So, you don't want "church" to be influencing your "state," but what about "state" interferring in "church?" That is a very dangerous line to be blurring here.
Then what would your solution be?
How about letting people choose how they are going to run their own businesses or how they are going to provide their own services? It is not like all of the hospitals in town are run by Catholics.
I lived half my life in a town that had nothing but catholic run hospitals. Also if its a public company then the shareholders should make that choice, not the CEO
Share holders generally do not have much say in the inner workings of a publicly traded corporations, the closest they may get is being able to vote on board members and officers.
You were speaking of owners. Strictly speaking the shareholders are the owners, not the CEOs (There is overlap of course). I am suspecting you're talking about small businesses then, not megacorps?
Also no response to the fact that there are many towns with only religious run hospitals around them?
Edited at 2012-03-02 03:18 am (UTC)
I mentioned owners, in a general sense of the term. Then you brought up stock holders for publicly traded companies, and I then pointed out that stock holders do not have any real control over the inner workings of a company except in their selecting of officers (like CEOs) and board members. If they don't like something, pick better people. 'Nuff said.
And no point in responding to the bit about living in a town "full of catholic hospitals" since all I can do is take your word for it. And also I know you will not like my follow up answer to that: "Don't like it, then move." Plain and simple, and well with in your rights to do so. Or if you still going to complain, you can try to change things with in the system. There is always an option.
And you can save the rest of your usual line of whinny crap about "easy for you to say." We have been here before more than just a few times, and frankly I do not care.
I did move, I live in WA now. Got Teamster health insurance now, I'm doing pretty fucking good, no complaints.
Good. One of the better bits of news I have heard all evening.
Well, some have gone $%(#%#)$(*%(% TEAMSTERS! Once they find out the source of my insurance ;)
And I am sure shortly after they found out how good their coverage was when their knees suddenly "disappeared" Nancy Kerrigan style.
I was hoping they would pass it, the first thing I was going to do under that law was start a movement to refuse elected officials healthcare insurance. We're their employer and as their employer I believe healthcare is against my religion. If they got ill, it's God's will and maybe we should just find a new leader.
Respectfully, it is unconstitutional for the government to FORCE anyone to buy or pay for something they don't want. Also, the Commerce Clause in the Constitution permits the government "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Forcing a person or company to pay for health insurance or contraceptives does not fall under that clause, or any other. How is it stupidity to oppose this when the Constitution expressly forbids it?
I'm sorry to have to say this, but where are all the people on the left who used to cry out that you can't legislate morality? They are now trying force their view of "the right thing to do" on everyone. Isn't that legislating morality?
Edited at 2012-03-02 03:03 am (UTC)
Pills that are for contraception are used for more than contraception. They treat many things, these companies and organizations deny them legitimate medical treatments. Even the catholic church officially says birth control pills for cysts/various other medical problems is perfectly OK. However the organizations crying foul about this have been known to deny it even for those reasons.
To give you an example of what the above behavior can cause in a town like where I grew up where the only hospitals available for a few hundred miles were religious ones.
Aunt of mine had a fetus die inside of her and for whatever reason, her body did not purge it. It literally was beginning to rot inside of her. None of the hospitals would treat her, because they said it was an 'abortion', never mind there was no heartbeat, no brain activity and it was literally starting to rot.
It took her so long to find a place that would treat her she was sterile from the damage it did while still stuck inside of her womb.
You can see by the very opinions of others here say one can't legislate morality only applies to things they do not like.
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
Edited at 2012-03-02 07:22 am (UTC)
Yes so what,
The reason this law came to pass is Obama healthcare mandating not just helth care coverage but forcing the church to cover conception which is against catholic doctrine. What next the church has to cover abortion because you are pro choice?
The government has no business forcing itself on the church. It is not ok for the church to interfere with the state but to you it ok it force your views via the state on people of faith is it? Answer me? You would not think twice if we christian try to force our view of morality on society via government mandate but it seems right to have the state to force their views the church because you agree with covering of contraception.
"The Blunt Amendment is stupid, and Republican Senators are stupid for supporting it. Sorry, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine - even though you're the only Republican who didn't vote for it - you're still a Republican, and thus, you are stupid by proxy."
I thought you were a reasonable man I see I was wrong. I rather be stupid in your eyes for the sake of Liberty.
I am beginning to think that the answer is to scrap the health system as it is... everyone pay for their own health care... and deal with the debt... that way, no one is forced to insure or pay for anything they don't agree with.
