Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Hawknc, Zamfir, Prelates, Moderators General

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:22 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:A hysterectomy can cost upwards of $10,000. I don't see how giving people a stipend every month is going to help them when they suddenly find out they need major surgery.


I'd like to think that major, life-saving surgery due to organ failure or cancer would fall into a different category, even though it does technically prevent one from having kids as a side effect.


Coming from the organization that excommunicated a nun for giving an emergency, life-saving, abortion, I'm going with probably not.
LaserGuy
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Belial » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:24 pm UTC

Well, be fair, I'm sure he would like to think it.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.
User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
 
Posts: 30227
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Angua » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:18 am UTC

Boehner calls for law to stop US contraception rule

A lot of stuff about how this is impinging on freedom of religion and stuff, but there is also stuff from people defending the rule, so at least that's good :)
“When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” - Mark Twain
User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine
 
Posts: 4078
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:06 pm UTC

And the White House is still populated by idiots:
Jay Carney wrote:Those women ought to be able to have access to the same contraceptive services that other women will have access to.
They have access. What you meant to say, Jay, was
Those women ought to be able to have free Plan B, but rather than buy it for them ourselves, we're going to force employers to pay for it.
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby DSenette » Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:15 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:And the White House is still populated by idiots:
Jay Carney wrote:Those women ought to be able to have access to the same contraceptive services that other women will have access to.
They have access. What you meant to say, Jay, was
Those women ought to be able to have free Plan B, but rather than buy it for them ourselves, we're going to force employers to pay for it.

except that when one person is having it provided on their insurance, and another person with insurance from basically the same company isn't having it provided for them, then they don't have the same access
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")
DSenette
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby EsotericWombat » Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:05 pm UTC

ac·cess (kss)
n.
1. A means of approaching, entering, exiting, communicating with, or making use of

Pretty sure that the money to pay for birth control is pretty well subsumed within "access" to it.

Thanks for playing, though
Image
User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:17 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:And the White House is still populated by idiots:
Jay Carney wrote:Those women ought to be able to have access to the same contraceptive services that other women will have access to.
They have access. What you meant to say, Jay, was
Those women ought to be able to have free Plan B, but rather than buy it for them ourselves, we're going to force employers to pay for it.


It sort of defeats the whole point of having insurance in the first place if potentially very expensive, potentially life-saving treatments are being actively denied to you.

Honestly, if you're going to nitpick your morality to the point that you have no problem saying "We won't pay for contraceptives, but we will give you money for you to buy them yourself", how is that any different from saying "We won't pay for contraceptives, but we will give money to an insurance company who will buy them for you"?
LaserGuy
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby EsotericWombat » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:41 pm UTC

The answer is pretty clear. This isn't about religious freedom, even a little bit. This is about the Right continuing it's war on birth control, just like the fight to defund Planned Parenthood and the personhood amendments in Mississippi and Colorado.

It isn't going to win them a goddamned thing.
Image
User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:49 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:except that when one person is having it provided on their insurance, and another person with insurance from basically the same company isn't having it provided for them, then they don't have the same access
I didn't say they have the same access, I said they have access to the same drugs, contrary to Carney's claim that they didn't have access to the same drugs.
EsotericWombat wrote:ac·cess (kss)
n.
1. A means of approaching, entering, exiting, communicating with, or making use of

Pretty sure that the money to pay for birth control is pretty well subsumed within "access" to it.

Thanks for playing, though
I don't see how that definition applies at all. Here's a definition that applies, from Webster
freedom or ability to obtain or make use of something
So yeah, women have access to Plan B. It's entirely affordable to the people who have 9-5 jobs and get paychecks and health insurance, unless you're buying it daily, in which case you're doing something wrong.
LaserGuy wrote:It sort of defeats the whole point of having insurance in the first place if potentially very expensive, potentially life-saving treatments are being actively denied to you.

