Catholics vs. Abortion vs. Obama's mandate...

beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/60#post_3458350
Not to mention, contraceptives are used for more than just preventing pregnancy. Here's a short list of some alternative uses:
http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/med-uses-ocp.html
Do you consider any of those "healthcare"?
I wish you would stop equating the use of these drugs to treat an actual health problem with the use of the same drug to prevent pregnancies. These drugs are currently used for actual health care problems which is not the same as using them as a means of birth control. I can guarantee you that there are some people on Catholic sponsored health care plans receiving such treatment for non-birth control reasons. The issue is not the use of these drugs to treat health problems, rather, the issue is that the Catholic Church does not want to provide birth control in their health care plans based on their First Amendment right of freedom of religion.
The Catholic Church is not seeking a ban of prescription drugs to treat an actual medical disorder.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
You seen the list of side effects from some of those birth control pills? I wouldn't call a lot of them preventative medicine, I'd call it russian roulette LOL!
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate#post_3456452
First i'll preface this with the fact I am a practicing Methodist. So please spare me the "your atheist views don't matter" responses. The Catholic Church is up in arms because the Obama administration wants to mandate that employers provide birth control as an option in their health care plan. The funny part, is that in a national survey, 64% of Catholic women agree with Obama, and 52% of men agree as well. This brings me to the question:
Do religious values and standards change throughout time, or is it something that is steadfast through and through regardless of how much different the world is from when the "rules" were written?
This could go for a lot of things, from religion, to the constitution, to medicine, etc, etc. What is your opinion?
I am no Catholic...LOL...There was a time in history when the Catholic church ruled even the King. They lost their power to fight and control the government when church and state separated.
IMO....If any legal medicine or procedure is wanted or needed, our health care insurance should pay for it. Not based on religion, race or sex.
If a group of people build their business on a religous belief, and hire ONLY people who believe the same. It makes no sense to worry about paying for birth control, something is offered and there if you want it by law. With all perfect Catholic employees, nobody will take it so who cares.
It's the same with the argument of abortion...if it's been made a legal medical procedure...then healthcare should be provided to pay for it so all are equal. It is up to the people if they opt for it or not.
The Catholic church should only worry about the Catholic people. If you hire non-Catholics or "not so good Catholics" and they opt for abortion or birth control...Then their insurance should cover it.
FWIW...I am not pro abortion, but if the country is going to make it legal...make it available for all. All the good catholic people are still in tact and unscathed by the evil of birth control.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458429
I am no Catholic...LOL...There was a time in history when the Catholic church ruled even the King. They lost their power to fight and control the government when church and state separated.
IMO....If any legal medicine or procedure is wanted or needed, our health care insurance should pay for it. Not based on religion, race or sex.
If a group of people build their business on a religous belief, and hire ONLY people who believe the same. It makes no sense to worry about paying for birth control, something is offered and there if you want it by law. With all perfect Catholic employees, nobody will take it so who cares.
It's the same with the argument of abortion...if it's been made a legal medical procedure...then healthcare should be provided to pay for it so all are equal. It is up to the people if they opt for it or not.
The Catholic church should only worry about the Catholic people. If you hire non-Catholics or "not so good Catholics" and they opt for abortion or birth control...Then their insurance should cover it.
FWIW...I am not pro abortion, but if the country is going to make it legal...make it available for all. All the good catholic people are still in tact and unscathed by the evil of birth control.
Well that is the issue, Obama just dictated an edict that for all intents and purposes, just made Catholics pay for abortions, and other pregnancy ending options...
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
It is well known that the birth control that requires a prescription or a medical procedure to use have the potential to be terribly harmful to one's heath.
There are other forms of birth control, that perhaps are not so convenient as swallowing a pill every morning, or result in the termination of embryos, that can be used that are not pharmaceutical or invasive. They are not unhealthy and can be obtained wo health care plans paying for them.
One glitch though. You do have to take some responsibility for your own sex life.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458432
Well that is the issue, Obama just dictated an edict that for all intents and purposes, just made Catholics pay for abortions, and other pregnancy ending options...
No, a Catholic boss would pay for health care.....the insurance company has a list of acceptable lawful approved procedures. Obama is saying to make it a standard. Birth control will be on said mandatory list that the insurance company automatically pays out on.
Lets see, should a Johovah (spelling?) witness believer boss/company owner...be allowed to check a box and not allow blood transfusions to any employees? Or how about a Holiness believer (these folks are way out there) to only allow faith healing, no medical doctors?
If you allow religion to decide what is covered on your insurance policy....THEY dictate your life and death health management. To allow folks to decide on what procedures and medications they will take, along with their doctor...you put the power of decision back into the rightful hands of those whose life it belongs to.
