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 sardia » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

ThunderOfCondemnation wrote:
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.

Actually, Heisenberg's gay marriage example is probably the best shot homosexuals have to getting gay marriage passed. See: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... age&st=cse
You can divide the opposition to gay marriage by promising that gays will find their own churches, and not force traditional churches to marry them. Add in an ironclad promise that any attempts to force old churches to gay marry will shut down the whole law, and you have a path to a signed law.

As for the compromise, I hope this works too. The bishops planned for this uprising, and I wonder if how much it will take the air out of the opposition.
User avatar
sardia
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby lucrezaborgia » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:32 pm UTC

*headdesk*

The religious institutions will still be paying for it. Does anyone really think that the insurance companies won't pass the buck onto the employers in other ways?
User avatar
lucrezaborgia
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:20 am UTC
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:41 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
ThunderOfCondemnation wrote:
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.

Actually, Heisenberg's gay marriage example is probably the best shot homosexuals have to getting gay marriage passed. See: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... age&st=cse
You can divide the opposition to gay marriage by promising that gays will find their own churches, and not force traditional churches to marry them. Add in an ironclad promise that any attempts to force old churches to gay marry will shut down the whole law, and you have a path to a signed law.

As for the compromise, I hope this works too. The bishops planned for this uprising, and I wonder if how much it will take the air out of the opposition.


Regardless of anything else, I fail to see how anyone can claim that denying people a right to marry whom they want is constitutional, via the 14th Amendment (e.g. Equal Protection Under the Law).
"Greyarcher":Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery.
"JimsMaher":Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots.
The Velocirapture is Imminent! Image
User avatar
eran_rathan
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in ur forum, killing ur threads :(

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Garm » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:42 pm UTC

I find this whole debate fundamentally at odds with EoE. Public Catholic hospitals cannot guarantee that all of their employees are Catholic. A wide exemption provides employers with a religious affiliation to use their religion to dictate other people's behavior. The problem with a situation like this is that it can be framed as a zero-sum equation (at least that's how I see these bishops and their media mouth pieces framing it). Allowing one group to be more free necessarily makes the other group less free.

I'm not particularly sympathetic toward the Catholics in this situation. To me it seems that the majority of their complaints stem from a reduction in their ability to deny women proper medical treatment based on their religious beliefs. What they're doing, in this case, is to conflate a public entity with religious affiliation with an individual. If Catholics don't want to get birth control, that's fine. No law should be made to mandate that they must. However, if they are to hire women who are not Catholic then they must not use their religion to mandate her choices or else her own freedom of religion is being curtailed.

This becomes especially important as Catholic hospitals, already a large portion of our health care system, seek to modernize and expand with public partnerships:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/02/10/womens-health-as-political-football-the-game-goes-on-without-us/

Spoiler:
I understand President Obama is going to announce an “accommodation” to the demands of the Catholic Church and media regarding US health care. I’ll wait and see what he says, and if I have time today I’ll try to figure out how this accommodation might affect me and mine. I don’t know that I’ll be around at 11 for the announcement.

I’m not really surprised he’s compromising. The church planned the political campaign 7 months in advance of the (alleged) “firestorm”, so there was always an end game here.

I am grateful to him for making the public health argument on my behalf. As far as I’m concerned, he was the only person operating out of a genuine concern for women’s health, rather than treating women’s health as a political football or proxy for some other, unrelated, larger moral or political crusade.

He did his job, and he acted in good faith, which is more than I can say for the bishops and their multi-millionaire media mouthpieces. On that, I have to say, I haven’t seen the multi-millionaire cable tv stars and media personalities this incensed in years, back since they were selling the invasion of Iraq. Who knew they were so vitally concerned with limiting access to contraception? Eye-opening, to say the least. Do you think we get them on board to lobby this hard to help working people? They’re impressive when they join together and link arms in a campaign like this. I see a lot of potential for good there.

Here are some facts that might be useful if you are not a bishop or multi-millionare pundit or media personality, and rely on employer-provided health insurance for prescription drugs. Despite misty-eyed and nostalgiac notions of priests toiling in storefront clinics , the Catholic Church plays a huge and growing role in the mulit-billion dollar industry that is US health care. They are the very definition of a large employer that the health care law was intended to regulate.

