This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
And not all Catholics believe that contraception is the devil, since the link you provided, had the statement where one of those against the current bill pushed through something that helped out rape victims in hospitals by allowing them access to the morning after pill.These two sentences have nothing to do with our conversation.You raised the religion portion MyTie, and it was part of the article, I'd say the opposite is true there.
Making it mandatory for a church to provide something that it believes is a sin, is a good thing? I'm gonna have to go with "no".
And while you are free to say so, when it comes down to human health or human spirit, I'm going to be on the side of human health and a way to help people.
Post by
MyTie
Making it mandatory for a church to provide something that it believes is a sin, is a good thing? I'm gonna have to go with "no".
And while you are free to say so, when it comes down to human health or human spirit, I'm going to be on the side of human health and a way to help people.
I love the insinuation that my side of the argument is somehow against human health. Nice.And not all Catholics believe that contraception is the devil
Because if you are going to misrepresent my statements, might as well do it twice in one post.
Post by
Adamsm
Sorry but that's how it comes across MyTie; that is a Catholic woman goes in for this, she's doing something wrong, when she's really just trying to keep herself healthy.
Post by
Squishalot
LOL. Because we choose to get a cold right? Brilliant.
Did I say 'get a cold'? No, I said, 'don't get cold'. For example, wearing long pants, jumpers, blankets, at night, etc..
On the topic of getting a cold, maybe if you looked after your health and your body, just like those girls with their legs together, you wouldn't get a cold.
Here's one that could turn into a debate.
In this case, an 15 year old girl killed her 9 year old neighbor, and confessed to it, because she "wanted to see what it felt like to kill someone." She is 18 now, and was just sentenced to life + 30 in prison (there is still the possibility of parole). What do you guys think of life sentences on heinous crimes committed by juveniles?That it should happen; punishment should fit the crime and all that.....since that girl sounds like a budding sociopath and you can't cure those people(and I really doubt her apology was sincere).
I agree with this as well. Ignorance of the law (which is really, what the argument that 'juveniles don't understand what they're doing') isn't sufficient to get anybody else off a crime.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Magician22773
The point of contention in this debate is about the government REQUIRING a church organization to provide for contraception in their heath care.
And I find it really ironic that the same prople that scream we have "Seperation of Church and State" about other topics, like prayer in schools, or The Ten Commandments in government buildings have no problem all when the State wants to tell the Church what they have to do.
The government should not be mandating what any organization provides. if the chuch does not want to provide for birth control...or a flu shot...its THEIR right to do so. If an employee doesn't like it, they can buy their own pills, or find another job....or get pregnant. Hell, take an Asprin and hold it between your knees. As long as you dont drop that asprin, I can almost guarantee you won't get pregnant.
Post by
Squishalot
Well, not really. If the Church wants to participate in a regulated industry (health insurance), they need to abide by the regulations.
Post by
Magician22773
Well, not really. If the Church wants to participate in a regulated industry (health insurance), they need to abide by the regulations.
Healthcare should not be regulated by the government! Not while being provided by a public sector organization.
(Big Surprise here)...Im not a fan of the goverment running anything outside of the Military in this country. But, I have to concede that for whatever reason, Obama was elected fairly in this country, and anyone that was informed at all during the election should have known what we were going to get. He made it clear that he was going to "Transform America"...and most Conservatives knew he was going to tranform it into Europe.
But since he couldn't get real, true Socialized Heathcare passed, even with control of both houses of Congress, and the White House, instead we got the screwed up Obamacare bill. Which really equates to the government trying to force its will on private citizens and organizations.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Healthcare should not be regulated by the government! Not while being provided by a public sector organization.
I think you mean
private sector
. Still though, not quite. Banking, for example, is regulated by the government while being provided by private sector organisations.
