Susan G Komen policy change...

[Night Strike]

I would agree, except that there is just too little clarity when it comes to abortion. Essentially, the right's position is that they have the right to make these decisions for other people, and that the person involved's religion, creed, etc just don't matter.

The claim that this is about freedom of money is a red herring. It makes as much sense as saying that you get to decide which part of your taxes go to highways, to the military, etc. Some decisions have to be made universally, based on evidence and not individual ideas of preference.

You're obligated by law to pay taxes. Contrary to the beliefs of many liberals based on the outcry against Susan G. Komen, people and organizations are NOT obligated to continue their contributions to any organization or cause indefinitely. If a person or group wants to stop funding a particular group, they still have the freedom to do that. With or without any reason.

[PLAYER57832]

2. If the government is mandating ALL forms of birth control, then they're doing nothing to cut the costs of health care (which was supposedly why they put in this stupid health care law). If you mandate something like birth control, then they should only be forced to cover the cheapest form out there. Maybe the two cheapest forms. However, you shouldn't be mandating that forms that cost more than $100 per dosages be covered without a copay. That just raises the costs for everybody else.

No, in fact few companies need to be mandated because it IS cost-effective. HOWEVER, you have the Roman Catholic church attempting to subvert their not even Roman Catholic employees rights to the kind of coverage they need. THAT is why a mandate is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that all women who want this have access to the coverage.

Generic birth control pills are $9 a month. You can afford that without insurance. Mandating that insurance pay for shots that cost hundreds of dollars just raises the rates for everybody else when there are many cheaper options available.

1. Nope. Not available for $9.00 here.
2. Regardless of the form, the cost savings is in fewer complications from pregnancies and such. (again..enough info for another thread).
3. Even if your idea of the cost were correct for the generic version, not everyone can take the generic version. Hormones are among the trickiest of drugs to regulate. WHICH drug to provide is a medical decision, but the only reason to NOT supply it is being made by religious bullies.

So you're not going to say how much they cost?

Depends on the type. I used to pay $28. My friend says she pays $29. Depro Pavera (sp?), one of the longer term options cost $117.

And if there are medical reasons for needing other options, then those options should be available at coverages and copays similar to all other medicines that are currently on the market and covered by insurance.

yes, except the Roman Catholic Church and religious right want that coverage ELIMINATED, which is why the controversy. They want policies that do NOT cover any kind of birth control at all, and want to offer only that kind of coverage to employees who are not Roman Catholic, not working directly for the church, are working only for institutions like hospitals and schools that have some Roman Catholic Church sponsorship.

OH.. yeah, this will impact me very directly. If I had my miscarriages after these new rules come into effect, I could not get coverage for that. I could not get coverage for the birth control my doctor wanted me to be on for a time.. none of it!

Do you even know what the debate is about? Becuase so far, it seems like you really do not!

[Night Strike]

The debate is about the government thinking they have the power to interfere in the rights of religious organizations. If a religious entity is running an organization like a hospital or school, then they have the right to make sure their employees and policies revolve around their religious tenants. A Christian school has the right to deny employment to someone who does not share their religious beliefs, yet they are now forced to break the tenants of their religion in order to provide medical care that is in violation of their tenants.

For always wanting Christian values to stay out of the government, you're awfully quick to force the government into Christian churches (something that is expressly outlawed by the 1st amendment).

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, I think you just don't like that people have different beliefs than you do

Oh, I'm sorry. Asking questions is dissin your beliefs now? Huh. Go figure.

I don't think you're able to differentiate between perceived encouragement of premarital sex and premarital sex itself.

No, I can differentiate just fine, thank you. I however don't think you can give straight answers to questions.

If you have no problem with premarital sex, then why do you have a problem with the encouragement of premarital sex? Seems to me that if you don't want premarital sex to be encouraged, then you do not see premarital sex as a positive thing.

It's fine if you have a problem with premarital sex. I'm not here to judge your beliefs. But I think claiming that you have no problem whatsoever with premarital sex, and then saying you "don't want it to be encouraged" is a bit dissonant.

Here, on the liberal train, we are tolerant of everyone's views, unless of course they don't sync with our own views.

I don't know what train you're on, but it seems to have missed a couple of stations. Here on my zeppelin, which incidentally flies where the fuck it wants independently of any train tracks, we are tolerant of other people; however, we don't use "tolerance" as a strawman to silence any questioning of our beliefs.

A zeppelin does seem appropriate--with your frequent incursions into foreign people's mental boundaries.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think you're able to differentiate between perceived encouragement of premarital sex and premarital sex itself.

No, I can differentiate just fine, thank you. I however don't think you can give straight answers to questions.

If you have no problem with premarital sex, then why do you have a problem with the encouragement of premarital sex? Seems to me that if you don't want premarital sex to be encouraged, then you do not see premarital sex as a positive thing.

It's fine if you have a problem with premarital sex. I'm not here to judge your beliefs. But I think claiming that you have no problem whatsoever with premarital sex, and then saying you "don't want it to be encouraged" is a bit dissonant.

Money is scarce. TGD wants to maximize specific benefits from his charitable donation while incurring a minimal cost (of having his donation go to services and goods which he feels would be a waste of his money).

Instead of subsidizing activity A, he'd rather subsidize activity B. You're saying, "AH! You say you have no problem with A, yet why do you refuse to subsidize A?" TGD would most likely say, "Because I want as much as my money possible going to B, not A."

There's nothing "dissonant" with that. He prefers that his money would go mostly to B and not to A...

[PLAYER57832]

If you have no problem with premarital sex, then why do you have a problem with the encouragement of premarital sex? Seems to me that if you don't want premarital sex to be encouraged, then you do not see premarital sex as a positive thing.

It's fine if you have a problem with premarital sex. I'm not here to judge your beliefs. But I think claiming that you have no problem whatsoever with premarital sex, and then saying you "don't want it to be encouraged" is a bit dissonant.

I think you answered your own question. Understanding that people will do something, not condemning them for it and actually encouraging them are just 2 different standards.

[PLAYER57832]

The debate is about the government thinking they have the power to interfere in the rights of religious organizations.

NO, its about whether the government can require a religious institution that hires people not of its religion to follow the law.

[Woodruff]

I would agree, except that there is just too little clarity when it comes to abortion. Essentially, the right's position is that they have the right to make these decisions for other people, and that the person involved's religion, creed, etc just don't matter.

The claim that this is about freedom of money is a red herring. It makes as much sense as saying that you get to decide which part of your taxes go to highways, to the military, etc. Some decisions have to be made universally, based on evidence and not individual ideas of preference.

You're obligated by law to pay taxes. Contrary to the beliefs of many liberals based on the outcry against Susan G. Komen, people and organizations are NOT obligated to continue their contributions to any organization or cause indefinitely. If a person or group wants to stop funding a particular group, they still have the freedom to do that. With or without any reason.

I can't possibly imagine you making such a statement if it were one of your pet ideas that had the funding cut off.

[Night Strike]

The debate is about the government thinking they have the power to interfere in the rights of religious organizations.

NO, its about whether the government can require a religious institution that hires people not of its religion to follow the law.

The government cannot force a religious institution to violate its religious principles.

The health care law is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, and these mandates on religious organizations is just another reason to add to the pile of violations.

[Woodruff]

The debate is about the government thinking they have the power to interfere in the rights of religious organizations.

Wow. Not even close.

If a religious entity is running an organization like a hospital or school, then they have the right to make sure their employees and policies revolve around their religious tenants. A Christian school has the right to deny employment to someone who does not share their religious beliefs, yet they are now forced to break the tenants of their religion in order to provide medical care that is in violation of their tenants.

See, there's these funny things called STANDARDS OF CARE.

For always wanting Christian values to stay out of the government, you're awfully quick to force the government into Christian churches (something that is expressly outlawed by the 1st amendment).

This has absolutely nothing to do with forcing Christian churches to do anything. Good God, Night Strike...how is it that you possibly believe that Christians in this country are picked on? I mean, seriously...this is utterly ridiculous.

[Night Strike]

The debate is about the government thinking they have the power to interfere in the rights of religious organizations.

Wow. Not even close.

If a religious entity is running an organization like a hospital or school, then they have the right to make sure their employees and policies revolve around their religious tenants. A Christian school has the right to deny employment to someone who does not share their religious beliefs, yet they are now forced to break the tenants of their religion in order to provide medical care that is in violation of their tenants.

See, there's these funny things called STANDARDS OF CARE.

For always wanting Christian values to stay out of the government, you're awfully quick to force the government into Christian churches (something that is expressly outlawed by the 1st amendment).

This has absolutely nothing to do with forcing Christian churches to do anything. Good God, Night Strike...how is it that you possibly believe that Christians in this country are picked on? I mean, seriously...this is utterly ridiculous.

That was supposed to say "organizations" instead of "churches".

And the organizations ARE following standards of care, especially since many of these organizations are actually HOSPITALS! Mandating free birth control is not a standard of care: it's a governmental intrusion on religious institutions to force them to go against their own teachings and beliefs.

[Woodruff]

The debate is about the government thinking they have the power to interfere in the rights of religious organizations.

Wow. Not even close.

If a religious entity is running an organization like a hospital or school, then they have the right to make sure their employees and policies revolve around their religious tenants. A Christian school has the right to deny employment to someone who does not share their religious beliefs, yet they are now forced to break the tenants of their religion in order to provide medical care that is in violation of their tenants.

See, there's these funny things called STANDARDS OF CARE.

For always wanting Christian values to stay out of the government, you're awfully quick to force the government into Christian churches (something that is expressly outlawed by the 1st amendment).

This has absolutely nothing to do with forcing Christian churches to do anything. Good God, Night Strike...how is it that you possibly believe that Christians in this country are picked on? I mean, seriously...this is utterly ridiculous.

That was supposed to say "organizations" instead of "churches".

And the organizations ARE following standards of care, especially since many of these organizations are actually HOSPITALS! Mandating free birth control is not a standard of care: it's a governmental intrusion on religious institutions to force them to go against their own teachings and beliefs.

So you believe that parents should have the right to deny their children medical care because of their religious belief that "God will cure them"? Because it's the same argument.

[Night Strike]

The debate is about the government thinking they have the power to interfere in the rights of religious organizations.

Wow. Not even close.

If a religious entity is running an organization like a hospital or school, then they have the right to make sure their employees and policies revolve around their religious tenants. A Christian school has the right to deny employment to someone who does not share their religious beliefs, yet they are now forced to break the tenants of their religion in order to provide medical care that is in violation of their tenants.

See, there's these funny things called STANDARDS OF CARE.

For always wanting Christian values to stay out of the government, you're awfully quick to force the government into Christian churches (something that is expressly outlawed by the 1st amendment).

This has absolutely nothing to do with forcing Christian churches to do anything. Good God, Night Strike...how is it that you possibly believe that Christians in this country are picked on? I mean, seriously...this is utterly ridiculous.

That was supposed to say "organizations" instead of "churches".

And the organizations ARE following standards of care, especially since many of these organizations are actually HOSPITALS! Mandating free birth control is not a standard of care: it's a governmental intrusion on religious institutions to force them to go against their own teachings and beliefs.

So you believe that parents should have the right to deny their children medical care because of their religious belief that "God will cure them"? Because it's the same argument.

Actually, it's a completely different argument. You're discussing treating illness that already exist while the mandate concerns preventing something from happening. It has already been decided that parents can refuse to immunize their children from diseases due to their religious beliefs. Yet now Catholics and other organizations aren't allowed to follow their own religious teachings that ban the use of contraceptives? That is a blatant violation of "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]".

[thegreekdog]

Actually, I think you just don't like that people have different beliefs than you do

Oh, I'm sorry. Asking questions is dissin your beliefs now? Huh. Go figure.

I don't think you're able to differentiate between perceived encouragement of premarital sex and premarital sex itself.

No, I can differentiate just fine, thank you. I however don't think you can give straight answers to questions.

If you have no problem with premarital sex, then why do you have a problem with the encouragement of premarital sex? Seems to me that if you don't want premarital sex to be encouraged, then you do not see premarital sex as a positive thing.

It's fine if you have a problem with premarital sex. I'm not here to judge your beliefs. But I think claiming that you have no problem whatsoever with premarital sex, and then saying you "don't want it to be encouraged" is a bit dissonant.

Maybe I just don't understand what you're trying to get at here. I (me, TGD, thegreekdog) do not want to encourage premarital sex. Me. I have a problem with myself encouraging premarital sex by giving money to an institution that encourages premarital sex. Does that make sense?

Let me try to provide another example - I'm hungry. I could be apples or oranges. I choose to buy apples. That doesn't mean I'll denigrate someone that buys oranges, but I'm not going to spend my money on oranges.

Here, on the liberal train, we are tolerant of everyone's views, unless of course they don't sync with our own views.

I don't know what train you're on, but it seems to have missed a couple of stations. Here on my zeppelin, which incidentally flies where the fuck it wants independently of any train tracks, we are tolerant of other people; however, we don't use "tolerance" as a strawman to silence any questioning of our beliefs.

Correct. The Zeppelin of Liberal Oh But Wait I'm Not Liberal Because I'm Above Labels uses terms like "racism" or "bigotry" or "simpleton" to silence anyone questioning your beliefs. ZING!

[PLAYER57832]

The debate is about the government thinking they have the power to interfere in the rights of religious organizations.

NO, its about whether the government can require a religious institution that hires people not of its religion to follow the law.

The government cannot force a religious institution to violate its religious principles.

IF those "principles" involve treatment of other people, they can.

Churches are not allowed to hang blacks who look at them funny.. not matter how much they feel it violates their religion.
They are not allowed to murder their women, no matter how much that IS allowed in other countries.
Oh yeah..and they can require a Jehovah's Witness to pay for insurance that provides life-saving blood transfusions, if they have more than 50 employees, etc.

Your right to your beliefs stop at my door. AND at my doctor's office.

The health care law is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, and these mandates on religious organizations is just another reason to add to the pile of violations.

Irrelevant to this debate, as well as wrong (the freedom here is that of those wanting full coverage health insurance).. but good to see you are still as hypocritical as ever.

[Night Strike]

The debate is about the government thinking they have the power to interfere in the rights of religious organizations.

NO, its about whether the government can require a religious institution that hires people not of its religion to follow the law.

The government cannot force a religious institution to violate its religious principles.

IF those "principles" involve treatment of other people, they can.

Churches are not allowed to hang blacks who look at them funny.. not matter how much they feel it violates their religion.
They are not allowed to murder their women, no matter how much that IS allowed in other countries.

Your right to your beliefs stop at my door. AND at my doctor's office.

The health care law is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, and these mandates on religious organizations is just another reason to add to the pile of violations.

Irrelevant to this debate, as well as wrong.. but at least we see your real motivation.

So why are you forcing the employer to pay for something they don't believe in? Doesn't this work both ways? Considering the religious organization is footing part or most of the bill for the health care insurance, shouldn't they get a say in what they're actually paying for? Why can some employee or governmental agency come to them and demand that they pay for something that expressly infringes on their beliefs?

[thegreekdog]

On the Catholic health insurance issue:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/white-house-op ... 43708.html

So it appears that at least the Obama administration is taking this seriously, as are Catholic bishops and archbishops.

One would think that Woodruff and Player would also take this seriously and not do so much scoffing.

[PLAYER57832]

I would agree, except that there is just too little clarity when it comes to abortion. Essentially, the right's position is that they have the right to make these decisions for other people, and that the person involved's religion, creed, etc just don't matter.

The claim that this is about freedom of money is a red herring. It makes as much sense as saying that you get to decide which part of your taxes go to highways, to the military, etc. Some decisions have to be made universally, based on evidence and not individual ideas of preference.

You're obligated by law to pay taxes. Contrary to the beliefs of many liberals based on the outcry against Susan G. Komen, people and organizations are NOT obligated to continue their contributions to any organization or cause indefinitely. If a person or group wants to stop funding a particular group, they still have the freedom to do that. With or without any reason.

Your argument would hold water if the debate were over legally FORCING Komen to rescind its position. That is not the debate. Its whether people should continue to support this organization, whether Komen will listen to its supporters or bow to the right wing misinformation campaign.

[Night Strike]

On the Catholic health insurance issue:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/white-house-op ... 43708.html

So it appears that at least the Obama administration is taking this seriously, as are Catholic bishops and archbishops.

From that article:

White House spokesman Jay Carney also sought to diffuse criticism from Church leaders, telling reporters later on Tuesday that the administration would work with religious organizations "to see if the implementation of the policy can be done in a way that allays some of those concerns."

If they're taking it seriously, they're not talking about removing policy. They're talking about working with those organizations to still implement those policies. These organizations can't (or at least shouldn't) compromise their principles.


By the way, this thread sure has changed from the topic of Susan G. Komen.

[PLAYER57832]

On the Catholic health insurance issue:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/white-house-op ... 43708.html

So it appears that at least the Obama administration is taking this seriously, as are Catholic bishops and archbishops.

One would think that Woodruff and Player would also take this seriously and not do so much scoffing.

I take it VERY seriously... I find it yet one more reason to utterly lose respect for the Roman Catholic church and to get downright angry that they feel they have the right to tell ME what to do with MY life without even bothering to get their facts correct.

And no, I am NOT talking esoteric. That whole bit I have gone over before was in a Roman Catholic supported hospital.. the ONLY hospital within 40 miles of here. It is also my husband's employer (as of a few months ago) and therefore the provider of my families' health insurance.

[Night Strike]

I would agree, except that there is just too little clarity when it comes to abortion. Essentially, the right's position is that they have the right to make these decisions for other people, and that the person involved's religion, creed, etc just don't matter.

The claim that this is about freedom of money is a red herring. It makes as much sense as saying that you get to decide which part of your taxes go to highways, to the military, etc. Some decisions have to be made universally, based on evidence and not individual ideas of preference.

You're obligated by law to pay taxes. Contrary to the beliefs of many liberals based on the outcry against Susan G. Komen, people and organizations are NOT obligated to continue their contributions to any organization or cause indefinitely. If a person or group wants to stop funding a particular group, they still have the freedom to do that. With or without any reason.

Your argument would hold water if the debate were over legally FORCING Komen to rescind its position. That is not the debate. Its whether people should continue to support this organization, whether Komen will listen to its supporters or bow to the right wing misinformation campaign.

3. Planned Parenthood doesn't even provide mammograms. They refer their clients to other agencies who do them. So if Koman wants to help with breast cancer prevention, shouldn't they help fund those other agencies directly instead of funding an organization that just does referrals?
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/02/why-did-komen-stop-planned-parenthood-doesnt-do-mammograms/

Why should Komen donate to a group that doesn't even do the procedure they were trying to fund?

[PLAYER57832]

The debate is about the government thinking they have the power to interfere in the rights of religious organizations.

NO, its about whether the government can require a religious institution that hires people not of its religion to follow the law.

The government cannot force a religious institution to violate its religious principles.

IF those "principles" involve treatment of other people, they can.

Churches are not allowed to hang blacks who look at them funny.. not matter how much they feel it violates their religion.
They are not allowed to murder their women, no matter how much that IS allowed in other countries.

Your right to your beliefs stop at my door. AND at my doctor's office.

The health care law is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, and these mandates on religious organizations is just another reason to add to the pile of violations.

Irrelevant to this debate, as well as wrong.. but at least we see your real motivation.

So why are you forcing the employer to pay for something they don't believe in?

For the same reason they are required to pay minimum wage, abide by safety rules and various other rules.. BUT only if they employ a significant number of people and in positions deemed not directly religious.

Doesn't this work both ways?

When employees provide health insurance for the boss.. sure. People take jobs because they like to eat. Employment allows an employer to dictate some things, but not all within the confines of the employment. That employment does not confer the right of the employer to get into one's private life. This is a blatant attempt to do so, disguised as a fight over money.

Considering the religious organization is footing part or most of the bill for the health care insurance, shouldn't they get a say in what they're actually paying for?

For the same reason they are required to provide any insurance at all (though as I have noted above, I think that is the WORST way to pay and this is yet one more of the many reasons why employers don't belong in the insurance business. HOWEVER, as long as they are required to provide insurance and as long as people depend on employers to provide it because getting it elsewhere is just too cost-prohibitive, then employers need to provide a minimum basis of coverage. Birth control is absolutely part of that minimum basis.

Why can some employee or governmental agency come to them and demand that they pay for something that expressly infringes on their beliefs?

It is not their beliefs. It is the beliefs of the person USING the insurance that matters. They are required to provide insurance. The rest is just garbage. A Jehovah's Witness cannot decide to omit paying for transfusions, etc, etc. Allowing employers to dictate based on THEIR religion, outside of a church, would create far more mess of insurance policies.

[Night Strike]

And employers weren't required to provide health insurance until this Obamacare law, so we've finally come full-circle on the argument that this law is unconstitutional on multiple fronts.


And birth control is not necessary as a minimum basis of coverage. Birth control is to prevent pregnancies, not illnesses. Basic coverages are included for preventing illnesses and treating some illnesses. Pregnancy is not an illness (although many proponents of abortion believes that it's just a clump of your own cells that can be removed at will).

[Juan_Bottom]

It does prevent abortions though doesn't it?

[thegreekdog]

On the Catholic health insurance issue:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/white-house-op ... 43708.html

So it appears that at least the Obama administration is taking this seriously, as are Catholic bishops and archbishops.

One would think that Woodruff and Player would also take this seriously and not do so much scoffing.

I take it VERY seriously... I find it yet one more reason to utterly lose respect for the Roman Catholic church and to get downright angry that they feel they have the right to tell ME what to do with MY life without even bothering to get their facts correct.

And no, I am NOT talking esoteric. That whole bit I have gone over before was in a Roman Catholic supported hospital.. the ONLY hospital within 40 miles of here. It is also my husband's employer (as of a few months ago) and therefore the provider of my families' health insurance.

No, you misunderstand. It appears, at least to me, that you and Woodruff think there's no violation of the Catholic church's freedom of religion here. If we ignore the bishops' comments, we need only look at the White House comments which take this very seriously. Apparently, the White House is going to work with the church to figure out a sensible way to do this.