Catholic Healthcare West, one of the nation’s largest hospital systems, is ending its governing board’s affiliation with the Catholic Church and changing its name, two steps intended to help the system expand throughout the states in which it operates — California, Arizona and Nevada — and beyond.
The changes, which executives announced today, underscore the unique challenges facing Catholic hospitals in the marketplace, where there are tremendous financial pressures for hospitals to merge or form formal alliances with other health care providers in order to survive and thrive. The change will have no effect on any patients or the medical care provided at the 25 Catholic and 15 secular hospitals in the system. But executives hope it will make it easier to merge or affiliate with other hospitals, doctors’ practices and other health care providers.
In the past few years, proposed mergers between Catholic and secular hospitals in Louisville, Ky., and Sierra Vista, Ariz., have collapsed in part because of concerns about the church’s bans on abortions, in-vitro fertilizations and sterilizations. Other mergers have succeeded only with the help of unusual contortions, such in Troy, N.Y., where a separately licensed maternity ward free from Catholic doctrine was created on the second floor of a secular hospital taken over by a Catholic system. In Seattle, Swedish Medical Center last fall agreed to fund a Planned Parenthood office next door to quell objections about its planned affiliation with a Catholic system
The San Francisco-based system, which has $11 billion in revenues, making it the fifth largest in the country, is seeking to triple in size and build a national footprint. It treated 6.2 million patients last year.
Catholic Healthcare West leaders said the change has been in development since 2009, when it was raised by the sisters. They said they consulted with Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco and he determined the governance change was consistent with the church’s teachings and that it could proceed. Future secular hospitals added to the system will be required to adhere to the “Statement of Common Values” that apply to Catholic Healthcare West’s secular hospitals. In addition to elective abortions, those rules prohibit in-vitro fertilizations but not sterilizations such as tubal ligations.
The system’s Catholic hospitals will continue to adhere to Catholic directives and have relationships with the religious orders of nuns that governed the system. Those orders will retain final authority should Dignity want to sell a hospital, change its name or make other substantial alterations. In addition, the secular hospitals will continue to adhere to some rules based on church doctrine, such as a ban on abortions except when a mother’s life is in danger.
“It’s more like two families under one roof as opposed to ‘you have to join our family,’” said Martin Arrick, a managing director at the rating agency Standard & Poor’s. “If this proves to be successful—and I have no reason to think it won’t be—I think you’re going to see a wave of Catholic and non-Catholic partnerships.”
How big is this regulatory exception church leaders and pundits are demanding? How many working people will it involve? When a multi-billion dollar Catholic health care business merges with a multi-billion dollar secular health care business, are all of the people employed there now subject to the restrictions on access to contraceptives?


If the church and their media allies blow a hole in the regulatory scheme of the PPACA can we expect other large employers to demand waivers? The church’s lawyer said yesterday that he was lobbying to remove contraception from the list completely. If he succeeds at that, what other provisions related to women’s health might he succeed in removing? Any other anti-regulatory campaigns they’re cooking up? People out here in the cheap seats might need this information.

None of these questions were even asked. Ordinary working women had no role, at all, in a debate that was just conducted on their health care, but we did have the President of the United States and his HHS director working on our behalf, and that’s heartening.


This is nothing more than another front in the Right's war on women. Until a woman has complete autonomy over her own body she will be a second class citizen.
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 DSenette » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:46 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
sardia wrote:
ThunderOfCondemnation wrote:
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.

Actually, Heisenberg's gay marriage example is probably the best shot homosexuals have to getting gay marriage passed. See: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... age&st=cse
You can divide the opposition to gay marriage by promising that gays will find their own churches, and not force traditional churches to marry them. Add in an ironclad promise that any attempts to force old churches to gay marry will shut down the whole law, and you have a path to a signed law.

As for the compromise, I hope this works too. The bishops planned for this uprising, and I wonder if how much it will take the air out of the opposition.


Regardless of anything else, I fail to see how anyone can claim that denying people a right to marry whom they want is constitutional, via the 14th Amendment (e.g. Equal Protection Under the Law).

religious marriages do not impart any legal rights to any individuals. LEGAL marriages do. when you get married in a church, you still have to fill out and file a marriage certificate.

so, religious institutions can refuse to marry whoever they want (or don't want). catholic churches don't perform jewish marriages. if they wanted to, they could, in theory, refuse to practice a marriage ceremony for a black couple without any real legal recourse since they're not providing a service that has any legal standing as far as rights.

no one has a legal right to be married at all. it's just people who can get married are given certain legal rights after they're married.
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: 2259
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Falling » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:55 pm UTC

lucrezaborgia wrote:*headdesk*

The religious institutions will still be paying for it. Does anyone really think that the insurance companies won't pass the buck onto the employers in other ways?


