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

bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458786
The insurance company. If someone seeks treatment for an uncovered procedure they will deny payment.
OK, so what's the problem with having that option on the plan? The Catholic church tells the insurance provider, "If someone submits a claim for a contraceptive to be used to deter pregnancy, deny the claim. If they submit a cliam to use the same drug for any other medical purpose, approve the claim." Problem solved.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458782
So exactly what are you implying with these two statements? What "form" would be filled out, and whose allow to look at it? The Catholic 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 avoid getting pregnant. So how can the church deny coverage based on one usage, but not the other? Who makes the determination?
Who needs a prescription, who writes a prescription, and who fills the prescription? That is the answer to your question of who is allowed to look at the prescription.
How do you come away with the Catholic Church needing to look at and approve of a prescription to confirm that its not being used as a contraceptive? Nowhere is that stated or implied anywhere. The fact that a doctor writes out a medically necessary prescription is good enough for the pharmacist to know that the prescription is for a medical reason, and not a contraceptive reason, and therefore the drug can be billed to the insurance co.
All of this basically muddles the overall point. Which is freedom from the government to make mandates of any religion to go against its basic belief doctrine. The greater argument is the government whittling away at religious organizations' First Amendment right to freedom of religion in terms of contraceptives and birth control; birth control to include terminating life at the embryonic and fetus stages of life.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member

 
Who needs a prescription, who writes a prescription, and who fills the prescription?  That is the answer to your question of who is allowed to look at the prescription.  
 
How do you come away with the Catholic Church needing to look at and approve of a prescription to confirm that its not being used as a contraceptive?  Nowhere is that stated or implied anywhere.  The fact that a doctor writes out a medically necessary prescription is good enough for the pharmacist to know that the prescription is for a medical reason, and not a contraceptive reason, and therefore the drug can be billed to the insurance co.  
 
All of this basically muddles the overall point.  Which is freedom from the government to make mandates of any religion to go against its basic belief doctrine.  The greater argument is the government whittling away at religious organizations' First Amendment right to freedom of religion in terms of contraceptives and birth control; birth control to include terminating life at the embryonic and fetus stages of life.
 
 
 
 
There is no way for the pharmacist to know what is being treated on the Rx unless we write it on the form. I may write for BCP for irregular periods, or for contraception, the Rx is the same unless i choose to write "contraception" or such on the form. Some drugs are obvious, but do you want it written down somewhere the acyclovir you are taking is for genital herpes rather than a cold sore or shingles?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/120#post_3458789
OK, so what's the problem with having that option on the plan? The Catholic church tells the insurance provider, "If someone submits a claim for a contraceptive to be used to deter pregnancy, deny the claim. If they submit a cliam to use the same drug for any other medical purpose, approve the claim." Problem solved.
Because you are requiring the Church owned group to cover birth control as a deliberate act.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/120#post_3458797
Who needs a prescription, who writes a prescription, and who fills the prescription? That is the answer to your question of who is allowed to look at the prescription.
How do you come away with the Catholic Church needing to look at and approve of a prescription to confirm that its not being used as a contraceptive? Nowhere is that stated or implied anywhere. The fact that a doctor writes out a medically necessary prescription is good enough for the pharmacist to know that the prescription is for a medical reason, and not a contraceptive reason, and therefore the drug can be billed to the insurance co.
All of this basically muddles the overall point. Which is freedom from the government to make mandates of any religion to go against its basic belief doctrine. The greater argument is the government whittling away at religious organizations' First Amendment right to freedom of religion in terms of contraceptives and birth control; birth control to include terminating life at the embryonic and fetus stages of life.
I'm making the statement about the Catholic Church looking at it, simply because they are the one's determining whether an employee can get a prescription covered for a contraceptive for medical reasons, and not for pregnancy avoidance. That's the distinction the Catholics are trying to avoid. They're pushing this First Amendment agenda based on one purpose of a contraceptive. Contraceptives have multiple uses that benefit women. So why isn't this a viloation of women's rights? Oh that's right. The church has protection against this via the First Amendment. Why is it churches get exemption from paying federal income taxes? Is that part of the First Amendment as well? Is pedophilia covered under the First Amendment? Seems to be when it comes to these Catholic priests. Sorry, but using religion as a scapegoat to avoid logic doesn't fly with me.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