I agree. Good thing that's not what the churches are raising objections about. In fact, all this talk of emergency hysterectomies is entirely moot, since health insurance plans have covered that treatment since well before the government decided to stick its nose in and tell people what to do. Churches don't want to pay for Plan B, and as a side note, maybe the Pill as well. That's what this whole debate is about.
EsotericWombat wrote:It isn't going to win them a goddamned thing.
So... if it only pisses off 42% of the country, it's no big deal? Interesting. I'm sure those numbers won't change at all as the ad war rages on.
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:55 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I agree. Good thing that's not what the churches are raising objections about. In fact, all this talk of emergency hysterectomies is entirely moot, since health insurance plans have covered that treatment since well before the government decided to stick its nose in and tell people what to do. Churches don't want to pay for Plan B, and as a side note, maybe the Pill as well. That's what this whole debate is about.


The Churches aren't paying for Plan B. They are paying for insurance. It is the insurance company who pays for medications or whatever treatments are required. Again, I have to ask: if you are okay with the Church giving money directly to people, who then go out and buy contraceptives themselves, how is that any different from the Church giving money to a company, who then goes and buys contraceptives that it gives to people.
LaserGuy
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:58 pm UTC

It's different in the same way me handing you a gun makes me somewhat responsible for your use of that gun, while me handing you a paycheck doesn't implicate me in your decision to cash the check, buy a gun, and shoot at stuff. The fact that there's a third party involved... say, I pay Bob's Guns to hold a Luger for you to pick up... is immaterial from my point of view.
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:05 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:The answer is pretty clear. This isn't about religious freedom, even a little bit. This is about the Right continuing it's war on birth control, just like the fight to defund Planned Parenthood and the personhood amendments in Mississippi and Colorado.

It isn't going to win them a goddamned thing.

As much as I hate them for making a big right-wing fuss over this, I'd honestly be surprised if it didn't help them politically. Obama is already trying to play it safe, and a several catholic democrats are also siding against him. It's the perfect issue for republicans to tie up the government with for the rest of the year and distract people from them blocking almost every bill Obama tries to pass. It's dickish, but could very well be a brilliant (ugh) political move.

Heisenberg wrote:It's different in the same way me handing you a gun makes me somewhat responsible for your use of that gun, while me handing you a paycheck doesn't implicate me in your decision to cash the check, buy a gun, and shoot at stuff. The fact that there's a third party involved... say, I pay Bob's Guns to hold a Luger for you to pick up... is immaterial from my point of view.

Except it's paying "Bob's Health Services" to keep you healthy, and "Bob" is then obligated to include "access to birth control" in his definition of healthy. The church is only paying to keep their employees healthy. You aren't paying Bob to provide birth control, you're paying for any number of services that might be required, with birth control as a possibility.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Falling » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:08 pm UTC

Well if Catholics can deny contraception, can businesses owned by Jehova's Witnesses deny blood transfusions?
Falling
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby DSenette » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:16 pm UTC

Falling wrote:Well if Catholics can deny contraception, can businesses owned by Jehova's Witnesses deny blood transfusions?

or companies that have moral objections to paying minimum wage, could they not pay minimum wage?
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")
DSenette
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby EsotericWombat » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:24 pm UTC

Pretty sure that you don't have the ability to make use of birth control if you don't have the money to pay for it, chuckles.

There's going to be another side to that ad war. One that will paint a convincing picture of a GOP that is openly hostile to women's health.

Women stayed home from the polls in 2010, and as a result, the GOP was empowered to viciously attack their interests. The same will not be true in 2012.
Image
User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Griffin » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:34 pm UTC

Question: If the regulation was instead on the insurance agency (that they must include contraceptives in all packages offered to employment agencies) would the employers have any right to argue against this?
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.
User avatar
Griffin
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby mike-l » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:37 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I didn't say they have the same access, I said they have access to the same drugs, contrary to Carney's claim that they didn't have access to the same drugs.

