference of who is facilitating the sin. Why don't you use the federal government to force the Catholic organizations to establish strip clubs for entertainment? Would that be reasonable to you?

And I want to win the lottery. So expect that call, you can explain it to the lottery commission.

And you are free to want that.

Why stop there? Deny lipitor for employees you feel need to lose weight or exercise more, deny lithium for employees you feel aren't really depressed and should just get over it.

I pointed out to you that some employers charge higher premiums to employees with unhealthy lifestyles. They should be free to do that.

They're also paying a salary that the employee can spend in any sinful way they like. Why draw the line at health coverage?

The difference is that the employer isn't providing the sinful behavior as they would in the case of the contraceptives.

The insurance company. Not the employer. You're saying the EMPLOYER should have say over what is covered and what isn't, not the insurance provider.

Exactly. If an employer is going to provide a service, he should be able to determine the types of services to be provided.

Actually, I'm of the belief that people should be free to make their own decisions, even with the money I provide them as an employer. You seem to feel that way too, but only up to a point. Me, I don't agree with your arbitrary dividing line between a salary and health care coverage.

Salary is not in and of itself sinful. Certain "healthcare" issues are. That's the difference. Will you also force the Catholic employer's to cover sex change operations?

No, you don't. And your employer is most definitely not in the loop at any point. But that's how things are.

You're simply saying it'd be reasonable to include the employer in these medical decisions so he can decide what to allow and what to disallow, based on his own personal opinions, not on the criteria a doctor or an insurance provider uses, ie medical necessity or expense.

The employer is in the decision because the medical services covered are decided by the the insurance company and the employer before the plan is made available to you

No, he doesn't. The insurance company provides a list ahead of time for which procedures or medications the cover, and the doctor makes his decision based on that. If he suggests a course of treatment or medication the insurance company feels is too expensive, they may deny coverage, but the basis for this denial is almost always economic, not personal.

(Now, I'm not saying this is a good arrangement, I personally believe the doctor should use his best medical knowledge as an arbiter, not insurance company economic concerns, but that's beside the point.)

After you've visited the doctor, he submits the bill to the insurance company which tells the company what services the doctor provided. If the doctor does not do that, the insurance company will not pay the bill. That's just the way it works.

None of these decisions, by the way, are based on the employer's personal opinions or religious beliefs.

Of course they are. That's why we're discussing this topic because some employers have always limited certain medical benefits based on religious beliefs

No, you don't. They pay the bills, and that's it. They don't pass judgment on your care based on their own personal opinions or religious beliefs, as you feel it'd be reasonable for an employer to do.

They pass judgement on the payment of the bill after they've seen the treatment you received and determined if it is covered by your plan.

In 28 states, the law says exactly that.

With exceptions and any state that does not include exceptions over steps its authority

Some plans do cover more than others, that's true...but coverage is based on economic issues, how expensive a procedure or medication is. None base their coverage on the personal opinions or religious beliefs of the employer.

At least, not yet.

If that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but certain employers obviously do base their coverage on religious beliefs

-- A2SG, still not sure why you're okay with employers subsidizing sinful behavior with salaries, but not with health care coverage....seems unreasonable to me.....

Still not sure why you aren't demanding that employers provide visits to strip clubs as a benefit

 

[mpok1519]

It's not an issue of use but rather provision. Would you object to the government forcing you to provide a product you found objectionable

When the objections are totally unreasonable and based in the realm outside of objective reality, and those objections are literally hinged on delusion, paranoia, and poor-rationalization, then those objections shouldn't hold much weight.

"Hi, I need some birthcontrol to regulate my hormone levels becauseof these ovarian cysts."

"Sorry, we're catholic."

"....?"

 

[mpok1519]

"Sorry, our hospital doesn't believe in modern medical science."

"But, you're the only hospital for a hundred miles! Where do I get treatment?!"

"Not my problem. Maybe you should talk to God about it."

 

[DaisyDay]

In 28 states, the law says exactly that.

Some plans do cover more than others, that's true...but coverage is based on economic issues, how expensive a procedure or medication is. None base their coverage on the personal opinions or religious beliefs of the employer.

Also it is usually based on standard and usual treatment. Some plans will cover experimental treatments and prescriptions for off-use treatment, but the more stringent ones will not.

 

[questftbest]

When the objections are totally unreasonable and based in the realm outside of objective reality, and those objections are literally hinged on delusion, paranoia, and poor-rationalization, then those objections shouldn't hold much weight.

"Hi, I need some birthcontrol to regulate my hormone levels becauseof these ovarian cysts."

"Sorry, we're catholic."

"....?"

I do not want to pay for you to murder your kids with "morning after" (i.e. one-night stand) abortion pills. NOT ONE DIME..NOT ONE PENNY. ...PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!!!!

 

[MachZer0]

When the objections are totally unreasonable and based in the realm outside of objective reality, and those objections are literally hinged on delusion, paranoia, and poor-rationalization, then those objections shouldn't hold much weight.

"Hi, I need some birthcontrol to regulate my hormone levels becauseof these ovarian cysts."

"Sorry, we're catholic."

"....?"

Sorry, but you don't get to determine what the Catholic Church deems a religious belief.

 

[Corey]

Sorry, but you don't get to determine what the Catholic Church deems a religious belief.

By that vein, how do the Bishops get to determine what non-Catholic employees of open-to-public institutions get to have for Healthcare?

And I never saw you opposing the Iraq War...lest you forget the Bishops opposed that too....

 

[mpok1519]

I do not want to pay for you to murder your kids with "morning after" (i.e. one-night stand) abortion pills. NOT ONE DIME..NOT ONE PENNY. ...PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!!!!

The ignorance seethes through your capitalized childish yelling rants that make zero sense to a sensical person with a brain that God gave us.

Birth control is not always used to flush a zygote or blastula from a woman's uterus (aka, not a kid; a blastula is not a kid. Its a microscopic collection of cells that has not formed into anything resembling a human, so your ignorant "killing kids" campaign can come to an end, please), but sometimes is used for other purposes such as regulating hormonal levels. This helps in the treatment of ovarian cysts. You probably have loved ones who have experienced the condition, its fairly common. So, you're suggesting your loved ones are participating in this kid killing campaign you seem to be unhealthily obsessed with. Kudos pal. You're a fine example of a fine human being who would refused treatment to loved ones based on ignorant and frighteningly obtuse delusional paranoia.

I do pay for it; with taxes that the hospital takes.

 

[mpok1519]

Sorry, but you don't get to determine what the Catholic Church deems a religious belief.

I don't; I just know when religious beliefs turn from harmless, marginalized, no-one-really-cares beliefs into practices and policies that directly affect others' lives negatively.

But apparently the catholic church gets to decide which religious beliefs of theirs they will use to affect others negatively.

"Hi, I have an ovarian cyst that needs treated otherwise it could turn into an infection and kill me."

"Sorry, we don't treat ovarian cysts because the medicine used for it is also used for other things, like birth control."

"But, you're the only hospital for miles! I have no where else to turn!"

"Sorry. Not our problem. Perhaps you can pray your disease away."

 

[MachZer0]

By that vein, how do the Bishops get to determine what non-Catholic employees of open-to-public institutions get to have for Healthcare?

By providing the "healthcare"

And I never saw you opposing the Iraq War...lest you forget the Bishops opposed that too....

I'm not Catholic

 

[MachZer0]

<TOS>

Birth control is not always used to flush a zygote or blastula from a woman's uterus (aka, not a kid; a blastula is not a kid. Its a microscopic collection of cells that has not formed into anything resembling a human, <TOS>

The blastula not only resembles a human, it is a human