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

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458466
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.
lets say...My friend is a an owner of a business and a Jehovha Witness...he has employees. He has his strong personal beliefs but he can't refuse a blood transfusion to not be given on the insurance group policy...the policy covers certain things.
I personally would prefer Obama's (government) idea of straight across the board, than to rely on religion to dictate my health care. If Catholics can refuse to pay insurance to cover birth control...it opens the door for all religions. Any owner, for religeous reasons can refuse to have their insurance cover or not cover certain medicine or procedures. So if your company's owner decided he is into Holiness you may only go to faith healers for your medical heath to be covered.
If a Catholic owners can opt out to not pay for certain procedures and medicines...all owners for religeous reasons can opt out of what they don't believe in as well. You can't say here walks the mighty Catholic who has beliefs more inportant than the Hindus, Jews, Holiness, Jehovah witnesses and so on...it's endless.
If YOU are a Catholic...don't purchase anything that is against your religion. Obama want's to make birth control an automatic coverage, not a mandatory participation. Not one more good Cathoilic will take the birth control pill because now it's covered by insurance. All good Catholics will continue as they have before, and I can pretty much say that adding birth control pills as covered will not change the policy price one iota. In fact it might go down...since paying for junior to be born is much more costly than a pill, as far as what is covered is concerned.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458544
lets say...My friend is a an owner of a business and a Jehovha Witness...he has employees. He has his strong personal beliefs but he can't refuse a blood transfusion to not be given on the insurance group policy...the policy covers certain things.
I personally would prefer Obama's (government) idea of straight across the board, than to rely on religion to dictate my health care. If Catholics can refuse to pay insurance to cover birth control...it opens the door for all religions. Any owner, for religeous reasons can refuse to have their insurance cover or not cover certain medicine or procedures. So if your company's owner decided he is into Holiness you may only go to faith healers for your medical heath to be covered.
If a Catholic owners can opt out to not pay for certain procedures and medicines...all owners for religeous reasons can opt out of what they don't believe in as well. You can't say here walks the mighty Catholic who has beliefs more inportant than the Hindus, Jews, Holiness, Jehovah witnesses and so on...it's endless.
If YOU are a Catholic...don't purchase anything that is against your religion. Obama want's to make birth control an automatic coverage, not a mandatory participation. Not one more good Cathoilic will take the birth control pill because now it's covered by insurance. All good Catholics will continue as they have before, and I can pretty much say that adding birth control pills as covered will not change the policy price one iota. In fact it might go down...since paying for junior to be born is much more costly than a pill, as far as what is covered is concerned.
Insurance companies don't typically cover cosmetic surgery because it isn't a health related issue. Neither is birth control. It isn't the same as a blood transfusion. If a woman's guy can't afford a love glove she has a lot bigger problems than the cost of the pill

