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.
I don't think he specifically targeted Catholics either, but the complaint was that he didn't make allowances for their religious views.
Views of the covered persons, or the employer? Is a person supposed to be free on such issues as long as employer agrees?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach
The Catholic Church as an employer doesn't give a hoot or a holler whether their employees use BC or not. But they draw the line at having to pay for something that violates their tenets.
Using Church/God/Religion for business violates the tenets of Christianity.
I think the main reason this is so controversial, is that most folks think the government has NO BUSINESS in our health...whether reproductive or not. It's simply not the place of the Federal Government to medle in anyone's health choices.
And forcing a group that doesn't believe in contraception to PAY for it, is wrong. And, yes...the taxpayers will be paying for it, one way or another.
But why should their religious practices be a factor in the business? That's what's got me confused.
I don't believe in war, at least not many of the ones we've had.
I don't believe in incarceration for minor drug offenses.
I don't belive in a lot of things taxpayer's pay for. Doesn't mean I get to decide about these things, or that I don't have to pay anyway.
Will it cause them to pay for abortifacients or simply early stage contraceptives and the MAP?
Many people believe that life begins at conception and that anything that interrupts a pregnancy, no matter what stage it is in, is abortion. I suppose IUD's would fall into the same category since they prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum. These are deeply held beliefs for many people.
Wasn't a big deal until Obamacare preventative healthcare kicked in.
Now it's the #1 issue in America and women's rights are getting set back hundreds of years because of it.
28 states already had such laws when this issue came up. But you knew that. Setting back women's rights hundreds of years? Are women going to be considered property again? Are we going to have to promise to "obey" our husbands when we marry again? Are we going to lose the right to vote? My grandmothers, both adult women in 1921, would turn over in their graves. They never missed an election. Are women going to have to get their husband's or father's permission to open a charge account again? Please elaborate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Well covered copays kicked in for many preventative services. Which means you can go to the doctor as much as you want and get all the preventative tests and not pay any copay. The copays are now covered by increase premiums. Is that fair ? I guess it is if you go to the doctor alot but what if you don't ?
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Women’s Preventive Services – including well-woman visits, support for breastfeeding equipment, contraception and domestic violence screening – will be covered without cost sharing.
Your use of "preventative" (sic) drives me crazy! Your post is a crock of dung. First, I have never heard of a policy that gives you an unlimited number of preventive visits. Secondly, not all policies will have these "free" well visits. Some will be "grandfathered" in as written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach
The Catholic Church as an employer doesn't give a hoot or a holler whether their employees use BC or not. But they draw the line at having to pay for something that violates their tenets. It's the same with the Baptists, who are self-insured. They are fine with BC but are against abortion and Obamacare will require them to directly pay for abortifacients.
Many people believe that life begins at conception and that anything that interrupts a pregnancy, no matter what stage it is in, is abortion. I suppose IUD's would fall into the same category since they prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum. These are deeply held beliefs for many people.
This is about church, not people. Or is it? If it were about people, we won't be dancing to the whims of the church. What is wrong with letting people choose for themselves? Heck, these salaries they pay, likely go into acts the church doesn't condone.
Heck, the church is doing things that the religion doesn't condone... making a "religious business".
I do not want "hurr durr conservatives" or "hurr durr liberals", I'd like some honest responses, please.
The way I see it, is that Obama wasn't specifically targetting businesses that were Catholic (Which seems odd, considering a business isn't exactly capable of having a religion), but all businesses. I may be misinformed on this. I can see why an individual Catholic would have a problem with this, but I also know that 99% of people in any given religion are hypocrites in at least one aspect of it, as stated by or interpreted as in their Holy Book.
As well, if you're hiring people who aren't of your religion, you shouldn't be pressing your beliefs on them. I am of the opinion that you can talk about religion with others, but to limit them because of your personal beliefs is wrong. Again, I'm opininated on this, and feel free to add your opinion.
This is probably in no way an apt analogy, but what about people who pay for TV packages? They may not want the things that come on on certain channels, but they still have to pay for them. Just because you pay for it doesn't mean you have to use it, and birth control will be used by more people than most things covered by Insurance.
Issue 1 is that it is being mandated to be provided free. The government should not have the authority to order private business to provide a good or service for free. America is supposed to be a free country, the government isn't supposed to tell businesses which services they will provide and what they will charge for them.
Issue 2 is that the insurance companies will raise insurance premiums to cover the cost of complying with the mandate. This means all men and those women who are not on birth control will be paying for the birth control being given for free to those women using it, even if she is making a higher salary than they are.
Issue 3 is that a nonprofit provider of education, charity, or medical services which is owned/operated by and/or affiliated with a church should properly be considered an extension of that church. If it is not for profit it is by definition not a "business". It should therefore operate under the same rules that the affiliated church does. It is no different than if the members of a local congregation organize a food drive for their community, it's just done on a larger scale.
Issue 4 is that nobody is forced to accept employment with any religious organization nor is anyone forced to become a student at a particular religious school. Therefore, there is no "pressing of beliefs" on people.
Issue 5 is that instead of engaging in honest debate regarding the previous 4 issues, the left is declaring a "war on women" and creating a false narrative that conservatives want to ban birth control
I do not want "hurr durr conservatives" or "hurr durr liberals", I'd like some honest responses, please.
The way I see it, is that Obama wasn't specifically targetting businesses that were Catholic (Which seems odd, considering a business isn't exactly capable of having a religion), but all businesses. I may be misinformed on this. I can see why an individual Catholic would have a problem with this, but I also know that 99% of people in any given religion are hypocrites in at least one aspect of it, as stated by or interpreted as in their Holy Book.
As well, if you're hiring people who aren't of your religion, you shouldn't be pressing your beliefs on them. I am of the opinion that you can talk about religion with others, but to limit them because of your personal beliefs is wrong. Again, I'm opininated on this, and feel free to add your opinion.
This is probably in no way an apt analogy, but what about people who pay for TV packages? They may not want the things that come on on certain channels, but they still have to pay for them. Just because you pay for it doesn't mean you have to use it, and birth control will be used by more people than most things covered by Insurance.
Because sex is optional. Why should the American taxpayer be forced to pay for your contraception? People don't want the Feds telling them what to eat most of the time so why the heck is this any different? Isn't that what progressives want? The FEDS to stay out of their bedroom? Why is this any different?
If you can't afford to pay for your birth control... condoms, the pill - are you able to afford the medical bill that goes along with the STD, or pregnancy?
If you can't afford to have sex or deal with the outcome I don't see how that should be my problem.
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.