The reason for this is that it is best run by companies who can organise themselves in efficient ways without government bureaucracy. That's fine. However, it is reasonable for a government to intervene to prescribe specific minimum conditions that products need to adhere to, for the purposes of improving transparency and comparability between products from different institutions. That's why, for example, every transaction account has to be able to accept deposits and make payments freely, at any bank branch, as opposed to online-only accounts that you can't transact on without going into your internet banking service.
So with health insurance, every health insurance policy needs to cover X, Y and Z. This might include things like optical, dental and ambulance call-out cover. Whether this should include contraceptive services / products is the question.
Post by
MyTie
Well, not really. If the Church wants to participate in a regulated industry (health insurance), they need to abide by the regulations.
According to the new law, their desire to participate in a regulated industry is irrelevant. According to the law, they WILL participate.
I agree in some government oversight for the health care industry. This goes quite a bit beyond that and mandates that we WILL get insurance, what that insurance WILL cover, and who WILL be purchasing that insurance whether they like it or not.
Edit: Ok, ok. I'm ok with a law requiring religious organizations to provide heath insurance, as long as they have another law that requires atheists to attend church. I know it is against their beliefs, but I believe that going to church is a good thing, and helpful to their health and well being. In fact, church attendance is positively correlated with living longer. I know that this MIGHT go against their beliefs, but I for one, will do what is necessary to help the health of the people (And before Adamsm says anything, not all atheists don't believe in God, just like not all Catholics are against contraceptive). That is my concern. If anyone disagrees with me, then it is probably because they just don't care about people.
Now that edit is how crazy this healthcare bill looks, only put into a context you guys will understand.
Post by
Squishalot
MyTie, as far as I can tell, the new law only says that churches who provide health insurance have to also cover this (i.e. if you're participating in the regulated industry, you have to provide a minimum regulated product). A church doesn't have to issue health insurance if they don't want to. If they're required to ensure that their employees have health insurance, then that health insurance product may happen to cover contraception, just as that health insurance product will also cover O&G services for unwedded girls.
I don't see what's wrong with government oversight mandating what insurance will cover. Can you imagine companies selling life insurance that didn't cover you getting shot, and burying that fact in legal fine print? That's precisely the role of a government regulating an industry - it's to provide minimum standards and a modicum of clarity for the public.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, as far as I can tell, the new law only says that churches who provide health insurance have to also cover this (i.e. if you're participating in the regulated industry, you have to provide a minimum regulated product). A church doesn't have to issue health insurance if they don't want to. If they're required to ensure that their employees have health insurance, then that health insurance product may happen to cover contraception, just as that health insurance product will also cover O&G services for unwedded girls.
I don't see what's wrong with government oversight mandating what insurance will cover. Can you imagine companies selling life insurance that didn't cover you getting shot, and burying that fact in legal fine print? That's precisely the role of a government regulating an industry - it's to provide minimum standards and a modicum of clarity for the public.
Ok. In that case I agree, to a point. I think if a church wants to provide dental to its staff, I don't think it should be required that it buy insurance for other things. I think deceptive insurance companies should have oversight, not the customers of insurance companies.
Post by
Squishalot
Ok. In that case I agree, to a point. I think if a church wants to provide dental to its staff, I don't think it should be required that it buy insurance for other things. I think deceptive insurance companies should have oversight, not the customers of insurance companies.
My old company used to provide a free physical health checkup every 6 months in their head office in Singapore. In Australia, they worked out that the cost was too great to provide that, so they subsidised our health insurance cover, or our doctor's bills if we chose not to get health insurance cover.
By comparison, at another company I worked for, the union looking after the vast bulk of their employees insisted that the company provide free health cover for their staff as part of their employment package. So in this case, the company is providing it, but doing so at the request of the union.
Suppose that the law were passed here in Australia. The insurance companies would have to subsidise contraceptives as part of their insurance products. The churches, banks, companies and individuals can choose how they provide whatever health benefits they want to their employees, but if they choose health insurance to provide that, then the contraceptive cover is going to form a part of that package.
