This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Insurance companies should be able to tailor the policies to the needs of the customer, not the other way around. I can understand not making a tailor policy for EACH customer, but there are millions of Catholics.
Here, we go back to the question of regulating a certain standard, vs customising and allowing unscrupulous insurance vendors to screw over unwary customers. Conceptually, you can have a 'Catholic Health Policy' that excludes contraceptive cover, but only if contraceptive cover isn't considered a core fundamental health cover.
And, to answer your question quite directly, if I believe that GOD doesn't approve of something, I'm not going to provide it for someone. You see, I stick to my beliefs. I value them. People around here can't seem to understand that. Sad.
I still think you're missing my point. Insurance, as a general rule, covers obstetric services. Just because an unwed couple can have sex and make a baby, and GOD doesn't approve of that happening, are you going to deny the provision of obstetric services, even though the vast majority of people you provide insurance for won't be using it improperly?
Also, try not to see it in such a black and white term as "boycotting health insurance"... because that's not what this is about. That makes it sound like the Church doesn't want it's employees to have health insurance. This conversation is riddled with people taking things out of context, or in Adamsm's case, just completely misrepresenting what is said.
I'm not trying to take things out of context. I'm saying that if you had a choice between providing health insurance that has contraception cover, or finding another way of providing for the health of employees that doesn't include insurance, the Church would take the latter option. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.
Post by
Adamsm
Separation of Church and State
So it's cool when it works the way you want it to.
(or Church and Private Businesses being pushed through by a government backing); however, if this were to become a country wide thing for the States, having specific businesses cut out from it would be confusing and not really good for any body, since they could then force things around to take the insurance away from other people.Please, at least quote the entire thing alright, since I said the rest of what I meant there.
Post by
MyTie
I still think you're missing my point. Insurance, as a general rule, covers obstetric services. Just because an unwed couple can have sex and make a baby, and GOD doesn't approve of that happening, are you going to deny the provision of obstetric services, even though the vast majority of people you provide insurance for won't be using it improperly?
Uhm... I was gonna say something... what was it..
Hmmm...
geez... my memory is really horrible. Don't you hate it when this happens?
Oh, yeah. I don't think that anyone is denying anyone anything, or saying they CAN'T have it, just that they aren't going to be the ones to provide it.
Post by
Squishalot
Are you telling me that health insurance by the church doesn't provide obstetrics cover? Because that's what I'm reading from "they aren't going to be the ones to provide it", and I hope I'm mistaken.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think what's really happening here, is that they are trying to set a standard of care in the insurance industry. They're looking at the existing industry, and wanting to make sure that certain things are provided for. Many insurance companies have very flimsy care, or loopholes that will allow them to not provide certain treatments. Very often, people will be denied necessary procedures on a technicality, or the company will look for an excuse to not pay because they didn't like the specific technique the surgeon used (even though they approved the general surgery), or because they didn't authorize them to save your life during the surgery when a complications arise, and so refuse to pay for the extra surgeon and extra 4 hours of surgery when some organ ruptured because no one submitted the proper paperwork first. People rely on their insurance companies because medical care has scaled in cost above and beyond what it should have, and what normal people can afford to pay. As a result, there needs to be some oversight so that people don't die, or get left in the poor house because of an price scale that has been inflated because it was taken out of the normal flow of supply and demand.
I don't think that things like birth control pills are the main issue here. I think this law is in place more to defray costs of operations and other permanent procedures used as birth control. In many cases, procedures like this happen not only as planned in advance, but also after a particularly difficult pregnancy, or a delivery that was damaging to the woman's reproductive systems. In these cases, future pregnancies could be fatal, or at least dangerous, and physicians will recommend these procedures to protect the woman. But, if they are classified as birth control, and the insurance doesn't cover that, then the woman is left paying for it out of pocket. And there are many less serious cases, too, where women are prescribed birth control pills for other medical conditions. I personally went through a period (no pun intended) where i didn't stop bleeding for 5 months straight, and that was how they fixed it.
I don't think that religious institutions were even what were being considered when this was passed. I think that they're trying to close gaps in coverage that are screwing people, and this is one of them. There is a more overlap between "birth control" and medical procedures that are necessary that people realize.
Personally, I think the preferred solution is to not have insurance at all. The prices wouldn't have gotten this out of hand, had the insurance industry not made that possible. In a normal economy of supply and demand, with no government or insurance agency interference, the drug companies and hospitals would have been forced to operate in such a way that the prices they charged brought in enough business to keep them afloat, and competition would have kept prices reasonable. The reason that hospitals have such overhead is that the price of drugs and medical supplies are much, much higher in relation to their materials cost than they should be. If they weren't able to get those prices, companies could still produce the same products at a much lower cost- they just wouldn't have the same kinds of research funds. And while I agree medical research is necessary, it's hard to argue that it's for the greater good when it's funded by the life savings and college funds of someone who had to pay or die.