Shhhh they'll hear you...

Catholic Hospital Association wrote:The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed


Catholics United wrote:Today the Obama Administration announced that the President would be issuing a new regulation fully respecting the religious liberty of Catholic organizations while maintaining access to contraceptive services for all employees.
Falling
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:57 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:(trimmed for brevity)

Regardless of anything else, I fail to see how anyone can claim that denying people a right to marry whom they want is constitutional, via the 14th Amendment (e.g. Equal Protection Under the Law).

religious marriages do not impart any legal rights to any individuals. LEGAL marriages do. when you get married in a church, you still have to fill out and file a marriage certificate.

so, religious institutions can refuse to marry whoever they want (or don't want). catholic churches don't perform jewish marriages. if they wanted to, they could, in theory, refuse to practice a marriage ceremony for a black couple without any real legal recourse since they're not providing a service that has any legal standing as far as rights.

no one has a legal right to be married at all. it's just people who can get married are given certain legal rights after they're married.


That is what it boils down to - all of the religious claptrap doesn't mean a gorram thing, when talking about marriage. I'm speaking solely of the legal implications of it, that non-hetero citizens are denied equal protection under the law by the current rules & regulations.

Seriously, the only reason government is involved in it at all is 1. taxes (specifically estate taxes and the tax breaks that married couples get), 2. censuses (censii?) 3. litigation involving divorce or death, and as a part of that the fair distribution of real property.
"Greyarcher":Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery.
"JimsMaher":Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots.
The Velocirapture is Imminent! Image
User avatar
eran_rathan
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in ur forum, killing ur threads :(

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Ghostbear » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:58 pm UTC

Doesn't this "compromise" actually work out worse for religious institutions, at least as far as they're concerned? Unless I'm mistaken, now even the ones that were exempt will still have birth control included in their health care plans, as the requirement is now passed to the insurer.
Last edited by Ghostbear on Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:13 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Malice » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:00 pm UTC

I'm pleased with this compromise, as although sticking it to the religious orgs is always a fun time, shuffling the money around to make them happy seems to have worked, plus it gets women their birth control access which was the whole point anyway. So yay, politics!
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 Dauric » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:03 pm UTC

Garm wrote:This is nothing more than another front in the Right's war on women. Until a woman has complete autonomy over her own body she will be a second class citizen.


I don't know that this is necessarily "The right's war on women" so much as it's that the Vatican and the Catholic church in general has been losing a lot of control over their members in the last century or so, especially Catholics in the United States. The Catholic church is extremely top-down hierarchical, the most importance is placed on the edicts from Vatican City, and the individual is expected to adhere to those edicts. Whether the individual agrees with those edicts is irrelevant, proper expression of the Catholic faith is obedience to the top of the hierarchy.

America is very much the other way around which causes a conflict in the American Catholic organization, especially when it comes to things like employee remuneration. Like I noted before, the decision from the White House (which, btw, is in-line with the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and lower court rulings in 2000 and 2006. NPR Article) actually supports the freedom of the individual employee against having their behavior mandated by an employer that may not have the same religious beliefs as they do.

But the Catholic Hierarchy doesn't want to operate in a system where the individual has more importance than the Church. It's an anathema to the entire top-down word-of-god-comes-from-pope-through-antenna-pope-hat organizational structure. In the top-down structure employees should adhere to employer standards of behavior not only on the job, but adhere to moral standards in their private lives (which the Catholic church is founded on having authority over moral behavior). Of course they can't demand that employees be Catholic, that would be blatant religious discrimination, so we get the argument that the -organization- is being prohibited from expressing their right to freedom of religious expression when they're demanded to adhere to the employment laws and regulations that favor the individual rather than the organization, laws and regulations that are in place for every other employer.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. Later, Garrus was eaten by a shark. It is believed that the Point has perished in the accident. Back to you Bob.
User avatar
Dauric
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: If I knew this with any accuracy I wouldn't know if I was going to get a speeding ticket.