Did you just ignore the word "services" in his quote?
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.
mike-l
 
Posts: 2730
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby DSenette » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:Question: If the regulation was instead on the insurance agency (that they must include contraceptives in all packages offered to employment agencies) would the employers have any right to argue against this?

they'd start their own private insurance company and then claim the same rights to exclusion
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")
DSenette
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:53 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:It's different in the same way me handing you a gun makes me somewhat responsible for your use of that gun, while me handing you a paycheck doesn't implicate me in your decision to cash the check, buy a gun, and shoot at stuff. The fact that there's a third party involved... say, I pay Bob's Guns to hold a Luger for you to pick up... is immaterial from my point of view.


The employees aren't being forced to get contraceptives from the insurance company. They are still getting them of their own volition. The Church is no more enabling them to get birth control by paying for insurance that happens to provide it, than it is to be paying an employee who happens to buy it. It is exactly the same transaction.
LaserGuy
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:18 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:The Church is no more enabling them to get birth control by paying for insurance that happens to provide it, than it is to be paying an employee who happens to buy it. It is exactly the same transaction.

If you're saying that the employees have access to the drugs either way, I agree. If you're saying that the two actions are morally equivalent from the church's point of view, I disagree, and so does the church.
DSenette wrote:or companies that have moral objections to paying minimum wage, could they not pay minimum wage?
Nope. As soon as the minimum wage law includes an exemption for conscientious objectors, you'll have an argument, until that time, you have a straw man.
EsotericWombat wrote:Pretty sure that you don't have the ability to make use of birth control if you don't have the money to pay for it, chuckles.
That's why I pay you $50,000 a year, Wombat, so that when you want something that costs $20, you can pay for it.
EsotericWombat wrote:There's going to be another side to that ad war. One that will paint a convincing picture of a GOP that is openly hostile to women's health.
That'd be pretty misleading, since the administration is attacking the interests of a politically diverse religious group, and the group is fighting back. Right now Democrats and Republicans are both calling for a change, but the most vociferous is that of the American Catholic Bishops, who recently took out a full page in the WSJ to air their greivances. So... the Obama campaign can demonize them if they like, but I don't see how that'll help them in their re-election campaign. It's a lose-lose, which makes me wonder why Obama thought this was a good time to spit in the face of a group that represents 20% of the population, when he had the option of delaying another year.
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Malice » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:32 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
DSenette wrote:or companies that have moral objections to paying minimum wage, could they not pay minimum wage?
Nope. As soon as the minimum wage law includes an exemption for conscientious objectors, you'll have an argument, until that time, you have a straw man.


Please. The question isn't what the law is, but what the law should be. The argument is that the birth control requirement for health insurance should have a conscientious objector clause, to which the proper response is "Why shouldn't the minimum wage have a similar exemption?" to which the proper response is not "it doesn't, a-durrr".

Heisenberg wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:Pretty sure that you don't have the ability to make use of birth control if you don't have the money to pay for it, chuckles.
That's why I pay you $50,000 a year, Wombat, so that when you want something that costs $20, you can pay for it.


By that logic we should have no health insurance at all, right? Or is birth control somehow different? Or do you have an arbitrary cost line below which everybody should be on their own? Or is health insurance only for people making 50,000 a year and up? I'm giving you a lot of options here.

Heisenberg wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:There's going to be another side to that ad war. One that will paint a convincing picture of a GOP that is openly hostile to women's health.
That'd be pretty misleading, since the administration is attacking the interests of a politically diverse religious group, and the group is fighting back. Right now Democrats and Republicans are both calling for a change, but the most vociferous is that of the American Catholic Bishops, who recently took out a full page in the WSJ to air their greivances. So... the Obama campaign can demonize them if they like, but I don't see how that'll help them in their re-election campaign. It's a lose-lose, which makes me wonder why Obama thought this was a good time to spit in the face of a group that represents 20% of the population, when he had the option of delaying another year.


