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.
Is there any reason a woman (or man ) cannot go out and purchase her own health insurance if she/he works for a faith based organization and would like more extensive coverage than they offer?
Of course that wouldn't serve the purpose of your type-by hyperbole would it?
What is sad is the hypocrisy displayed by those who demand seperation of church and state except when it serves their political gain.
Exactly what kind of insurance will I get as a cancer survivor? Please, let me know. It was impossible to find insurance as a 22 year old with JUST PCOS.
Why should any health insurance be allowed to ignore a legitimate health issue? Don't like contraception? Don't use it.
Is there any reason a woman (or man ) cannot go out and purchase her own health insurance if she/he works for a faith based organization and would like more extensive coverage than they offer?
Of course that wouldn't serve the purpose of your type-by hyperbole would it?
What is sad is the hypocrisy displayed by those who demand seperation of church and state except when it serves their political gain.
I believe in a seperation of the two, we are talking business here not relgious beliefs. As I said, why worry no one will use the benefit anyway, riiiiiiight?
Why don't you provide the specifically applicable link and quote to back up your assertion.
The current law exempts churches from having to provide these services which is more than current state laws do in several cases.
Not enough for your hero though. He wants to expand the exemptions to include schools, hospitals, etc., so that they can legally discriminate, by offering reduced benefits, against those employees who do not follow their faith.
What a guy.
"In reality, the mandate is modeled on existing rules in six states, exempts houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of faith, and offers employers a transitional period of one year to determine how best to comply with the rule.
It’s also nothing new. Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees. "
And like so many other things, the GOP was for it before they were against it:
"For instance, a 2001 bill co-sponsored by Republicans Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Gordon Smith (OR), John Warner (VA), Arlen Specter (PA) — S. 104 — sought to establish parity for contraceptive prescriptions within the context of coverage already guaranteed by insurance plans, but offered no opt-out clause for religious groups who opposed contraception"
My rabbi is joking that maybe the synagogue (and related Hebrew day school) health insurance shouldn't cover transplants involving the blood or marrow from non-Jews, artificial hearts made of pig parts, or procedures done on Shabbat or holidays. It's a funny joke.
Sad that religion gets in the way of obtaining adequate healthcare. Millions of women, like me, use the pill to control PCOS, endimitriosis, abnormal menstruation, serious menstrual pain, severe PMS, or even acne. Women at high risk for endometrial or ovarian cancers can have their risk slashed by taking the pill (and I met the sister of another AYA survivor over the weekend who was at the young adult cancer event BECAUSE of her risk - she was on the pill for that very reason and is also a staunch Catholic).
Is there any reason a woman (or man ) cannot go out and purchase her own health insurance if she/he works for a faith based organization and would like more extensive coverage than they offer?
Of course that wouldn't serve the purpose of your type-by hyperbole would it?
What is sad is the hypocrisy displayed by those who demand seperation of church and state except when it serves their political gain.
Silly you....you're expecting supposed adults to take responsibilty for their "my body, my choice" mantra. Now people want gov't in the bedroom - since I guess children are no longer a "choice".
My rabbi is joking that maybe the synagogue (and related Hebrew day school) health insurance shouldn't cover transplants involving the blood or marrow from non-Jews, artificial hearts made of pig parts, or procedures done on Shabbat or holidays. It's a funny joke.
Sad that religion gets in the way of obtaining adequate healthcare. Millions of women, like me, use the pill to control PCOS, endimitriosis, abnormal menstruation, serious menstrual pain, severe PMS, or even acne. Women at high risk for endometrial or ovarian cancers can have their risk slashed by taking the pill (and I met the sister of another AYA survivor over the weekend who was at the young adult cancer event BECAUSE of her risk - she was on the pill for that very reason and is also a staunch Catholic).
Absolutely ridiculous.
Those examples aren't birth-control related. And guess what - my niece took birth-control to help with one of the examples you list and her insurance provided for it since her DR prescribed it - no problem there.
But, "I don't wanna have kids" and/or have all the recreational sex I want is not "health care" - that's lifestyle choice.
No one disputes the right of the employees of Catholic institutions to live their lives as they see fit. But they have no right to expect their employers to subsidize their lifestyles.
If healthcare is regulated then yes they should expect it. And heathcare is going to be regulated. It's not a slap to Catholic faith any more than living in the USA (where abortions are legal) is. Drawing the lines is a tricky business and this is the reason religion should never be an issue outside of your own personal space.
Religion can't dictate public policy, it can only be there for those who want to follow it.
Those examples aren't birth-control related. And guess what - my niece took birth-control to help with one of the examples you list and her insurance provided for it since her DR prescribed it - no problem there.
But, "I don't wanna have kids" and/or have all the recreational sex I want is not "health care" - that's lifestyle choice.
You know....choice???
How do you tell the difference? I could say "I have cramps" as code for "I want to have sex" and no doctor is going to question.
Similarly, would the Catholic Church ban Depo, an IUD, or the ring during chemo or other health issues when a woman could die if she got pregnant? Or should she face life-threatening illness without the comfort of intimacy with her husband?
I bet the slimey immoral Catholics provide Viagra for their scumpriests so they can continue their child raping into their senior years.....but BC for women oh, no, THAT's not right.
How can ANYONE support these degenerate women hating tax sucking law breaking fatheads!!!???
The WH is calling for a compromise now. Keep in mind, the art of a good salesman, is letting the buyer think the purchase was the buyer's idea.
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.