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby DSenette » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:13 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
DSenette wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:(trimmed for brevity)

Regardless of anything else, I fail to see how anyone can claim that denying people a right to marry whom they want is constitutional, via the 14th Amendment (e.g. Equal Protection Under the Law).

religious marriages do not impart any legal rights to any individuals. LEGAL marriages do. when you get married in a church, you still have to fill out and file a marriage certificate.

so, religious institutions can refuse to marry whoever they want (or don't want). catholic churches don't perform jewish marriages. if they wanted to, they could, in theory, refuse to practice a marriage ceremony for a black couple without any real legal recourse since they're not providing a service that has any legal standing as far as rights.

no one has a legal right to be married at all. it's just people who can get married are given certain legal rights after they're married.


That is what it boils down to - all of the religious claptrap doesn't mean a gorram thing, when talking about marriage. I'm speaking solely of the legal implications of it, that non-hetero citizens are denied equal protection under the law by the current rules & regulations.

Seriously, the only reason government is involved in it at all is 1. taxes (specifically estate taxes and the tax breaks that married couples get), 2. censuses (censii?) 3. litigation involving divorce or death, and as a part of that the fair distribution of real property.

because you have to define what you mean by marriage. if you mean standing in front of your friends, or your church, or the moon goddess and proclaiming your undying love or ownership of the other person or what have you. then you have no basis for calling it unconstitutional because there's no constitutional guarantee that you can get a religious ceremony performed in any religious institution.

so you have to clarify that you're talking about a legal marriage.

a church preventing anyone from being religiously married (in the eyes of their chosen god) doesn't mean anything as far as rights are concerned. a government refusing to extend a legal right to a class of people because of the teachings of a church is a whole nother ball field
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: 2259
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:20 pm UTC

lucrezaborgia wrote:*headdesk*

The religious institutions will still be paying for it. Does anyone really think that the insurance companies won't pass the buck onto the employers in other ways?

True, but it's significant in two important ways. The first is that employers won't have to rewrite their health insurance plans to include drugs and procedures they object to, which might seem trivial, but is could be seen as significant. The second is the intention has changed. Instead of (paying someone to give you health care, including X) the church can consider itself (paying someone to give you health care) (who is forced to give you X). It's a pretty fine line, but already the more liberal Catholic organizations are accepting it, like the Catholic Health Organization.

Ultimately a lot of the more conservative Catholic groups will still object, but the more liberal (and the less confrontational) groups will accept this compromise. It'll be interesting to see how the Catholic bishops react, since they've gotten more politically active lately, but objecting further would be relatively divisive to the Church.

Edit:
Garm wrote:This is nothing more than another front in the Right's war on women.

So me and Sister Keehan are still women-haters? What part of "Thank you for addressing our concerns, please enjoy your free birth control" did you not understand?
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:36 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:because you have to define what you mean by marriage. if you mean standing in front of your friends, or your church, or the moon goddess and proclaiming your undying love or ownership of the other person or what have you. then you have no basis for calling it unconstitutional because there's no constitutional guarantee that you can get a religious ceremony performed in any religious institution.

so you have to clarify that you're talking about a legal marriage.

a church preventing anyone from being religiously married (in the eyes of their chosen god) doesn't mean anything as far as rights are concerned. a government refusing to extend a legal right to a class of people because of the teachings of a church is a whole nother ball field


Definition of MARRIAGE
(from Mirriam-Webster)
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (emphasis mine)

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Nothing about religion in that.
"Greyarcher":Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery.
"JimsMaher":Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots.
The Velocirapture is Imminent! Image
User avatar
eran_rathan
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in ur forum, killing ur threads :(

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Griffin » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:41 pm UTC

Wait, so the solution I proposed earlier in the thread was actually implemented? And it worked!?

Awesome. Maybe I should go into politics...
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 JBJ » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:01 pm UTC

Politics - the art of keeping things the same (or making them worse), but convincing people that things got better.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.
User avatar
JBJ
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby DSenette » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:10 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
DSenette wrote:because you have to define what you mean by marriage. if you mean standing in front of your friends, or your church, or the moon goddess and proclaiming your undying love or ownership of the other person or what have you. then you have no basis for calling it unconstitutional because there's no constitutional guarantee that you can get a religious ceremony performed in any religious institution.

so you have to clarify that you're talking about a legal marriage.

a church preventing anyone from being religiously married (in the eyes of their chosen god) doesn't mean anything as far as rights are concerned. a government refusing to extend a legal right to a class of people because of the teachings of a church is a whole nother ball field