If it is an acceptable legal medical procedure or medication, it should be covered by insurance. My boss never dug in his pocket to pay my medical bills...he got a group insurance policy and they covered what boxes were checked and agreed upon. All the govenment mandatory boxes are already checked.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/60#post_3458355
LOL! right. So someone who spends Billions to produce the goods they sell aren't entitled to a higher dollar profit than someone who spends Millions? How egalitarian of you
The problem with your argument is that Exxon isn't spending the billions you claim they are. Go look at their financial balance sheets. The numbers don't add up.
This issue isn't whether they deserve higher margins, it's simply a fact that in that industry, there's no larger margins to make. They're making the same margins with a barrel of oil selling for $100, than they were with the same barrel selling at $65. I've seen this argument used for years, "Everyone chastises the oil industry for making billions of dollars, yet their profit margins are only 8%, 9%, 10%, blah, blah, blah." You can only make as much profit as the market will bear. However, when the price of a barrel of oil is skyrocketing, so are their profits. That's why this 10% profit margin doesn't wash.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458422
I wish you would stop equating the use of these drugs to treat an actual health problem with the use of the same drug to prevent pregnancies. These drugs are currently used for actual health care problems which is not the same as using them as a means of birth control. I can guarantee you that there are some people on Catholic sponsored health care plans receiving such treatment for non-birth control reasons. The issue is not the use of these drugs to treat health problems, rather, the issue is that the Catholic Church does not want to provide birth control in their health care plans based on their First Amendment right of freedom of religion.
The Catholic Church is not seeking a ban of prescription drugs to treat an actual medical disorder.
Your argument makes no sense. In one breath you state that contraceptives are used for other medical treatments besides avoiding pregnancy. But then you say the Catholic church doesn't want to have contraceptives on their insurance plans because it violates their religious tenets on birth control. So how exactly does the church determine how a woman plans to use these contraceptives? It's OK for medical treatments, but not OK because it can be used as a way to stop getting pregnant? Sorry that using birth control pills for hormone imbalances has this strange side effect that it also keeps a woman from getting pregnant. The church can't have it both ways.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458443
No, a Catholic boss would pay for health care.....the insurance company has a list of acceptable lawful approved procedures. Obama is saying to make it a standard. Birth control will be on said mandatory list that the insurance company automatically pays out on.
Lets see, should a Jehovah (spelling?) witness believer boss/company owner...be allowed to check a box and not allow blood transfusions to any employees? Or how about a Holiness believer (these folks are way out there) to only allow faith healing, no medical doctors?
If you allow religion to decide what is covered on your insurance policy....THEY dictate your life and death health management. To allow folks to decide on what procedures and medications they will take, along with their doctor...you put the power of decision back into the rightful hands of those whose life it belongs to.
If it is an acceptable legal medical procedure or medication, it should be covered by insurance. My boss never dug in his pocket to pay my medical bills...he got a group insurance policy and they covered what boxes were checked and agreed upon. All the government mandatory boxes are already checked.
You can't possibly believe that the insurance companies are going to pay out for free healthcare? That cost will be thrown right back at the Catholic Church, so, in effect, the Church is paying for contraceptives, which does include devises that cause women to abort embryos not to mention "the morning after pill".
Also, many are making the point that government should not be allowed to dictate what is covered on health plans. After all, the ones paying for said health plans is the employer and the employee, not the government.
Flower, I'm assuming that your boss offered you a health plan. If so, then, yes, your boss dug in to his pockets and paid for your medical bills. I'll wager that the health plan you receive is disproportionally paid by your employer as well.
Government policies can not violate First Amendment rights, as all will soon be finding out as this thing unfolds.
BTW, Jehovah Witness do not have any employees, nor do they pay for anyone's health plans.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Your argument makes no sense. In one breath you state that contraceptives are used for other medical treatments besides avoiding pregnancy. But then you say the Catholic church doesn't want to have contraceptives on their insurance plans because it violates their religious tenets on birth control. So how exactly does the church determine how a woman plans to use these contraceptives? It's OK for medical treatments, but not OK because it can be used as a way to stop getting pregnant? Sorry that using birth control pills for hormone imbalances has this strange side effect that it also keeps a woman from getting pregnant. The church can't have it both ways.
I never said contraceptives are used for other medical reasons. I said that drugs used as contraceptives are also used for medical purposes to treat medical issues. The issue at hand is not the use of drugs for medical treatments, but the use of contraceptives. The Catholic Church has no ban that I'm aware of on the use of medications to treat medical problems.
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
So here we are 5 pages later.
Now we're debating contracentives, insurance company profits, and so on.
all with an eye that those things are rights, and profits are to be controlled and so on.