Apparently surveys indicate that the Catholic Church and Catholics have different ideas on birth control, so I wouldn't necessarily say the ACB represents 20% of the population. Anyway, Obama seems perfectly willing to expend political capital this year--in fact, he's about to spend the next few months quietly letting any state that wants to off the hook for No Child Left Behind.
Image
User avatar
Malice
 
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Garm » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:50 pm UTC

Well Marco Rubio has introduced a bill that will allow anyone to option out for "religious" reasons. This IS awesome. Republicans... hating on women since... I don't know when. 1980? When the southern democrats switched parties? Anyway... At this point any claims of compassionate conservatism from our current crop of elected haters should result in defenestration.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Falling » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:00 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
DSenette wrote:or companies that have moral objections to paying minimum wage, could they not pay minimum wage?
Nope. As soon as the minimum wage law includes an exemption for conscientious objectors, you'll have an argument, until that time, you have a straw man.


Heisenberg, you seem to have conveniently missed the text that DSenette was quoting. Again - Jehova's Witnesses, blood transfusions - go!
Falling
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby sardia » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:07 pm UTC

Falling wrote:Well if Catholics can deny contraception, can businesses owned by Jehova's Witnesses deny blood transfusions?

If they had a business that only employed Jehovas, only served jehovas, and were for a religious purpose, then yes. That's what the catholics were trying to dispute here. The exemption only applies if you meet the above requirements. Catholics happened to be a large part of the population with several business related to it. A hospital and university, both institutions that normally provide access to birth control, are saying that since catholics run it, then it should fall under the exemption. In fact, the reasons Catholics are so up in arms about it was they thought Obama promised them that they wouldn't push on their territory regarding this very issue when they agreed in turn to roll over on the health care act. When the Catholics realized that the exemptions weren't going to cover them, they got really upset at the "betrayal". Hence the controversy.

Catholic universities and hospitals serve large sectors of the country, so all those students and patients were out of luck with regard to birth control. Just to prove that Heisenberg example is wrong: The students at a Catholic university knew that the The Affordable Care Act law guaranteed them the right to free birth control from their insurer, the university. Catholic universities refuse to even provide them, you can't even pay them. The students have to travel outside of school, and pay $20 a month out of pocket to buy their own pills. Many students, unable to travel or pay are forced to obey Catholic scripture, aka go off birth control pills. In addition, they also don't provide birth control pills, also known as hormone treatments since that is what they are, to anyone with a medical condition requiring hormone treatments. The wealthy aren't the ones affected by this, it's the poor and the young.

Oh, don't blame this on Obama fully, he was going to delay this til after the election by delaying enforcement for a year. However, Catholics forced the issue, demanding clarification now. That's why it's so ill-timed, because Catholics want to pressure him when he's weakest. Lastly, he's helping 15% of the population, considering that of your catholic population, 3 out of 4 use birth control. The only people complaining are old white dudes with fancy hats.
User avatar
sardia
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Belial » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:40 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
DSenette wrote:or companies that have moral objections to paying minimum wage, could they not pay minimum wage?
Nope. As soon as the minimum wage law includes an exemption for conscientious objectors, you'll have an argument, until that time, you have a straw man.


So the core of your argument here is "it should have the clause because it has the clause but if it didn't have the clause it shouldn't have the clause but it does so it should?"

Holy is-ought, batman.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.
User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
 
Posts: 30227
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby lutzj » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:56 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:Pretty sure that you don't have the ability to make use of birth control if you don't have the money to pay for it, chuckles.
That's why I pay you $50,000 a year, Wombat, so that when you want something that costs $20, you can pay for it.


By that logic we should have no health insurance at all, right? Or is birth control somehow different? Or do you have an arbitrary cost line below which everybody should be on their own? Or is health insurance only for people making 50,000 a year and up? I'm giving you a lot of options here.