Post by
MyTie
Ok. In that case I agree, to a point. I think if a church wants to provide dental to its staff, I don't think it should be required that it buy insurance for other things. I think deceptive insurance companies should have oversight, not the customers of insurance companies.
My old company used to provide a free physical health checkup every 6 months in their head office in Singapore. In Australia, they worked out that the cost was too great to provide that, so they subsidised our health insurance cover, or our doctor's bills if we chose not to get health insurance cover.
By comparison, at another company I worked for, the union looking after the vast bulk of their employees insisted that the company provide free health cover for their staff as part of their employment package. So in this case, the company is providing it, but doing so at the request of the union.
Suppose that the law were passed here in Australia. The insurance companies would have to subsidise contraceptives as part of their insurance products. The churches, banks, companies and individuals can choose how they provide whatever health benefits they want to their employees, but if they choose health insurance to provide that, then the contraceptive cover is going to form a part of that package.
It's a sad thing that there is this "all or nothing" mentality. Some poor guy is gonna come down with cancer, and not have coverage, because the church doesn't want to be forced to get contraceptive insurance, which it believes is a sin, (ridiculous that that is required since he is a guy anyway). Either the Church sticks with its values, and the people suffer, or the Church has to compromise its values, all because of government regulation that is to far reaching.
Post by
Squishalot
MyTie, see my earlier point - health insurance covers obstetric services for unwed girls. Is the Church going to boycott health insurance because that particular service relates to a sin, or are they going to rely on the fact that their employee is unlikely to pursue that particular offering?
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, see my earlier point - health insurance covers obstetric services for unwed girls. Is the Church going to boycott health insurance because that particular service relates to a sin, or are they going to rely on the fact that their employee is unlikely to pursue that particular offering?
Insurance companies should be able to tailor the policies to the needs of the customer, not the other way around. I can understand not making a tailor policy for EACH customer, but there are millions of Catholics.
And, to answer your question quite directly, if I believe that GOD doesn't approve of something, I'm not going to provide it for someone. You see, I stick to my beliefs. I value them. People around here can't seem to understand that. Sad.
Also, try not to see it in such a black and white term as "boycotting health insurance"... because that's not what this is about. That makes it sound like the Church doesn't want it's employees to have health insurance. This conversation is riddled with people taking things out of context, or in Adamsm's case, just completely misrepresenting what is said.
Post by
Adamsm
This conversation is riddled with people taking things out of context, or in Adamsm's case, just completely misrepresenting what is said.
So....they aren't trying to keep contraception off their insurance list, even though it could possibly help out some of the teens and young adults without a lot of sense?
Post by
MyTie
This conversation is riddled with people taking things out of context, or in Adamsm's case, just completely misrepresenting what is said.
So....they aren't trying to keep contraception off their insurance list, even though it could possibly help out some of the teens and young adults without a lot of sense?
Yes they are trying to keep contraceptive off the insurance list, even though it would help, for the same reason that there shouldn't be a law requiring people who go to town to ALSO go to Church on sundays, even though it could possibly help out some of the teens and young adults. Do you understand what this is about? Because I don't think you do.
Post by
Adamsm
This conversation is riddled with people taking things out of context, or in Adamsm's case, just completely misrepresenting what is said.
So....they aren't trying to keep contraception off their insurance list, even though it could possibly help out some of the teens and young adults without a lot of sense?
Yes they are trying to keep contraceptive off the insurance list, even though it would help, for the same reason that there shouldn't be a law requiring people who go to town to ALSO go to Church on sundays, even though it could possibly help out some of the teens and young adults. Do you understand what this is about? Because I don't think you do.
Separation of Church and State again(or Church and Private Businesses being pushed through by a government backing); however, if this were to become a country wide thing for the States, having specific businesses cut out from it would be confusing and not really good for any body, since they could then force things around to take the insurance away from other people.
Post by
MyTie
Separation of Church and State
So it's cool when it works the way you want it to.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.