Definition of MARRIAGE
(from Mirriam-Webster)
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (emphasis mine)

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Nothing about religion in that.

wait, so you mean the solution to the gay marriage debate has been to hand religious people a dictionary this whole time?!? where the fuck have you been with this information?

oh, or they reject your definition of marriage, which is ok as long as they don't try to apply their OWN definition of marriage to the one that is used to define who can and cannot get LEGALLY married.
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: 2259
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:26 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:wait, so you mean the solution to the gay marriage debate has been to hand religious people a dictionary this whole time?!? where the fuck have you been with this information?

oh, or they reject your definition of marriage, which is ok as long as they don't try to apply their OWN definition of marriage to the one that is used to define who can and cannot get LEGALLY married.


Which is, fundamentally, the whole problem - they are attempting to codify their religious definition into various state constitutions, in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
"Greyarcher":Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery.
"JimsMaher":Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots.
The Velocirapture is Imminent! Image
User avatar
eran_rathan
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in ur forum, killing ur threads :(

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby DSenette » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:33 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
DSenette wrote:wait, so you mean the solution to the gay marriage debate has been to hand religious people a dictionary this whole time?!? where the fuck have you been with this information?

oh, or they reject your definition of marriage, which is ok as long as they don't try to apply their OWN definition of marriage to the one that is used to define who can and cannot get LEGALLY married.


Which is, fundamentally, the whole problem - they are attempting to codify their religious definition into various state constitutions, in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

right, and i'm not arguing against that, but the quote from heisenberg that you were trying to counter doesn't actually jive.

he said:

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.


to which you said"
eran_rathan wrote:Regardless of anything else, I fail to see how anyone can claim that denying people a right to marry whom they want is constitutional, via the 14th Amendment (e.g. Equal Protection Under the Law).

no one has constitutional rights that say they can get married in any church they want no matter what that church says or what that church believes, because a "church marriage" isn't a legal marriage.

so again, a church forcing the state to agree with them as to who they can/can't legally= bad
the state forcing a church to agree with them as to who they can/can't RELIGIOUSLY marry = bad too
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: 2259
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

I actually didn't use the Mormon church in my analogy for the precise reason that they've been dicks about Prop 8.
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Роберт » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:47 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:Regardless of anything else, I fail to see how anyone can claim that denying people a right to marry whom they want is constitutional, via the 14th Amendment (e.g. Equal Protection Under the Law).

So, assume we get recognition for the rights of poly-amorous people to marry. (Legalized polygamy.) Do we then say "now that it's legal, we have to force the churches to participate?" That's silly!

The Catholic church refused to let one of their Deacons officiate my marriage because I wasn't Catholic. That's fine, they get to do that. All the more so for poly marriages and same-sex marriages.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:50 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
DSenette wrote:wait, so you mean the solution to the gay marriage debate has been to hand religious people a dictionary this whole time?!? where the fuck have you been with this information?

oh, or they reject your definition of marriage, which is ok as long as they don't try to apply their OWN definition of marriage to the one that is used to define who can and cannot get LEGALLY married.


Which is, fundamentally, the whole problem - they are attempting to codify their religious definition into various state constitutions, in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

right, and i'm not arguing against that, but the quote from heisenberg that you were trying to counter doesn't actually jive.

he said:

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.


to which you said"
eran_rathan wrote:Regardless of anything else, I fail to see how anyone can claim that denying people a right to marry whom they want is constitutional, via the 14th Amendment (e.g. Equal Protection Under the Law).

no one has constitutional rights that say they can get married in any church they want no matter what that church says or what that church believes, because a "church marriage" isn't a legal marriage.

so again, a church forcing the state to agree with them as to who they can/can't legally= bad
the state forcing a church to agree with them as to who they can/can't RELIGIOUSLY marry = bad too


...

The state can't force a church to observe a marriage if they don't want too - and that's not the point. Example, right now, I cannot go to a synagogue and have a Muslim wedding, for instance - the rabbi would be perfectly within his right to refuse. Allowing non-hetero couples to get legally married HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THIS FACT. In fact, those churches who would refuse to let gay and lesbian citizens get married would do so regardless of the law, and be perfectly within their rights as a religious institution.