(Actually, yeah, in my opinion; people should either buy their own healthcare or get it directly from the state.) Forcing employers to provide a service that rarely has anything to do with employment is silly. Forcing employers to engage in moral decisions about their employees' lives is even sillier. Any system which makes a given service free to somebody incentivizes that person to use the service, and a lot of people don't want to financially support and therefore incentivize the use of birth control. That's all this is about.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:22 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
DSenette wrote:or companies that have moral objections to paying minimum wage, could they not pay minimum wage?
Nope. As soon as the minimum wage law includes an exemption for conscientious objectors, you'll have an argument, until that time, you have a straw man.


So the core of your argument here is "it should have the clause because it has the clause but if it didn't have the clause it shouldn't have the clause but it does so it should?"

Holy is-ought, batman.
No, the core of my argument was outlined in the OP: Telling a homeless shelter that they're no longer a religious organization because they let in too many Muslims on Friday is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

I think it's reasonable to allow conscientious objections in most scenarios. The reason it sounds stupid that a Jehovah's Witnesses' Church isn't required to provide blood transfusion insurance is that the whole idea of forcing individual employers to provide the exact same health coverage for their employees is monumentally stupid.
sardia wrote:Oh, don't blame this on Obama fully, he was going to delay this til after the election by delaying enforcement for a year. However, Catholics forced the issue, demanding clarification now. That's why it's so ill-timed, because Catholics want to pressure him when he's weakest.
Or, you know, they wanted clarification on a law that's about to go into effect, like you said. Really, they expected an extension, and instead they got a major Fuck You. But if you want to assume that everyone's out to get Obama, that's cool too.

Malice wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:Pretty sure that you don't have the ability to make use of birth control if you don't have the money to pay for it, chuckles.
That's why I pay you $50,000 a year, Wombat, so that when you want something that costs $20, you can pay for it.

By that logic we should have no health insurance at all, right?
No, by that logic, you should make sure that whatever plan/paycheck combo you're getting will cover your medical needs, like all the employees of the Religious Hospitals, Shelters, Schools, Food Banks, etc. have been doing for years. All this fearmongering about women being prevented from getting birth control is absolutely ridiculous. They're working professionals who can find a pharmacy and take care of themselves.
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby sardia » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:23 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
(Actually, yeah, in my opinion; people should either buy their own healthcare or get it directly from the state.) Forcing employers to provide a service that rarely has anything to do with employment is silly. Forcing employers to engage in moral decisions about their employees' lives is even sillier. Any system which makes a given service free to somebody incentivizes that person to use the service, and a lot of people don't want to financially support and therefore incentivize the use of birth control. That's all this is about.

Go blame your conservative Democrats, and all the republicans. We could have had the public option, but noooo. That would be socialism. :roll:
Now that you have to live with the conservatism of others, what do they do? They blame Obama. We can't have socialism, but what about my freedom of religion? Why can't everyone be rich, white, and educated, like me and all my other country club friends? Why can't gays, blacks, and women stay where they belong, in the closet.

Oh and, Heisenberg, they didn't want an extension, they wanted an exemption. That's a big difference.
User avatar
sardia
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:27 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:All this fearmongering about women being prevented from getting birth control is absolutely ridiculous. They're working professionals who can find a pharmacy and take care of themselves.

So every woman that attends a university that is managed by the catholic church is a working professional? Every woman at a catholic managed hospital is a professional? Every one of them? Not all of them can find or get to a pharmacy to take care of themselves, or if they can, it's an unnecessary burden to add to their workload.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby EsotericWombat » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:40 pm UTC

More evidence that the Church is on a different planet from the average American voter on this one:

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."
"If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate," Picarello said.
Image
User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Malice » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:48 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
sardia wrote:Oh, don't blame this on Obama fully, he was going to delay this til after the election by delaying enforcement for a year. However, Catholics forced the issue, demanding clarification now. That's why it's so ill-timed, because Catholics want to pressure him when he's weakest.
Or, you know, they wanted clarification on a law that's about to go into effect, like you said. Really, they expected an extension, and instead they got a major Fuck You. But if you want to assume that everyone's out to get Obama, that's cool too.