Still here is the bottom line.
you give your health care to the federal government and the federal government controls your life.
In this particular case the federal government dictates a particular benefit and to h*** with your values. the government has spoken.
Woopsies we really didn't mean that. so you give your employees health care without that and then the private insurance comapny must gave that free.
Total arrogance with the idea the federal government is right and your beliefs are subordinate to that.
Companies can just give stuff away. And it will not be reflected in the prices because profits are evil and the companies must be subordinate to the federal government's idea of what is correct.
so it is not about providing health care.
It is all about the federal government dictating your life.
And this little ittty bitty example is just the tip of the ice berg. Unless the health care bill is totally repealed, these types of debates will be the center of all elections in the future.
If the over arching values behind this are not reversed the US has seen it best days and will spiral down to the trash heap of history.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458443
No, a Catholic boss would pay for health care.....the insurance company has a list of acceptable lawful approved procedures. Obama is saying to make it a standard. Birth control will be on said mandatory list that the insurance company automatically pays out on.
Lets see, should a Johovah (spelling?) witness believer boss/company owner...be allowed to check a box and not allow blood transfusions to any employees? Or how about a Holiness believer (these folks are way out there) to only allow faith healing, no medical doctors?
If you allow religion to decide what is covered on your insurance policy....THEY dictate your life and death health management. To allow folks to decide on what procedures and medications they will take, along with their doctor...you put the power of decision back into the rightful hands of those whose life it belongs to.
If it is an acceptable legal medical procedure or medication, it should be covered by insurance. My boss never dug in his pocket to pay my medical bills...he got a group insurance policy and they covered what boxes were checked and agreed upon. All the govenment mandatory boxes are already checked.
Absolutely, you shouldn't be forced to buy anything you don't want to buy... I know you are a little different not working in the private sector. But the company I work for pays a good chuck of my insurance costs. It is a significant amount of money. They absolutely should be able to make the decision on what they want to or don't want to buy, without a president, (without any legislation) Dictating to them what they are required to buy....
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458476
Absolutely, you shouldn't be forced to buy anything you don't want to buy... I know you are a little different not working in the private sector. But the company I work for pays a good chuck of my insurance costs. It is a significant amount of money. They absolutely should be able to make the decision on what they want to or don't want to buy, without a president, (without any legislation) Dictating to them what they are required to buy....
With the government dictating healt care neither you nor your employer have any freedom to make any decisions. After all everything you and your employer does will affect heath care.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458467
I never said contraceptives are used for other medical reasons. I said that drugs used as contraceptives are also used for medical purposes to treat medical issues. The issue at hand is not the use of drugs for medical treatments, but the use of contraceptives. The Catholic Church has no ban that I'm aware of on the use of medications to treat medical problems.
Say what? You're using circular logic. Your first sentence states that contraceptives AREN'T used for other medical reasons, then your next sentence refutes that by stating that contraceptives ARE used for medical purposes. Which one is it? I guess I need your definition of "contraceptives". I'm assuming you're bundling other devices besides birth control pills into that term? My current healthplan doesn't pay for condoms, IUD's, or any other forms of devices used to avert pregnancy. Wouldn't expect it to. The most popular form of "medication" that most women use to avoid getting pregnant is birth control pills. That's what I see as needing to be added to current prescription plans. So would the Catholic church have objections to this edict if it specifically stated the only acceptable medication that could be added to the prescription plan is the various forms of birth conytrol pills? No IUD's, "day after" pills, or any other devices that could be used specifically to assist "prgnancy avoidance"?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458476
Absolutely, you shouldn't be forced to buy anything you don't want to buy... I know you are a little different not working in the private sector. But the company I work for pays a good chuck of my insurance costs. It is a significant amount of money. They absolutely should be able to make the decision on what they want to or don't want to buy, without a president, (without any legislation) Dictating to them what they are required to buy....
I'd say 95% of the businesses that have more than 500 employees, and offer those employees healthcare, use one of the two largest providers - Blue Cross Blue Shield or United Healthcare. My wife has been with the same hospital for the last 15 years, and I think we've been flipped between these two at least 5 times during that timeframe. Each time we've been moved, the only difference we've ever seen in coverages is how much a deductible and out-of-pocket maximum we wanted, and what percentage of coverage we get after the deductible (80% or 90%). We've also had various Co-pay options regarding how much we paid for doctor visits and how much we paid for name-brand vs. generic drugs. Other than that, we've had the exact same services in each of the plans. As far as prescription medications, one plan I could get Singulair for $10, then the next plan I was paying $30. One plan would only allow me to use a generic Statin for my cholesterol, the other would pay for a name brand at the same cost. None have ever covered any form of contraceptives for women. We have never been offered an a-la-carte menu on what we wanted regarding our heathcare options. I've never heard of anyone who works for a major employer that has. So what's the difference from these two major healthcare providers dictating what services you can receive, and a Federally-mandated insurance plan that essentially does the same thing?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458457
The problem with your argument is that Exxon isn't spending the billions you claim they are. Go look at their financial balance sheets. The numbers don't add up.
