ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Night Strike]

Pregnancy is kind of a health reason, no? Should only doctors and nurses approved by "the church" (I'm guessing whichever denomination is in vogue with the institution in charge) give advice and perform procedures?

Every health insurance plan picks and chooses which doctors you're allowed to go to. If a person wants contraceptives, they can still go out and buy them. The religious organization just won't pay for it.

[comic boy]

Taxation, not for profit status, etc have little to do with this. It is about whether a church, a church lead solely by men, has the right to dictate what MEDICAL care a WOMAN gets, whether those women are church members or not.

The government does not have the authority to tell any private employer, especially a religious institution, what health insurance they must provide. If the church does not believe in the contraception, the government does not has the authority to force them to provide it. And no entity can be forced to provide it for free. If people want contraception, they can pay for it themselves. A prescription is $9 at Walmart without insurance.

If an employer has not for profit status than it should abide by federal guidelines , if it is not prepared to do so then it should not expect any tax breaks or other concessions.

[AAFitz]

Pregnancy is kind of a health reason, no? Should only doctors and nurses approved by "the church" (I'm guessing whichever denomination is in vogue with the institution in charge) give advice and perform procedures?

Every health insurance plan picks and chooses which doctors you're allowed to go to. If a person wants contraceptives, they can still go out and buy them. The religious organization just won't pay for it.

Oh...they just wont pay for it, cool...

The government wont pay for them to run their organization then, if they simply don't want to follow the guidelines.

The better title to this thread is :

The US vs Religious oppression of employees Freedom

[thegreekdog]

Taxation, not for profit status, etc have little to do with this. It is about whether a church, a church lead solely by men, has the right to dictate what MEDICAL care a WOMAN gets, whether those women are church members or not.

The government does not have the authority to tell any private employer, especially a religious institution, what health insurance they must provide. If the church does not believe in the contraception, the government does not has the authority to force them to provide it. And no entity can be forced to provide it for free. If people want contraception, they can pay for it themselves. A prescription is $9 at Walmart without insurance.

If an employer has not for profit status than it should abide by federal guidelines , if it is not prepared to do so then it should not expect any tax breaks or other concessions.

I think the Catholic Church would be fine with that.

[AAFitz]

Taxation, not for profit status, etc have little to do with this. It is about whether a church, a church lead solely by men, has the right to dictate what MEDICAL care a WOMAN gets, whether those women are church members or not.

The government does not have the authority to tell any private employer, especially a religious institution, what health insurance they must provide. If the church does not believe in the contraception, the government does not has the authority to force them to provide it. And no entity can be forced to provide it for free. If people want contraception, they can pay for it themselves. A prescription is $9 at Walmart without insurance.

If an employer has not for profit status than it should abide by federal guidelines , if it is not prepared to do so then it should not expect any tax breaks or other concessions.

I think the Catholic Church would be fine with that.

We'll see.

[Night Strike]

Obamacare ruling will come on Thursday.

[PLAYER57832]

Pregnancy is kind of a health reason, no? Should only doctors and nurses approved by "the church" (I'm guessing whichever denomination is in vogue with the institution in charge) give advice and perform procedures?

Every health insurance plan picks and chooses which doctors you're allowed to go to. If a person wants contraceptives, they can still go out and buy them. The religious organization just won't pay for it.

WRONG, becuase people buy insurance (and note, people DO BUY insurance!!!! -- even if it is provided by the employer, even it the employer pays the full premium, it is part of their compensation, no less than straight money is compensation)


AND.. if your claim were valid, then any Jehovah's witness employer would not have to provide blood transfusion service and Christian Scientist practitioners would not have to provide anything but Christian Scientist -approved methods.

This is not about employer freedom to believe as they wish, it is about EMPLOYEE freedom to believe and do as they wish in their very personal lives, whether the employer agrees or disagrees.

[Night Strike]

Pregnancy is kind of a health reason, no? Should only doctors and nurses approved by "the church" (I'm guessing whichever denomination is in vogue with the institution in charge) give advice and perform procedures?

Every health insurance plan picks and chooses which doctors you're allowed to go to. If a person wants contraceptives, they can still go out and buy them. The religious organization just won't pay for it.