What I am saying, is that under the US Constitution, it is blatantly unconstitutional to disallow non-hetero citizens to get married. Period. Full stop.
"Greyarcher":Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery.
"JimsMaher":Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots.
The Velocirapture is Imminent! Image
User avatar
eran_rathan
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in ur forum, killing ur threads :(

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby DSenette » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:53 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
DSenette wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
DSenette wrote:wait, so you mean the solution to the gay marriage debate has been to hand religious people a dictionary this whole time?!? where the fuck have you been with this information?

oh, or they reject your definition of marriage, which is ok as long as they don't try to apply their OWN definition of marriage to the one that is used to define who can and cannot get LEGALLY married.


Which is, fundamentally, the whole problem - they are attempting to codify their religious definition into various state constitutions, in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

right, and i'm not arguing against that, but the quote from heisenberg that you were trying to counter doesn't actually jive.

he said:

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.


to which you said"
eran_rathan wrote:Regardless of anything else, I fail to see how anyone can claim that denying people a right to marry whom they want is constitutional, via the 14th Amendment (e.g. Equal Protection Under the Law).

no one has constitutional rights that say they can get married in any church they want no matter what that church says or what that church believes, because a "church marriage" isn't a legal marriage.

so again, a church forcing the state to agree with them as to who they can/can't legally= bad
the state forcing a church to agree with them as to who they can/can't RELIGIOUSLY marry = bad too


...

The state can't force a church to observe a marriage if they don't want too - and that's not the point. Example, right now, I cannot go to a synagogue and have a Muslim wedding, for instance - the rabbi would be perfectly within his right to refuse. Allowing non-hetero couples to get legally married HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THIS FACT. In fact, those churches who would refuse to let gay and lesbian citizens get married would do so regardless of the law, and be perfectly within their rights as a religious institution.

What I am saying, is that under the US Constitution, it is blatantly unconstitutional to disallow non-hetero citizens to get married. Period. Full stop.

i think you're having a reading failure.

churches are not where you get legally married. when you get married in a church, they have a stack of papers from the state that you have to sign to become legally married. you don't need a church to do the legal bit, and you don't have to do them at the same time. hell you don't even have to do the legal marriage bit at all, you could just do a church wedding.

there isn't a church on the planet that could prevent you or anyone else from getting legally married to someone that the state says you can legally marry.

the us constitution has FUCK ALL to do with who can/can't get married in a church. legal marriage is not the only type of marriage.
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: 2259
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Malice » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:05 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:The state can't force a church to observe a marriage if they don't want too - and that's not the point. Example, right now, I cannot go to a synagogue and have a Muslim wedding, for instance - the rabbi would be perfectly within his right to refuse. Allowing non-hetero couples to get legally married HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THIS FACT. In fact, those churches who would refuse to let gay and lesbian citizens get married would do so regardless of the law, and be perfectly within their rights as a religious institution.

What I am saying, is that under the US Constitution, it is blatantly unconstitutional to disallow non-hetero citizens to get married. Period. Full stop.

i think you're having a reading failure.

churches are not where you get legally married. when you get married in a church, they have a stack of papers from the state that you have to sign to become legally married. you don't need a church to do the legal bit, and you don't have to do them at the same time. hell you don't even have to do the legal marriage bit at all, you could just do a church wedding.

there isn't a church on the planet that could prevent you or anyone else from getting legally married to someone that the state says you can legally marry.

the us constitution has FUCK ALL to do with who can/can't get married in a church. legal marriage is not the only type of marriage.


Somebody here is having a reading failure, because it sounds to me like Eran is saying, "Getting married in a church is not a right; getting married by the state is; both versions have literally nothing to do with one another" which is also what it sounds to me like you're saying.
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 eran_rathan » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:51 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Somebody here is having a reading failure, because it sounds to me like Eran is saying, "Getting married in a church is not a right; getting married by the state is; both versions have literally nothing to do with one another" which is also what it sounds to me like you're saying.


Precisely!
"Greyarcher":Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery.
"JimsMaher":Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots.
The Velocirapture is Imminent! Image
User avatar
eran_rathan
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in ur forum, killing ur threads :(

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby DSenette » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:54 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Malice wrote:Somebody here is having a reading failure, because it sounds to me like Eran is saying, "Getting married in a church is not a right; getting married by the state is; both versions have literally nothing to do with one another" which is also what it sounds to me like you're saying.