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458553
Insurance companies don't typically cover cosmetic surgery because it isn't a health related issue.
The Buffalo Teachers Union have a cosmetic surgery rider on their insurance plan. It does the taxpayers good to see big boobed teachers with straight noses.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458537
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...
I have never heard of or seen a large corporation opting for these "self insured systems". This is the first I've heard of this, and I guarantee you my wife's hospital doesn't provide their healthcare in this manner. I'm not "claiming" any "stuff". I've dealt with medical healthcare plans longer than you've been alive. Prior to starting my own business, I worked for several large corporations. From the early 80's until today, I think I've had maybe three health insurance providers. In the last 25 years, it's been eith BCBS, Humana, or United Healthcare (I think United bought out Humana). I have NEVER been given an option of what I could or could not have on my plan. Every single plan I've had, I've essentially had the exact same options regarding prescriptions and medical services provided. If the various companies I worked for had this option to "a-la-carte" what they wanted in their coverages, they never came back to their employees and said, "OK employees. Here are the various options. We will let the majority determine what they want covered and what they don't want covered." So again, what's the difference between your HR Dept. or upper managemnet determining what you get in your health plan, and what the Federal Govt. is mandating with this contraceptive coverage. Unless the person gets a choice of what options they want on their plan, then it's still someone dictating what is being offered.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/80#post_3458538
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.
OK, so how exactly does the Catholic church know whether a woman is using birth control pills for other health issues, and when they are using them for contraception? You're telling me if you work for that organization, you have to sign some disclosure form telling them exactly how you plan to use any medications that are prescribed to you? Talk about a violation of someone's First Amendment rights...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458576
OK, so how exactly does the Catholic church know whether a woman is using birth control pills for other health issues, and when they are using them for contraception? You're telling me if you work for that organization, you have to sign some disclosure form telling them exactly how you plan to use any medications that are prescribed to you? Talk about a violation of someone's First Amendment rights...
That isn't the point/ You are telling the Catholic church it must cover contraceptive services which is a violation of church doctrine. You are prescribing the drug for the specific purpose of preventing or ending a pregnancy. If the drug is used for another reason and a side effect is a woman wont get pregnant it's a different story. It isn't a deliberate act. There isn't a perfect analogy for this but shooting someone in self defense vs murder is pretty close.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458576
OK, so how exactly does the Catholic church know whether a woman is using birth control pills for other health issues, and when they are using them for contraception? You're telling me if you work for that organization, you have to sign some disclosure form telling them exactly how you plan to use any medications that are prescribed to you? Talk about a violation of someone's First Amendment rights...
If your physician writes a "medically necessary" prescription then the pharmacy will know that this is for medical reasons, and the drug should be able to be billed to the ins. co. It may require a form to fill out.
The point is not that your local priest know whether parishioners are using contraceptives or not, it is that the Church is against its use, and therefore, for religious reasons, should not be forced to buy it.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458619
If your physician writes a "medically necessary" prescription then the pharmacy will know that this is for medical reasons, and the drug should be able to be billed to the ins. co. It may require a form to fill out.
The point is not that your local priest know whether parishioners are using contraceptives or not, it is that the Church is against its use, and therefore, for religious reasons, should not be forced to buy it.
Who cares how the physician writes the prescription. My employer has no business whatsoever knowing what is prescribed to me. That's a direct violation of the doctor-patient privilege and privacy laws. No company, religious or not, can legally have an employers sign or disclose ANYTHING about their personal health history. IT'S AGAINST THE LAW. And yes, this law has been in place for DECADES.
You keep flip-flopping the issue. You said the church has no problems using this drug for other medical purposes. They legally can't force an employee to tell them what they are using a prescribed drug for. No business can legally force you to tell them them about ANY drug that is prescribed to you by a doctor. It's hypocritical of the church to state, "Yes we know some of our employees use contraceptives. Even though that violates our religious beliefs, they can purchase these drugs on their own as long as we're not paying for the purchase." So they're not vilolating the church's religious beliefs if they buy them on their own, but they are if there's some rider on the prescription plan that allows them to buy them under their insurance plan?
Many health care insurance providers charge higher premiums for individuals who smoke or drink in excess. They pay a penalty for their little habits. If cost is a concern, then whatever miniscule addition the employer has to pay to provide that coverage can be charged back to those individuals who use that portion of the prescription plan. Catholic institutions have been providing this type of coverage for over 10 yeras. DePaul University has had it in their plan for years. I find it interesting this issue is blowing up right in the middle of a presidential election. Coincidence that Santorum and Romney are vying to repeal Obamacare (which they couldn't do even if they wanted to) as one of their major platform agendas, and this contraceptive controversy just appears?

 

[beth]

So, is your line of thinking now that the Catholic Church is conspiring with the GOP to beat out Obama in November by daring to protest against the administration's First Amendment violation of the Church's right to freedom of religion?
You insert all kinds of extraneous counter-arguments based on misrepresentations of what folks here are trying to point out. I'm guessing that you are reading things into what is said and trying to turn the argument around in your favor, but it is actually tiresome to discuss/debate the issue since I keep having to re-explain something I have said with every post.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458706
Who cares how the physician writes the prescription. My employer has no business whatsoever knowing what is prescribed to me. That's a direct violation of the doctor-patient privilege and privacy laws. No company, religious or not, can legally have an employers sign or disclose ANYTHING about their personal health history. IT'S AGAINST THE LAW. And yes, this law has been in place for DECADES.
You keep flip-flopping the issue. You said the church has no problems using this drug for other medical purposes. They legally can't force an employee to tell them what they are using a prescribed drug for. No business can legally force you to tell them them about ANY drug that is prescribed to you by a doctor. It's hypocritical of the church to state, "Yes we know some of our employees use contraceptives. Even though that violates our religious beliefs, they can purchase these drugs on their own as long as we're not paying for the purchase." So they're not vilolating the church's religious beliefs if they buy them on their own, but they are if there's some rider on the prescription plan that allows them to buy them under their insurance plan?
Many health care insurance providers charge higher premiums for individuals who smoke or drink in excess. They pay a penalty for their little habits. If cost is a concern, then whatever miniscule addition the employer has to pay to provide that coverage can be charged back to those individuals who use that portion of the prescription plan. Catholic institutions have been providing this type of coverage for over 10 yeras. DePaul University has had it in their plan for years. I find it interesting this issue is blowing up right in the middle of a presidential election. Coincidence that Santorum and Romney are vying to repeal Obamacare (which they couldn't do even if they wanted to) as one of their major platform agendas, and this contraceptive controversy just appears?
She isn't flip flopping, you keep trying to redirect the conversation away from the facts. Intentionally providing a policy covering birth control is a violation of Catholic teachings against birth control. There is no question about that. Using the pill to treat a legitimate medical condition is a whole different issue. Does offering a treatment with the side effect of preventing a woman from becoming pregnant violate church teachings? Ask the Pope.

 

[reefraff]

Speaking of failed 0bama policies
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/11/obamacare-architect-expect-steep-increase-in-health-care-premiums/

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458733
She isn't flip flopping, you keep trying to redirect the conversation away from the facts. Intentionally providing a policy covering birth control is a violation of Catholic teachings against birth control. There is no question about that. Using the pill to treat a legitimate medical condition is a whole different issue. Does offering a treatment with the side effect of preventing a woman from becoming pregnant violate church teachings? Ask the Pope.
I'm not redirecting anything. Everyone is keying on this birth control issue as strictly a contraceptive. You, Beth, and everyone else said the church isn't debating whether an employee could use this exact same pill for other medical reasons. She comes up with this "Well the doctor can state on the prescription form that it's for medical purposes". That's irrelevent. The church can't legally look at that form and say, "Oh OK, you're getting this contraceptive for medical reason. Got right ahead and get it." So no, it isn't a "whole different issue". It's the exact same issue. The Pill has multiple uses in the medical industry. The Catholic church wants to violate their employees First Amendment rights because of ONE use of that pill. How exactly is this violating their freedom of religion? No one is stopping them from practicing their beliefs. No one is forcing anyone to purchase contraceptives. IT'S AN OPTION.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458734
Speaking of failed 0bama policies
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/11/obamacare-architect-expect-steep-increase-in-health-care-premiums/
The Daily Caller? Now there's a reputable source. This "expert" is using some unsubstantiated data about some group of Wisconsin employees. In his little Powerpoint presentation, he provides no links or evidence where he came up with this data, and how he can justify that premiums will go up 31% in 2016. Nice little Republican propaganda tool...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458745
I'm not redirecting anything. Everyone is keying on this birth control issue as strictly a contraceptive. You, Beth, and everyone else said the church isn't debating whether an employee could use this exact same pill for other medical reasons. She comes up with this "Well the doctor can state on the prescription form that it's for medical purposes". That's irrelevent. The church can't legally look at that form and say, "Oh OK, you're getting this contraceptive for medical reason. Got right ahead and get it." So no, it isn't a "whole different issue". It's the exact same issue. The Pill has multiple uses in the medical industry. The Catholic church wants to violate their employees First Amendment rights because of ONE use of that pill. How exactly is this violating their freedom of religion? No one is stopping them from practicing their beliefs. No one is forcing anyone to purchase contraceptives. IT'S AN OPTION.
You are forcing the Catholic group to specifically provide birth control. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. If the church steps up and says they have an objection to covering the use of the pill for other intents we can debate that issue then. As far as I know intent plays just as big a role in religious law as it does in our civil law.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458751
The Daily Caller? Now there's a reputable source. This "expert" is using some unsubstantiated data about some group of Wisconsin employees. In his little Powerpoint presentation, he provides no links or evidence where he came up with this data, and how he can justify that premiums will go up 31% in 2016. Nice little Republican propaganda tool...
The "expert" is the same guy 0bama and the Dems used to promote this joke back when they were pushing this disaster down our throats.