I'm making the statement about the Catholic Church looking at it, simply because they are the one's determining whether an employee can get a prescription covered for a contraceptive for medical reasons, and not for pregnancy avoidance.  That's the distinction the Catholics are trying to avoid.  They're pushing this First Amendment agenda based on one purpose of a contraceptive.  Contraceptives have multiple uses that benefit women.  So why isn't this a viloation of women's rights?  Oh that's right.  The church has protection against this via the First Amendment.  Why is it churches get exemption from paying federal income taxes?  Is that part of the First Amendment as well?  Is pedophilia covered under the First Amendment?  Seems to be when it comes to these Catholic priests.  Sorry, but using religion as a scapegoat to avoid logic doesn't fly with me.
And there it is folks. The true feelings of bionic and the catholic church. 1st amendment or no 1st amendment. Would it be ok if it was Baptists? or Mormons?
These are the medical benefits associated with the pill.
"The hormones in "the Pill" can also be used to treat other medical conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, adenomyosis, menstruation-related anemia and painful menstruation (dysmenorrhea). In addition, oral contraceptives are often prescribed as medication for mild or moderate acne."
Note I did not include irregular periods, as This is not a disease or sickness. So tell me. Is there no other, insurance covered, treatments or medications for those issues?
 
ironeagle2006

ironeagle2006

Active Member
But remember this it was not just BCP's that were REQUIRED to be covered it was Tubal Ligations Vasectmys IUD's Depo Shots Norplants and a host of OTHER Contraceptives that the Catholic Hospitals were going to be forced to COVER and OFFER at their HOSPITALS. See that is what people are forgetting there is more than one form of Birth Control out there for Women to use there and ALL of them WERE now REquired to be offered by a Catholic Organization by their Insurance Plan and also PERFORMED IN THEIR HOSPITALS. Sorry but what Medical Condition does a Vasectomy TREAT or a Tubal Ligation Treat. I know it prevents another child from being BORN and that is the ONLY THING IT DOES.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
What everyone is forgetting is that as soon as these Catholic-run institutions began hiring non-secular and non-Catholic employees, they lost their "religious status". Obama repealed the mandate to where actual religious institutions (i.e. churches) don't have to purchase this option. Only businesses that hire ANY employees that may or may not practice whatever religious faith is running that business. The EEOC specifically states that no business can discriminate due to race, gender, religion, or even sexual orientation when hiring employees. These Catholic-run hospitals are technically violating this law because they are discriminating against their non-Catholic employees by not allowing them to purchase an available option on their health insurance plan. If they don't want to offer the contraceptive option, don't offer health insurance at all. See how many people they fuind that will work for them. If they don't want to offer contraceptives in their health plan, turn yourself into a completely Catholic business, where you state that you don't hire one single employee that isn't a devout Catholic.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/120#post_3458834
And there it is folks. The true feelings of bionic and the catholic church. 1st amendment or no 1st amendment. Would it be ok if it was Baptists? or Mormons?
These are the medical benefits associated with the pill.
"The hormones in "the Pill" can also be used to treat other medical conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, adenomyosis, menstruation-related anemia and painful menstruation (dysmenorrhea). In addition, oral contraceptives are often prescribed as medication for mild or moderate acne."
Note I did not include irregular periods, as This is not a disease or sickness. So tell me. Is there no other, insurance covered, treatments or medications for those issues?
Beer-goggle glasses. I listed an article showing what other benefits that medicine provides. You choose to ignore it.
I could care less what religious organization was fighting this. It's irrelevent. No company that hires non-secular employees should be able to hide behind the guise of their religion to get preferential treatment, or be able to circumvent our laws simply on the basis they claim it violates their religious beliefs under the 1st Amendment. Can these Catholic-based corporations make it company policy that they will not hire any employee who isn't a professed Catholic? If not, why not? Isn't that violating their 1st Amendment rights?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

What everyone is forgetting is that as soon as these Catholic-run institutions began hiring non-secular and non-Catholic employees, they lost their "religious status".  Obama repealed the mandate to where actual religious institutions (i.e. churches) don't have to purchase this option.  Only businesses that hire ANY employees that may or may not practice whatever religious faith is running that business.  The EEOC specifically states that no business can discriminate due to race, gender, religion, or even sexual orientation when hiring employees.  These Catholic-run hospitals are technically violating this law because they are discriminating against their non-Catholic employees by not allowing them to purchase an available option on their health insurance plan.  If they don't want to offer the contraceptive option, don't offer health insurance at all.  See how many people they fuind that will work for them.  If they don't want to offer contraceptives in their health plan, turn yourself into a completely Catholic business, where you state that you don't hire one single employee that isn't a devout Catholic. 
it is against the law to hire based off religion...or did you forget that?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