Precisely!

i think it was the bit where you seemed to be responding to heisenburg the first time with something that seemed contradictory.

carry on
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: 2259
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby lucrezaborgia » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:50 pm UTC

Apparently...this controversy mostly political bull.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02 ... lready-law
In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.
User avatar
lucrezaborgia
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:20 am UTC
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Garm » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:48 pm UTC

Hey look, MoJo agrees with me! :)
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 Diadem » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:50 pm UTC

So, basically:
Obama's original proposal: Churches (and other houses of worship) do not have to pay for birth control for their employees
Modified proposal: Everybody has to pay for birth control for their employees, but churches and other church-affiliated institutions are allowed to pretend they aren't.

And the religious groups accept this 'compromise'?

This has convinced me of two things:
1) These religious groups are not just bigoted, but also unimaginably stupid.
2) Obama is much more shrewd than I thought.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister
User avatar
Diadem
 
Posts: 4864
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby lucrezaborgia » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:01 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:And the religious groups accept this 'compromise'?


Look at how they view divorce annulment.
User avatar
lucrezaborgia
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:20 am UTC
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Silknor » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:15 pm UTC

As I understand it, it's actually:
Original: Religious-affiliated (eg. Catholic hospitals) organizations have to pay for birth control for their employees if they offer health insurance.
Modified proposal: Religious-affiliated organizations do not have to pay for birth control for their employees, but the health insurers have to provide it, and must take steps to ensure those covered are aware of this. But the insurers are not allowed to pass on the costs to the religious affiliated-organizations in the form of premium increases*.

Nothing changes for religious organizations like churches and their employees, the church isn't required to pay for birth control and there's no guarantee that employees at these organizations will have it covered by insurance. But it is somewhat of a change for the religious-affiliated organizations, yes, their employees are still provided access to birth control without a co-pay, but that organization isn't paying a surcharge for that coverage (or if it is, it's highly diluted because it's reflected in the general increase in premiums for plans that don't cover birth control).

*Obviously this brings up the question of exactly who does pay for it, and for that matter, how this part is enforced (I haven't seen any details there). Presumably the incidence will fall on the general population of insurance buyers (just like the incidence of the birth control coverage requirement presumably falls on consumers of group plans).

The point was that insurance companies use their reserve fund to pay for a lot of things, from medical procedures to administration to wellness services. “They have a reserve fund to pay for all the things they cover,” says the [anonymous administration] official. “We’re saying, ‘This is a legitimate cost of doing business.’ That cost is covering contraceptives, and they’re paying for that from a reserve.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... #pagebreak
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding
User avatar
Silknor
 
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby yurell » Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:42 am UTC

I dislike the idea of religious organisations getting exemptions just because they're religious — I can't get exemptions because of my reasoned political views, and how is that so different to their faith-based religious ones? Why should just believing something's true earn more rights than sitting down and trying to figure out what's true?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!
User avatar
yurell
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby lucrezaborgia » Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:51 am UTC

...but how does this compare to the 2000 EEOC's previous ruling on contraception coverage???
User avatar
lucrezaborgia
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:20 am UTC
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Kulantan » Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:29 am UTC

Silknor wrote:Obviously this brings up the question of exactly who does pay for it, and for that matter, how this part is enforced (I haven't seen any details there).


Not really. Children, giving birth and the conditions that birth control can be used to treat all tend to be pretty darn expensive for health insurers. I'd be willing to bet providing birth control would pay for itself from the health insures' point of view.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.
User avatar
Kulantan
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Silknor » Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:51 am UTC

Kulantan wrote:
Silknor wrote:Obviously this brings up the question of exactly who does pay for it, and for that matter, how this part is enforced (I haven't seen any details there).


Not really. Children, giving birth and the conditions that birth control can be used to treat all tend to be pretty darn expensive for health insurers. I'd be willing to bet providing birth control would pay for itself from the health insures' point of view.


And the anonymous Obama administration official I quoted above goes on to say that they believe it would be a revenue-neutral policy. Still I think there's reason to be skeptical of that. After all, insurance companies are presumably pretty good at figuring out how to cut costs. If it was a clear win for them, I'd expect them to have done it already*. Just because the total health care expenses incurred (by all parties, not just the insurer) on average are lower or equal with birth control doesn't mean the insurance company benefits by covering birth control with no co-pay. If enough women will use birth control even without it being covered at no marginal cost by their insurance, then the insurance company can reap most of the benefits of providing birth control without actually having to pay for it. Separately of course, even if it is revenue-neutral in the long term, it may take some time for enough of the cost savings to kick in to balance out.