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458574
I have never heard of or seen a large corporation opting for these "self insured systems". This is the first I've heard of this, and I guarantee you my wife's hospital doesn't provide their healthcare in this manner. I'm not "claiming" any "stuff". I've dealt with medical healthcare plans longer than you've been alive. Prior to starting my own business, I worked for several large corporations. From the early 80's until today, I think I've had maybe three health insurance providers. In the last 25 years, it's been eith BCBS, Humana, or United Healthcare (I think United bought out Humana). I have NEVER been given an option of what I could or could not have on my plan. Every single plan I've had, I've essentially had the exact same options regarding prescriptions and medical services provided. If the various companies I worked for had this option to "a-la-carte" what they wanted in their coverages, they never came back to their employees and said, "OK employees. Here are the various options. We will let the majority determine what they want covered and what they don't want covered." So again, what's the difference between your HR Dept. or upper managemnet determining what you get in your health plan, and what the Federal Govt. is mandating with this contraceptive coverage. Unless the person gets a choice of what options they want on their plan, then it's still someone dictating what is being offered.
Well, that isn't quite what I said, but oh well. to Clarify, the company not the individual does go a-la-carte on what they will or won't cover.
It really blows my mind that you're asking what the difference between the government mandating coverage, and having the option to enroll in an employer provided healthcare system. If you don't understand the difference between the government forcing you to do something, vs you having an option to buy something. Well, you don't understand freedom...

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458745
I'm not redirecting anything. Everyone is keying on this birth control issue as strictly a contraceptive. You, Beth, and everyone else said the church isn't debating whether an employee could use this exact same pill for other medical reasons. She comes up with this "Well the doctor can state on the prescription form that it's for medical purposes". That's irrelevent. The church can't legally look at that form and say, "Oh OK, you're getting this contraceptive for medical reason. Got right ahead and get it." So no, it isn't a "whole different issue". It's the exact same issue. The Pill has multiple uses in the medical industry. The Catholic church wants to violate their employees First Amendment rights because of ONE use of that pill. How exactly is this violating their freedom of religion? No one is stopping them from practicing their beliefs. No one is forcing anyone to purchase contraceptives. IT'S AN OPTION.
Here is one of many examples in this discussion where you read what someone has said, then extrapolate something else entirely, distort the original statements in order to come up with an argument that supports your position.
Where is it said anywhere that the Church can legally look at someones prescription to verify that a drug is not being used for contraception???
I scratch my head sometimes trying to figure out where you come up with this stuff.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458763
Here is one of many examples in this discussion where you read what someone has said, then extrapolate something else entirely, distort the original statements in order to come up with an argument that supports your position.
Where is it said anywhere that the Church can legally look at someones prescription to verify that a drug is not being used for contraception???
I scratch my head sometimes trying to figure out where you come up with this stuff.
You said, "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."
Then you stated, "If your physician writes a "medically necessary" prescription then the pharmacy will know that this is for medical reasons, and the drug should be able to be billed to the ins. co. It may require a form to fill out."
So exactly what are you implying with these two statements? What "form" would be filled out, and whose allow to look at it? The Cathloic Church employer? The way I read the first statement is you're saying the Catholic church isn't complaining that The Pill is used for other medical problems. It's only when a woman uses to aviod getting pregnant. So how can the church deny coverage based on one usage, but not the other? Who makes the determination?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458782
You said, "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."
Then you stated, "If your physician writes a "medically necessary" prescription then the pharmacy will know that this is for medical reasons, and the drug should be able to be billed to the ins. co. It may require a form to fill out."
So exactly what are you implying with these two statements? What "form" would be filled out, and whose allow to look at it? The Cathloic Church employer? The way I read the first statement is you're saying the Catholic church isn't complaining that The Pill is used for other medical problems. It's only when a woman uses to aviod getting pregnant. So how can the church deny coverage based on one usage, but not the other? Who makes the determination?
The insurance company. If someone seeks treatment for an uncovered procedure they will deny payment.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458759
Well, that isn't quite what I said, but oh well. to Clarify, the company not the individual does go a-la-carte on what they will or won't cover.
It really blows my mind that you're asking what the difference between the government mandating coverage, and having the option to enroll in an employer provided healthcare system. If you don't understand the difference between the government forcing you to do something, vs you having an option to buy something. Well, you don't understand freedom...
Some feedom. If you don't utilize this "option", then you essentially have no health insurance coverage. Oh wait. With Obamacare, I won't have to worry about that. I do get to choose what "option" I want in my healthcare services. So if I'm a devout Catholic, I can opt out of allowing contraceptives being offered in my plan. Sounds like the Chase Freedom commercial...