If we're going to have insurance, though, it has to be regulated, because it's already done a lot of damage to the health care system, and if left unchecked would continue to push prices further and further out of reach of people and beyond what normal inflation and operating costs should allow.
Post by
MyTie
I approve of Bill O'Reilly's actions in
this instance
.
Post by
Magician22773
You have to love the "compromise" Obama made on this bill today.
Instead of forcing churches to pay for healthcare that provides contraception, we now are going to:
Force churches to pay for healthcare that provides contraception.
Makes perfect sense to me. I am sure the church will be fine with this new bill. /sarcasm
In case you missed it, before, the government was going to mandate that churches provide heathcare that paid for contraception.
Now, they are going to still force churches to provide healthcare, but the contraception will be provided by the healthcare company, not the church. But, the church provides the healthcare, so they are, in fact, providing the contraception.
Seriously...we actually elected this guy? And worse yet, he actually thinks there are people out there that see this as a compromise. Excuse me, Mr. Presidunce, but the chuch wasn't providing the birth control pills in the first bill, the insurance company was...and they still are.
This honestly may be the stupidest thing I have ever seen the goverment try to pass by us, and now I am betting that the outrage is going to be double. First for trying to mandate our beliefs, and then insulting our intelligence.
ABO 2012 ( Anybody But Obama)
Post by
Squishalot
Magician - see the discussion I had with MyTie over the last couple of pages.
@ Elhonna - doesn't that issue justify the use of insurance? Excessive prices or not, even at lower prices, a major accident will impoverish pretty much any family.
Post by
MyTie
It's not an employers, nor the government's responsibility, to ensure people have healthcare.
Now, honestly, can we move onto another topic? I posted a very nice article about Ellen Degenerate, and Bill O'Crazy, that has to do with homosexuality. I was SURE that was going to end this health insurance conversation. Nothing is more boring than insurance. Nothing.
But, what do I know. Maybe you all are really enjoying this and I should just GTFO.
Post by
Squishalot
To be honest, I don't actually follow links to topics unless someone provides a summary / their thoughts and I find it interesting. Not enough time to go chasing every wild lead.
On reading the story, it's a nice thing to do, which I suppose is a fairly big thing these days, but I wouldn't say it's so meaningful that it could end another conversation. What's to discuss?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
To be honest, I don't actually follow links to topics unless someone provides a summary / their thoughts and I find it interesting. Not enough time to go chasing every wild lead.
On reading the story, it's a nice thing to do, which I suppose is a fairly big thing these days, but I wouldn't say it's so meaningful that it could end another conversation. What's to discuss?
That someone can disagree with homosexuality, and the homosexual agenda, and still defend homosexual's rights to do as they choose. I admire the neither for nor against attitude.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
the homosexual agenda
Lol, I saw that once. As I recall it said:
1. Equality
2. (See 1)
Yes.. they do just want Equality*.
*Subject to terms and conditions. Not valid if a conservative homosexual. Equality to include acceptance, both legal, social, and moral. Any less than complete acceptance in addition to legal equality will be rejected as unequal. Any thoughts possessed by the individual that exclude acceptance, no matter how equal the actions, will void all equality of actions. Terms and conditions subject to retroactive change without prior notice. Acceptance not mandatory for those of religious standing other than Christian. Questions and comments not welcome.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
So you think the gays want to mind control you? Hilarious.
lolwut
Post by
MyTie
So you think the gays want to mind control you? Hilarious.
lolwut
Reductio ad absurdum. Just ignore it.
Post by
Squishalot
Actually, MyTie has a legitimate point in this instance, but this is the wrong thread for it. Move it along, folks.
Post by
MyTie
Actually, MyTie has a legitimate point in this instance, but this is the wrong thread for it. Move it along, folks.
If you insist, but I made this topic for 2 purposes: posting of news articles, and tangential conversation of those news articles. This is kind of the RB of srs bzns. The news article ability lets the conversation change easily, by simply posting a news article of what you want to discuss and letting people discuss it. Since there is no hard and fast "topic" of this thread, then it is very hard to actually go off topic. You cannot deny that the O'Reily/Degeneres article is related to the homosexual agenda. Asakawa has also taken a very lenient approach to this thread, in the sense that the discussions can wander. Not telling you how to do your job, just requesting leniency in this particular thread.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##I have?
Post by
Magician22773
So you think the gays want to mind control you? Hilarious.
My new tin foil hat looks FAAAAAABULOUS!
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.