Survival of the fittest. Literally.
Edited at 2012-03-02 04:05 am (UTC)
Not really dog eat dog survival of the fittest: a decentralize healthcare would each group would gravitate to a insurance according their needs and beliefs some plans will cover abortion and contraception some would not. ether way it would be each individual choice not government dictation or one's political agenda.
I have never heard of any insurance that covers abortion... but the problem with this approach is that there is no guarantee that there will be groups that will cover all procedures, nor will everyone have access to those groups. Insurance is done state-by-state right now...
Actually most insurance companies cover abortion.
Yup, just do a google search on it, most of the big names all cover abortion. I'm sure they'd sell a group policy to a company that doesn't want it covered, but the general coverage model includes it.
Morality aside and from a purely profit oriented point of view, abortion is cheaper than a full pregnancy.
If they got rid of the state by state thing, and anyone could get insurance from anywhere in the country, then that may work...
Most of the companies are owned by a few holding corporations, there wouldn't be a surge of competition because there's less than a dozen players already, maybe less than 6.
Just pulling customer numbers from financial reports, if you combine only two (United Healthcare and BCBS) they cover 170million people alone. Add in Aetna, you get another 30+ million from them, 200m people under the care of just three companies.
Where would the competition come from?
That's a part of business... it's a part of the capitalistic society we live in... as long as it's not a monopoly... or as long as the companies are scheming together to set unfair uncompetitive prices (which they probably aren't)...
Since when have you heard about an 'upstart' 'small' insurance company?
No that would be survival of the richest...
I agree with you Bucktown on all counts. The bill is ridiculous. For people that tout the constitution and are complaining about it, do you realize how many times that paper has been altered and tailored to fit what congress wants? Only when someone does something YOU disagree with you want to hold it like a freedom shield.
As far as the government stepping on religion, I agree that the church should be separate and be able to decide for themselves what they will and will not pay for. I also believe the church should loose ALL government funds and rely on their members for money and loose their tax exemptions.
Exactly, right on dude. With that set up, religion could be separate from the state and gays can have their rights as well. Would be nice to live in a country run with reason.
2012-03-04 11:55 pm (UTC)
Birth Control Hogwash
Ok here one more item that shows covrage of cotraseption is pure political hogwash. . The average cost of Birth Control is arround $15 to $25, $50 if include Planed Parrenthood numbers. I pay the same $24 to $27 for my over the counter Prilosec. Since we talikg about employer supplied insurance, the poor does not factor into the equasion since the poor do not have access to employer provided health insurace. The leaves a lot of midlde class women who can easly afford the preceiption as will as the other cost for reconatioal whoppee (oufit, gas, dinks, covercharge, my place or yours..)
Another problem is how so called free pills add to the cost .
"The minute pills are "free," under insurance, the incentive for drug companies to come up with cheaper versions vanishes. So does their incentive to develop safer, more convenient, malecentered or nonprescription birth control. And by making pills free but not condoms, the government may inadvertently be contributing to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases."
The Real Trouble With the Birth-Control Mandatehttp://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/wsj_health.pdf
Thank you for your comment - and the link! *snugs*
So, just throwing this thought in here because I've been talking about this BS a lot lately but...
Isn't it crazy, all this fuss, because when it comes down to it, (job benefit/provided) insurance is really just a way of dodging taxes. Your employer being able to give you 'leeeetle bit more (money value)' because the healthcare premiums are deducted pre-tax.
Optional 'flex spend' (for health expenses) cards (at least in FL) are also pre-tax, but balances expire at years end, and basically require you to guess how much you'll need.
Bottom line is, what you do with your money (pay) is no one else's business. Paying in benefits instead of money does not entitle you to tell people what/how to do with it. I guess if its too complicated for their morals, then they should pay cash equivalent, and people will just go buy their own XYZ care.
Writing on the wall says that should probably be obvious and something else is probably afoot. (they're setting a precedent for a fast one)
Single Payer would solve all of that... but of course it would raise taxes...
Single payer is a lot worst. We have government telling not only who I can get my healthcare but what they will cover or not i.e. rationing. At worst we get government ran monopoly with government ran and sole decider what healthcare you can received eventually lifestyle choices.
The beset way is the free market and removing the employer and interstate barriers to healthcare insurance.
Oh yes I will jump on the first plan that does not cover abortion , contraception, and drug treatment (if removing drug treatment means a cheaper rate for me.) One will be free to seek other plans according to their values, religious to secular.