Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You said we should not allow insurance companies to dictate based on personal beliefs, well you are saying they should cover or not cover based on your beliefs plus it isn't the insurance companies that are the issue, it is the right of some to decide what shoud be covered.
The Blunt Amendment would have allowed someone else to decide for you what should be covered, that someone being your employer. So if your employer was a Jehovah's Witness who didn't believe in blood transfusions, and you found yourself in need of one but at the directive of your employer your insurance won't cover it, you would be okay with that? Do you not understand how dangerous a road this is, to allow employers to decide what should and should not be covered based on their own personal beliefs?
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,082,780 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar
What about Jehovah's Witnesses and their religious opposition to blood transfusions?
I've always thought that to be an odd belief for a herd that get's their feet slammed in doors and their noses hit by screen doors so much...looks like transfusions would be a good thing for them.
can anyone disagree that the screws are being tightened on our own economy? oil prices rise, and americans suffer even more. the very sad part is that this is ALL intentional, and our troops get put in more danger by this idiocracy.
I cannot believe these discussions are happening in 2012 either.
With female enrollment/graduation rates in college exceeding males one would have thought more liberal women would have learned the significance of our Constitutionally affirmed liberties and value those more than security. Instead, these nitwits just want to replace husbands with free government handouts (a.k.a nanny statism) at the price of our liberty. I look at these type of women as traitors. They are part of the enemy within (Marxists/Socialists/Communists) and a very real threat to individual liberty.
i've always thought that to be an odd belief for a herd that get's their feet slammed in doors and their noses hit by screen doors so much...looks like transfusions would be a good thing for them.
Many organizations are given tax exempt status 501(c)3. Your point? Are you suggesting now that the government defines religion, thus establishing it?
Not only are there many types of tax exempt organizations, there are several types of organizations which are eligible for 501c(3) tax exempt status, which is applicable to religious organizations.
And surely you are not so naive as to believe that the IRS granting tax exempt status to a religious organization is no different from congress establishing a state religion or passing laws which give preferential status to any religion?
My point, which has been picked up on by other posters in this thread, is that allowing employers to disallow medical prescriptions or treatment based on religion is a slippery slope and if stepped on could open up a slew of problems. What would the Scientology-based employer allow for medication for someone diagnosed with depression? Herbal tea?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