WRONG, becuase people buy insurance (and note, people DO BUY insurance!!!! -- even if it is provided by the employer, even it the employer pays the full premium, it is part of their compensation, no less than straight money is compensation)


AND.. if your claim were valid, then any Jehovah's witness employer would not have to provide blood transfusion service and Christian Scientist practitioners would not have to provide anything but Christian Scientist -approved methods.

This is not about employer freedom to believe as they wish, it is about EMPLOYEE freedom to believe and do as they wish in their very personal lives, whether the employer agrees or disagrees.

You cannot force a religiously-affiliated employer to provide products that directly go against their religious beliefs, especially when that product is optional. The first amendment expressly forbids it. If an employee wants birth control for actual birth control (and not a legitimate medical reason), they can either buy it themselves or find a new employer. They can't go crying to the government to make someone else pay for their desires.

[2dimes]

You don't seem to be understanding the point I'm trying to make, which is that church-run hospitals are simply businesses being run by churches and should in no way fall under any sort of "protection because they're a religious organization".

Stuff about how church's intend to run hospitals to help people instead of making money to compensate investors, therefore it's not a business. Even though they sometimes are run as one, since they are run by people and corruption occurs. So I don't agree with cutting off their tax free status even though it's obviously logical. I'd rather see the people that basically steal money from such organizations via profits that should not have occured dealt with.

Then...

Taxation, not for profit status, etc have little to do with this. It is about whether a church, a church lead solely by men, has the right to dictate what MEDICAL care a WOMAN gets, whether those women are church members or not.

If this is abortion talk here, that is not MEDICAL care. I am all for you getting abortions. Yes I am pro life to the point of not liking the "morning after pill", but I'm by no means militant or even vocal about it.

I will not decide for anyone including my daughter because it's her that has to carry the fetus while it develops inside her and that's a pretty heavy burden. In fact if my wife gets pregnant I would not be in favour of an abortion, but again it's not my body so it's up to her.

However that absolutely does not mean I support in the least forcing any hospital including state/government run ones to provide them. If you tried to do your own abortion or have complications from one performed at a proper clinic set up to do abortions and now need care I am in favour of forcing a hospital with the proper facilities to take you in as a patient because now you need medical care.

Though I believe every abortion clinic should be set up to provide any medical care needed by a woman having complications due to the proceedure.

[Woodruff]

Pregnancy is kind of a health reason, no? Should only doctors and nurses approved by "the church" (I'm guessing whichever denomination is in vogue with the institution in charge) give advice and perform procedures?

Every health insurance plan picks and chooses which doctors you're allowed to go to. If a person wants contraceptives, they can still go out and buy them. The religious organization just won't pay for it.

WRONG, becuase people buy insurance (and note, people DO BUY insurance!!!! -- even if it is provided by the employer, even it the employer pays the full premium, it is part of their compensation, no less than straight money is compensation)


AND.. if your claim were valid, then any Jehovah's witness employer would not have to provide blood transfusion service and Christian Scientist practitioners would not have to provide anything but Christian Scientist -approved methods.

This is not about employer freedom to believe as they wish, it is about EMPLOYEE freedom to believe and do as they wish in their very personal lives, whether the employer agrees or disagrees.

You cannot force a religiously-affiliated employer to provide products that directly go against their religious beliefs, especially when that product is optional.

That's exactly the point, Night Strike...NOBODY is forcing any religiously-affiliated employer to do anything. That religiously-affiliated employer is CHOOSING to be in that business and by doing so, is CHOOSING to follow the rules of that business. There is no force here. It is not a mandatory requirement of the religion to run a hospital.


The first amendment expressly forbids it. If an employee wants birth control for actual birth control (and not a legitimate medical reason), they can either buy it themselves or find a new employer. They can't go crying to the government to make someone else pay for their desires.[/quote]

[Night Strike]

That's exactly the point, Night Strike...NOBODY is forcing any religiously-affiliated employer to do anything. That religiously-affiliated employer is CHOOSING to be in that business and by doing so, is CHOOSING to follow the rules of that business. There is no force here. It is not a mandatory requirement of the religion to run a hospital.

Maybe it'll send a message if all those hospitals close down to stand for their principles. Of course, I'm guessing you'd be glad if all the religiously-affiliated schools closed down too. The government does not have the power to force a religious organization to violate its beliefs. That is precisely what is happening under Obama. I'm pretty sure that the Catholic hospital in my city does not provide elective abortions because it goes against their religious beliefs. They can't choose that but then be forced to provide the same coverage for their employees. If individuals want birth control and abortions, they can either find a provider or buy it themselves. As an interesting side-note, if we would finally get rid of the employer-provided health insurance, this would be a complete non-issue.

[PLAYER57832]

You cannot force a religiously-affiliated employer to provide products that directly go against their religious beliefs, especially when that product is optional.

I see, so according to you medical care is now entirely optional?

The first amendment expressly forbids it. If an employee wants birth control for actual birth control (and not a legitimate medical reason), they can either buy it themselves or find a new employer. They can't go crying to the government to make someone else pay for their desires.

If they cannot adhere to the conditions set forth by law for employers, then they don't need to be an employer. And no, most people cannot just go get a new job (which is why there are worker protection laws to begin with) and they cannot just go buy new insurance. The system is rigged so that, (at least until the exchanges, etc come into play), employers get to negotiate cheap prices and individuals have to pay through the nose.. IF they can even get individual coverage (often, they cannot).

The freedom that is being taken away is that of the employee, not the employer. Employers do have to follow certain standards if they wish to have employees. Employers don't get to decide to ignore the minimum wage, don't get to hire underage kids for dangerous jobs, don't get to hand their employees a lot of dangerous chemicals without either protections or warning... and to claim that because they get to select, but not even necessarily pay for, insurance for their employees, means they get to decide what care those employees is stupid.. and has absolutely nothing at all to do with the First Amendment. Its the employees who's rights are being violated! They are being bullied into adhering to a religious position they themselves do not believe.

[PLAYER57832]

That's exactly the point, Night Strike...NOBODY is forcing any religiously-affiliated employer to do anything. That religiously-affiliated employer is CHOOSING to be in that business and by doing so, is CHOOSING to follow the rules of that business. There is no force here. It is not a mandatory requirement of the religion to run a hospital.

Maybe it'll send a message if all those hospitals close down to stand for their principles.

A hospital that refuses to even allow its insurance provider to cover birth control in its policies is not going to provide reasonable care for pregnant and miscarrying women, so on those grounds, they ought not to be in business. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with reasonable medical practice, whether the Pope happens to agree or not. No hospital in the US serves only Roman Catholics, so the Pope has no right to have any say in this.

You keep ignoring the point of Jehovah's witnesses. There are reasons that church is not running hospitals. Now it seems the Roman Catholic church is making it clear they ought not to be in the medical care business, either.

[Night Strike]

I know player, you just want the government to run all the hospitals and every other health care sector. It's sad how much you rail against corporations yet want to hand over all control to the biggest monopoly in this country: the federal government.

[GreecePwns]

It seems one day Night Strike's rhetoric matches that of a state socialist, while the next it matches that of an uncompromising anarchist.

[Night Strike]

It seems one day Night Strike's rhetoric matches that of a state socialist, while the next it matches that of an uncompromising anarchist.

I don't know how either could be possible when my rhetoric matches the principles and policies set forth in the Constitution. I definitely don't believe in state socialism and the redistribution of wealth, nor do I believe in the complete abolition of government.

[GreecePwns]

State socialism:

There is no need for society to recognize alternative lifestyles; we need to return to that which is the best for society.

In other words, not what is best for the individual. Also, where does this (it was about gay marriage, to be fully accurate) fit in with the "principles and policies set forth in the Constitution?"

Uncompromising communo-anarchism:

It's sad how much you rail against corporations yet want to hand over all control to the biggest monopoly in this country: the federal government.

In other words, both corporations and government should be prevented from gaining control.

This is not an attack on you. The point is, some people (on this forum and off it) need to learn to communicate their ideas more accurately instead of spout whatever is needed to win an argument.

[BigBallinStalin]

From my history with PLAYER's posts, she certainly tends to advocate for state control while respecting some private property rights. It might be accurate to deem her as a "social liberal," or more accurately, a "welfare liberal." A wider term would be "progressive."

These ideas are in opposition to "classical liberalism," yet they share a mutual appreciation for private property rights. Classical liberals tend to hold those rights more dear and tend to view the government as serving a much more limited role.

Another aspect which pushes progressives, social liberals, and/or welfare liberals away from "classical liberalism" is the advocating for positions against free markets, or laissez-faire capitalism, while advocating for promoting "social justice" while sneaking in redistribution of wealth, further state intervention, etc.

[Neoteny]

When this ruling comes, are we going to get another transcript of the dissent?

[Juan_Bottom]

I think that Player would be more accurately called a Clinton or Chris Cristie Liberal. She knows we need programs like student aid, but she also thinks we should secure their funding before going live with them.
Also, I wouldn't label her anything Welfary, because she's for programs that are paid for by taxes. The Middle Class pays the brunt of the taxes, and in her world the Middle class would get the most help from such programs. So the middle class would be paying for their own programs. I wouldn't call that welfare.

[Woodruff]

That's exactly the point, Night Strike...NOBODY is forcing any religiously-affiliated employer to do anything. That religiously-affiliated employer is CHOOSING to be in that business and by doing so, is CHOOSING to follow the rules of that business. There is no force here. It is not a mandatory requirement of the religion to run a hospital.

Maybe it'll send a message if all those hospitals close down to stand for their principles.

I suppose that depends on whether they actually have principles or not. Do you have an ACTUAL refuting point or did you just want to stick with the "then we'll take our ball and go home" plan?

Of course, I'm guessing you'd be glad if all the religiously-affiliated schools closed down too.

Why would I? I have no problem with parochial schools. What leads you to believe that I do?

The government does not have the power to force a religious organization to violate its beliefs. That is precisely what is happening under Obama.

No, it is not. I'll say it again for you...please read it this time: NOBODY is forcing any religiously-affiliated employer to do anything. That religiously-affiliated employer is CHOOSING to be in that business and by doing so, is CHOOSING to follow the rules of that business. There is no force here. It is not a mandatory requirement of the religion to run a hospital.

This is the religious right attempting to make a mountain out of a nonexistent particle. Either be in the business or don't be in the business. If you're in the business, follow the damn rules for the business. This is not a religious problem, and it is not a religious issue. Period.

[Woodruff]

It seems one day Night Strike's rhetoric matches that of a state socialist, while the next it matches that of an uncompromising anarchist.

It's all about what's convenient to the argument.

[Woodruff]

It seems one day Night Strike's rhetoric matches that of a state socialist, while the next it matches that of an uncompromising anarchist.

I don't know how either could be possible when my rhetoric matches the principles and policies set forth in the Constitution.

Where does the Constitution discuss the right of a religion to run a hospital at it's own whim? I don't remember that part.

[Juan_Bottom]

Any hospital that would shut down and refuse to save lives as a principle, has neither principles nor understanding of what the word principle means. I'm reminded of what Calvin Coolidge said when the Boston Police Department went on Strike:

No man has a right to place his own ease or convenience or the opportunity of making money above his duty to the State.

No matter how hard it is, you have a duty to your neighbors and to your country.

There's a lot of misunderstanding and hypocrisy in this thread, I think. The Law already says that a hospital cannot deny life-saving treatment to someone who cannot pay for it. That's a large contributor to the high cost of health care here. And it's another example of the Federals (with Conservative support) imposing on your freedom somehow. Yet I don't see anyone marching on Congress because of it. In the south, particularly in Texas, many hospitals have already stopped offering services such as birth care, because of the number of illegal and legal immigrants who do not have health insurance. You can still deliver a baby at these hospitals because they cannot deny the services, but they only have to offer it in an emergency.
There are laws on what type of services a hospital can perform, and laws (an entire agency devoted to this) on what type of medicines are available in this country. A simple example is medicinal marijuana, which all of science agrees is hugely beneficial and without any negative drawbacks. Yet it's illegal, with Republican support. This isn't "the land of the free" in the strictest of terms is it?
So when you want to talk about the Federals interfering or stepping all over the Constitution, then remember the frame your arguments to show that you're speaking as, and holding, a hypocritical position.

[Juan_Bottom]

The Constitution means nothing. Appealing to it wont save your argument or lifestyle. The only a Constitutional appeal that will work is arming your brothers and marching on Congress. The Feds "interpret" the Constitution for half of their laws, and "strictly observe" it for the other half.
Thomas Jefferson said it, and I'm saying it. March, March, March!