Beer-goggle glasses.  I listed an article showing what other benefits that medicine provides.  You choose to ignore it.
I could care less what religious organization was fighting this.  It's irrelevent.  No company that hires non-secular employees should be able to hide behind the guise of their religion to get preferential treatment, or be able to circumvent our laws simply on the basis they claim it violates their religious beliefs under the 1st Amendment.  Can these Catholic-based corporations make it company policy that they will not hire any employee who isn't a professed Catholic?  If not, why not?  Isn't that violating their 1st Amendment rights?
and i am asking......is birth control the ONLY option for treating those medical issues? if there is other medicine that can treat those problems.......then there is no reason to force the paying of birth control on a religious institution. which is the point YOU Fail to see. and i have beer gogle glasses on?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/100#post_3458787
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...
you're free to enter into a contractual agreement with whoever you chose to... With Government, you're forced too.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/120#post_3458982
you're free to enter into a contractual agreement with whoever you chose to... With Government, you're forced too.
With businesses today, you don't have that luxury. My brother works for a company that provides helath insurance through BCBS. His wife works for another company where they get better coverages, so they use her insurance for the family. He told me that he had to sign a disclosure form stating that if he denied his company's insurance coverage, he had to show proof he was covered under another plan. He works in the oil fields, so naturally it's a high-risk job. So basically the company said if he didn't have insurance, he couldn't work for them. How many other large corporations follow this edict? Of course your answer is, "Well if he doesn't like their policies, find another job." Like we all have the luxury of just uprooting our families, start all over with another company, or may even stay unemployed because it's our "choice". I'm SURE this is something you would do..
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/120#post_3458967
and i am asking......is birth control the ONLY option for treating those medical issues? if there is other medicine that can treat those problems.......then there is no reason to force the paying of birth control on a religious institution. which is the point YOU Fail to see. and i have beer gogle glasses on?
I disagree. If the doctor believes it is the best treatment for a problem then it should be used even if there is a less politically sensitive alternative.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/120#post_3458948
What everyone is forgetting is that as soon as these Catholic-run institutions began hiring non-secular and non-Catholic employees, they lost their "religious status". Obama repealed the mandate to where actual religious institutions (i.e. churches) don't have to purchase this option. Only businesses that hire ANY employees that may or may not practice whatever religious faith is running that business. The EEOC specifically states that no business can discriminate due to race, gender, religion, or even sexual orientation when hiring employees. These Catholic-run hospitals are technically violating this law because they are discriminating against their non-Catholic employees by not allowing them to purchase an available option on their health insurance plan. If they don't want to offer the contraceptive option, don't offer health insurance at all. See how many people they fuind that will work for them. If they don't want to offer contraceptives in their health plan, turn yourself into a completely Catholic business, where you state that you don't hire one single employee that isn't a devout Catholic.
This doesn't have anything to do with Catholic as opposed to non-Catholic employees working in Catholic institutions. The EEOC stands for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, not all health insurances have to be the same organization. The EEOC issues regulations pertaining to non discriminatory hiring practices. If an employer decides not to offer contraceptives, then that is not discrimination unless it is offered to one group of women, and not offered to another group of women.
It would be an EEOC violation if the Catholic Church actually did as you suggest and only hire "devout Catholics". That would be discrimination.
Discrimination would occur if a health plan offered cardiac treatment to only men, but not to women. If a health care plan offered sterilization to men, but not to women, then that would be discrimination. If the health plan does not offer birth control, then there is no discrimination since all the employees are being treated equal.
If the Church foots the bill for their employees insurance, then as an employer it should be able to decide what the insurance package looks like. Again, if someone doesn't like it, then don't go to work for the Catholic Church.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

I disagree.  If the doctor believes it is the best treatment for a problem then it should be used even if there is a less politically sensitive alternative.
I would have no problem with that. But I wonder if it is just the "norm" as there is also another "benefit" to the pill. My comment was mainly directed at those that imply the pill is the ONLY option to treating those medical conditions. Bionic's stance and the stance of many others is the pill is the primary treatment for those conditions. However, is this due to cost, best medicine, or added "benefit"? If there is another medication that can help with equal results, then this defensive point is pointless.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Birth control pills are synthetic estrogen and/or progesterone (female hormones). That they work for certain female medical conditions as well as birth control, shouldn't matter. If they are used for a medical condition, then there should be no issue. The focus is not on the drug itself, but on what the drug is used for.
If a woman has a disorder that must be treated with hormones, then these hormones are going to be used for treatment. They are simply synthetics versions of what females are supposed to produce naturally. There is not an alternative.
Use of a given drug should never be politically influenced either for or against its use---we learned that lesson most recently with Rick Perry, right?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

Birth control pills are synthetic estrogen and/or progesterone (female hormones).  That they work for certain female medical conditions as well as birth control, shouldn't matter.  If they are used for a medical condition, then there should be no issue.  The focus is not on the drug itself, but on what the drug is used for.
If a woman has a disorder that must be treated with hormones, then these hormones are going to be used for treatment.  They are simply synthetics versions of what females are supposed to produce naturally.  There is not an alternative.
Use of a given drug should never be politically influenced either for or against its use---we learned that lesson most recently with Rick Perry, right?
Ugh...This is not the argument I am making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top