Actually, they expected an exemption and got an extension (an extra year). At most that's a minor fuck you.
Image
User avatar
Malice
 
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Xeio » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:16 am UTC

That Story Above wrote:That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

"If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate," Picarello said
Damn right you would! What kind of nonsense is it where an employer can opt out of regulations whenever they want to?
User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
 
Posts: 4811
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby sardia » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:46 am UTC

By Heisenberg logic, all this fear mongering about religious freedom being crushed from getting birth control is absolutely ridiculous as well. If your flock was really devout, you wouldn't need to deny them birth control, they would control themselves. You know, like adults, instead of acting like deprave sex monkeys. It's not like the ruling was a ploy based on the early Catholic church to boost their numbers by encouraging their members to pump out children in order to achieve numerical, and then political dominance.
User avatar
sardia
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby ThunderOfCondemnation » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:39 pm UTC

Churches should have no right to deny their employees contraception through insurance... as the above poster said, if the employees were all saintly, they would reject the use of contraception themselves.

But that's not all the Catholic Church does! In Africa, it's promoting the spread of AIDS through its rejection of condoms. ("pro-life?" really?)

I hope reactionary religious views die out soon. We see a few promising trends in the US.
No war but the class war
No peace but a Socialist peace
No god but humanity
User avatar
ThunderOfCondemnation
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:30 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:34 pm UTC

sardia wrote:If your flock was really devout, you wouldn't need to deny them birth control, they would control themselves.
Again, this is not about denying anyone birth control, any more than having a cash bar at a wedding denies people alcohol. You've completely missed the point.

Malice wrote:Actually, they expected an exemption and got an extension (an extra year). At most that's a minor fuck you.
What I meant was they asked for an exemption but everyone expected Obama to hem and haw and say "I'll let you know next year." So they asked for an exemption expecting an extension, and received a flat "No." And considering how many democratic members of Congress have come out of the woodwork to object already, and how narrowly the health insurance bill passed in the first place, I think it's entirely appropriate to be outraged at the lies used to force this bill through.

And yes, lots of Catholics support and use birth control, but that doesn't mean they agree with forcing the Church to provide it. As an example, I have no problem with gay people getting married, but if the government forces the evangelical church down the street to provide marriage services to gays over their conscientious objections, I'd have a problem with that. And not only that, but while a minority of Catholics agree with the church's stance on contraceptives, I'd wager a majority of them agree on Plan B, which is going to be a major driver in this. Obama just handed Republicans a wedge issue that isn't gays or abortion, so this is definitely going to come up in the election if Obama doesn't back down somehow.
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Falling » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:37 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Churches don't want to pay for Plan B, and as a side note, maybe the Pill as well. That's what this whole debate is about.


Happy? Debate Over
Falling
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:50 pm UTC

I am, thanks for the link.
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby ThunderOfCondemnation » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:50 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:As an example, I have no problem with gay people getting married, but if the government forces the evangelical church down the street to provide marriage services to gays over their conscientious objections, I'd have a problem with that.


Would you have a problem if the government forced a racist store manager to let black people in?
Homophobia must be eradicated, whether in disguised religious forms or not.
No war but the class war
No peace but a Socialist peace
No god but humanity
User avatar
ThunderOfCondemnation
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:30 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Falling » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I am, thanks for the link.


Good, me too. It's a surprisingly nice turn of events in a time when compromise is such a dirty word. Any one else see a flaw in this?
Falling
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby EsotericWombat » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:58 pm UTC

Many of the Catholic groups that are up in arms about this want the birth control mandate to not exist at all. I'm not sure that this is going to end the debate. It certainly reframes the issue into one where any bishops still complaining about it are clearly in the wrong
Image
User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA

PreviousNext

Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grop, Yoshisummons and 17 guests