This issue isn't whether they deserve higher margins, it's simply a fact that in that industry, there's no larger margins to make. They're making the same margins with a barrel of oil selling for $100, than they were with the same barrel selling at $65. I've seen this argument used for years, "Everyone chastises the oil industry for making billions of dollars, yet their profit margins are only 8%, 9%, 10%, blah, blah, blah." You can only make as much profit as the market will bear. However, when the price of a barrel of oil is skyrocketing, so are their profits. That's why this 10% profit margin doesn't wash.
I trust the FEC to keep Exxon and everyone else honest in their filings. Since the post Katrina spike the companies have started going after the hard to get stuff they had ignored because it wasn't profitable to produce at 40 a barrel. They are also investing in enhanced recovery operations in their old fields, it all costs money.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458522
I'd say 95% of the businesses that have more than 500 employees, and offer those employees healthcare, use one of the two largest providers - Blue Cross Blue Shield or United Healthcare. My wife has been with the same hospital for the last 15 years, and I think we've been flipped between these two at least 5 times during that timeframe. Each time we've been moved, the only difference we've ever seen in coverages is how much a deductible and out-of-pocket maximum we wanted, and what percentage of coverage we get after the deductible (80% or 90%). We've also had various Co-pay options regarding how much we paid for doctor visits and how much we paid for name-brand vs. generic drugs. Other than that, we've had the exact same services in each of the plans. As far as prescription medications, one plan I could get Singulair for $10, then the next plan I was paying $30. One plan would only allow me to use a generic Statin for my cholesterol, the other would pay for a name brand at the same cost. None have ever covered any form of contraceptives for women. We have never been offered an a-la-carte menu on what we wanted regarding our heathcare options. I've never heard of anyone who works for a major employer that has. So what's the difference from these two major healthcare providers dictating what services you can receive, and a Federally-mandated insurance plan that essentially does the same thing?
I just don't know where to begin with this. Because, well, you claim all this stuff. But here is the deal. Now these companies will have to provide contraceptives as part of the plan. And you're payments will go up...
For more information. (Iknow this is business 101 that you seem to miss) There are a couple different types of insurance. A company can buy health insurance, (like you've basically described in the above post). Where they are part of a pool. You pay in, your employer pays in. And the insurance company holds the money, pays out etc.
Now days, you're seeing a movement from a traditional insurance type system to a self insured system. Where the company collects a premium from the employee then underwrites the policy. And since the company is in fact paying the medical bills of it's employes it actually does customize a plan it is comfortable with. Your BCBS or Aetna manages the plan, and does all the paper work, for a fee. Then bills the company which it pays, and then is passed along to the medical provider. I've asked around to many of my friends in the field. and every single one of them said they were on a self insured plan (i know this isn't scientific, but it is a good polls of an industry actually making money) Anyway, they absolutely go in there and say ok we are going to pay for this, or not pay for that...
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458518
Say what? You're using circular logic. Your first sentence states that contraceptives AREN'T used for other medical reasons, then your next sentence refutes that by stating that contraceptives ARE used for medical purposes. Which one is it? I guess I need your definition of "contraceptives". I'm assuming you're bundling other devices besides birth control pills into that term? My current healthplan doesn't pay for condoms, IUD's, or any other forms of devices used to avert pregnancy. Wouldn't expect it to. The most popular form of "medication" that most women use to avoid getting pregnant is birth control pills. That's what I see as needing to be added to current prescription plans. So would the Catholic church have objections to this edict if it specifically stated the only acceptable medication that could be added to the prescription plan is the various forms of birth control pills? No IUD's, "day after" pills, or any other devices that could be used specifically to assist "pregnancy avoidance"?
bioicarm, if you don't expect your health care plan to pay for IUD, etc.under Obamacare, you're missing the boat.
Hormone therapy is used to treat a host of health issues. Just because you also may use some of these drugs to control reproduction does not mean that is its only use. The bottom line is that I don't see the Catholics complaint driven by the use of a drug that is used for medical problems. The problem is when the drug is used for contraception.
All contraceptives are used for pregnancy avoidance, and the Catholic Church opposes that. Right to Life people, including the Church, opposed drugs and procedures that terminate life, such as IUDs, Morning After drugs, abortions. All of those termination methods are also birth control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top