Obama Admin Regulating Religious Employers

I still don't get why we're forcing insurance companies to cover this.

 

I agree with this part. I don't really see the religious argument, but I don't know that it is really a cost that makes sense for insurance, which is designed to cover *unexpected* expenses (ie, insure you). If you're just covering things people know they are going to spend, it doesn't seem like insurance.

 

Because it saves the government a ****load of money rather than having to provide medicaid etc for unwanted pregnancies.

 

I don't use that term for just anyone I disagree with... I reserve it for crazy-ass autocratic-theocratic-atavistic science-hating intentionally ignorant and proud of it base Republicans. You know, like Rick Santorum. We're getting to the point in our national discourse where the crazies are allowed to spout off whatever they want and it is up to others to carefully explain why it is crazy. I'm sick of playing that game and so, I shorten the amount of writing I have to do to "wingnut." In my mind, that covers it.

And so we clearly see that it is not about abortion or contraception or any holy writ, but it is about punishing women for having fun sex. Not a word in your post about the other half that is necessary for a pregnancy. Why should men get to screw around with impunity? All the burden is placed on the woman and all the power reserved for the man. Wow.

Tell me, why did God make us such that we enjoy sex? Why did he give us a brain that could figure out how to have fun sex that does not result in a baby? Or was that all the work of the devil? But isn't the devil a product of God? How many angels on a pin? It doesn't really matter because God, the devil, and all the angels in heaven hate slutty chicks... at least that's what we believe when see her screwing some other guy. if she's with us, then she truly is an angel.

 

I'm not really sure that forcing insurance companies to carry it (i.e. forcing everybody who has insurance to pay for it) will actually do that though.

If someone wants contraceptive coverage, would they not elect/choose it?

It seems like a self selecting thing... so why force it on people? (not that I agree with their moral reason for objecting)

I'm just not convinced that reproductively irresponsible people will suddenly become responsible because this coverage was mandated.

If it does though, great. I just wish that we didn't 1) need to force it on people or 2) lived in a secular society where people didn't have such ridiculous objections to it. (abortion not withstanding)

 

Something I have wondered... if the morning-after pill was excluded from this, would those that adamantly oppose this on moral grounds still oppose it?

And would those that support this still continue to support it?

Just curious to whether the opposition opposes contraception coverage or just the RU486.

 

If employers denied contraception coverage to their employees, then the cost (which I believe for contraceptive offerings is quite expensive) would then be the responsibility of the employee. Wealthy people wouldn't have a problem with that (and at the same time, could afford separate or alternative health care coverage that would cover contraceptives), but it would seem make people with less financial means not have the ability to purchase contraceptives. And doesn't that ultimately add to the problem of financial hardship (and conceivably add to the abortion rate)?

btw, one of my daughters was prescribed birth control pills to address a medical problem completely unrelated to pregnancy. Should I not get coverage for that prescription if I worked for a religious hospital or religious university?

 

25+ states already have this requirement in place - so it should be pretty easy for someone to do some studies to see what the impact has been!

 

Is it my (or your) problem that someone cannot afford birth control?

If it is that important to them, they can get another job or find a way to fit it into their budget, no?

I realize they have other medicinal uses, but once again, if you need them and you work for an employer that doesn't cover it, you can find another way to get it.

I'm all for contraception (and even responsible abortive care), and I would gladly volunteer my own money to cover other people (which is why I support Planned Parenthood, for example, and I would go out of my way to *not* support institutions that deny contraceptive coverage), but I don't think we should be forcing people to pay for it.

 

That would be stellar.

People will always play their moral objection card, but if the proof is in the pudding, I would find it nearly impossible to support their position.

This seems like an inevitable collision of interests between the church and the state. Religion once again standing in the way of a better society.

 

Personally, I am not qualified to be a spokesman for God -- I just try to follow His precepts as I see them. I am quite guilty of indulging in non-marital sex and have often used preventative measures to forego an unwanted pregnancy resulting from fun sex. However, men as well as women pay for pregnancy -- ever hear of child support? Also, men get no say when a woman decides to abort or not abort -- suddenly it's her choice and not her partner's.

 

To answer your first question, I believe yes... there are all sorts of things I believe society helps with, even if its not everyone's problem.

But doesn't this become a slippery slope? I don't drink or smoke... should I pay for people's medical costs to treat the health problems or conditions caused by drinking or smoking? Seems folks could choose all sorts of medical problems or conditions that they could choose not to pay for.

Same could be said for health conditions caused by overeating or leading an unhealthy lifestyle. At what point does everything become a complicated menu of "I agree with this, but not that..."

But again, if I can't afford the costs, should my daughter suffer due to someone else's beliefs?

But if we allow Methodist Hospital to deny coverage, do we allow a private hospital to deny coverage if the CEO is Catholic?

 

Your daughter isn't being forced to suffer anything. She can find another job or pay for it herself.

I've already stated multiple times we shouldn't be forcing insurance companies to cover it, so, obviously yes. Private employers should be able to get whatever insurance they want, whether it covers abortions, brain transplants, human-centipede-fusions, or whatever.

 

...sounds like you're against mandated health insurance, Donny. You're not alone there -- but most of the cool kids are on the other side of the aisle.

 

She was first prescribed when she was 15... so getting another job, or paying for it herself weren't options.

 

I had my problems with this hybrid system from the start, it's better than nothing, but it has plenty of warts.

I'm just not wild about the idea of telling insurance companies what they can and cannot do. Telling people they have to buy it is an inelegant solution to an even messier problem, but if we had access to a marketplace that wasn't broken as all hell and offered any kind of reasonable and affordable choices... argh.

 

So how was she covered? Through your insurance?

If that was the case, you can get another job or pay for it, then.

 

Paid through my insurance. It was a hypothetical, based on my real experience, but asking what would be the result if I worked for a hospital (eg St Agnes) trying to exclude contraceptives for "moral reasons."

Your argument appears to be... it doesn't matter if religious reasons or not, prescriptions shouldn't be covered by health insurance if the employer doesn't want to, seems to be a separate and different debate.

btw, in today's job market and economic times, seems tougher to tell someone, get another job, or just pay for it yourself. But again, that is a different discussion...

 

If you're going to lecture me about what I can and cannot say (in addition to wrongly telling me what my point is), at least do it in proper f***ing English.