*At least for some plans, not necessarily all because some, say the elderly or women who are morally opposed to birth control, would prefer a plan that does not cover birth control. And I don't know if this is already the case; in states that don't have a similar mandate to the one recently announced nationally, do a good number of plans cover birth control without a co-pay?
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding
User avatar
Silknor
 
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Diadem » Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:10 am UTC

Silknor wrote:As I understand it, it's actually:
Original: Religious-affiliated (eg. Catholic hospitals) organizations have to pay for birth control for their employees if they offer health insurance.
Modified proposal: Religious-affiliated organizations do not have to pay for birth control for their employees, but the health insurers have to provide it, and must take steps to ensure those covered are aware of this. But the insurers are not allowed to pass on the costs to the religious affiliated-organizations in the form of premium increases*.

(...)

*Obviously this brings up the question of exactly who does pay for it, and for that matter, how this part is enforced (I haven't seen any details there). Presumably the incidence will fall on the general population of insurance buyers (just like the incidence of the birth control coverage requirement presumably falls on consumers of group plans).

Everybody pays for it an equal amount. If insurers can't change their premium based on if birth control if offered or not, everybody will be paying the same premium. And everybody gets birth control coverage. The only difference is that for some people it says "birth control is covered" on their insurance contract, while for others it doesn't.

Of course, if religious groups are allowed to pay *lower* premiums if they aren't insuring birth control, then they are effectively letting everybody else paying for it. But from what I have gathered so far that is not the case.

And if it is the case, I don't see what will stop everybody from demanding the same lower premiums, after which insurance companies will officially cover birthcontrol for noone, effectively cover it for everbody, chalk up the cost to overhead, and put it in everybody's premiums effectively bringing us back to square one.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister
User avatar
Diadem
 
Posts: 4864
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Silknor » Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:50 am UTC

I think the latter is the case, and the cost (though probably a very low one since the cost would be spread among many people for each covered under this compromise) would be spread among others who have employee provided health insurance (or possibly health insurance overall):

And administration officials said Friday that they won’t let insurers charge religious employers a higher premium to cover the cost of contraception that the insurer knows it will ultimately have to provide.

That means insurers will have to find the money for contraception elsewhere — by spreading it across their plans' premiums.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/he ... l-coverage

And if it is the case, I don't see what will stop everybody from demanding the same lower premiums, after which insurance companies will officially cover birthcontrol for noone, effectively cover it for everbody, chalk up the cost to overhead, and put it in everybody's premiums effectively bringing us back to square one.


Well the non-religious employers who choose to purchase health insurance will have to get insurance that covers birth control, so I don't see how they'd be able to demand the same deal institutions such as Catholic hospitals would get under the proposed compromise, not to mention charging the same premium would seem to run afoul of the promise that the government wouldn't let insurers charge the same amount to the religious institution as they charge other employers for whom birth control is written into the policy.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding
User avatar
Silknor
 
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Diadem » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:53 am UTC

Silknor wrote:I think the latter is the case, and the cost (though probably a very low one since the cost would be spread among many people for each covered under this compromise) would be spread among others who have employee provided health insurance (or possibly health insurance overall):

And administration officials said Friday that they won’t let insurers charge religious employers a higher premium to cover the cost of contraception that the insurer knows it will ultimately have to provide.

Not higher premiums. Presumably then, the same premium is allowed?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister
User avatar
Diadem
 
Posts: 4864
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Silknor » Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:29 pm UTC

They can't charge a higher premium than what they would if birth control was not being covered by the insurer. The premium would be the same as it is now, not the same as a private employer who has to cover birth control.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding
User avatar
Silknor
 
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby lucrezaborgia » Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:32 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:They can't charge a higher premium than what they would if birth control was not being covered by the insurer. The premium would be the same as it is now, not the same as a private employer who has to cover birth control.


I'm sure the insurance company will find some way to pass on the buck regardless. Rates go up all the time. What sucks about this new ruling is that a lot of Catholic companies were already paying for birth control due to the EEOC ruling of 2000.
User avatar
lucrezaborgia
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:20 am UTC
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

Postby Xeio » Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:27 pm UTC

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
 
Posts: 4753
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\

PreviousNext

Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests