I guess you only get to "choose" when you agree with this administration

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:I am a supporter of Obama but I see a fundamental difference between covering birth control pills because I want to have sex with my DH and covering birth control pills because they serve some health benefit (ovarian cancer for example). I have never understood the rationale for the former. Whether an insured wants to have sex, and how often an insured wants to have sex, has very little to do with health. Health insurance is supposed to cover my health related expenses.

Although being pregnant is certainly not an illness, it is a condition that affects your health, sometimes in drastically negative ways, and sometimes these negative effects are psychological rather than physical. How does the insurance company draw the line without being given the power to judge your motivations?

[Anonymous]

Pregnancy is, of course, a health related issue. Ensuring that the mother remains healthy during the pregnancy benefits both the mother and child, health wise. But the mere taking of birth control pills is not. I still fail to see why insurance should cover this. It reflects a life style decision by the women, which is fine, but not at other's expense.

[Anonymous]

But the mere taking of birth control pills is not.

If covering birth control pills was merely an economic decision for the health insurance companies and pregnancy coverage was mandated instead of an optional rider, they would cover it every time. It's a lot cheaper for me to take a pill every day than to have a baby, with all the related doctor's appointments and hospital costs, than to have a baby every ten months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But the mere taking of birth control pills is not.

If covering birth control pills was merely an economic decision for the health insurance companies and pregnancy coverage was mandated instead of an optional rider, they would cover it every time. It's a lot cheaper for me to take a pill every day than to have a baby, with all the related doctor's appointments and hospital costs, than to have a baby every ten months.

I think that poster wants you to make the "lifestyle decision" of abstinence.

[Anonymous]

If everyone is so for abortion and BC etc... why don't those groups start up their own hospitals. Go to another hospital if you are against religious based ones. Last I checked these aren't private institutions. I don't come into you house and tell you how to abort your babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the mere taking of birth control pills is not.

If covering birth control pills was merely an economic decision for the health insurance companies and pregnancy coverage was mandated instead of an optional rider, they would cover it every time. It's a lot cheaper for me to take a pill every day than to have a baby, with all the related doctor's appointments and hospital costs, than to have a baby every ten months.

I think that poster wants you to make the "lifestyle decision" of abstinence.

No a chance with STD ridden slut whores on this messageboard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If everyone is so for abortion and BC etc... why don't those groups start up their own hospitals. Go to another hospital if you are against religious based ones. Last I checked these aren't private institutions. I don't come into you house and tell you how to abort your babies.

In most states you cannot open a new hospital without demonstrating there is a need for it. It makes no sense to build two hospitals in a town, with 2 ERs and 2 neonatal units, etc. if there is only enough need to support one-- the costs of health insurance would have to rise to cover the extra, unnecessary hospital.

I don't get why Catholics are so upset about the possibility of indirectly financially supporting someone else using birth control. Should pacifists be allowed to opt out of income tax because a very large portion of it goes to pay for military spending? If you live in a community (or a country) you have to have some degree of tolerance for other people's lives, and it seems the approach of the new rules is a reasonable compromise-- within your own religious organization you can do what you want, but when you are operating universities and hospitals then you should follow the same rules everyone else does.

[Anonymous]

I think that poster wants you to make the "lifestyle decision" of abstinence.

Ha! Abstinence would mean divorce, so my health insurance company, which is through my husband's job since I'm self-employed, wouldn't have to cover me at all anymore! Bastards always come out on top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If everyone is so for abortion and BC etc... why don't those groups start up their own hospitals. Go to another hospital if you are against religious based ones. Last I checked these aren't private institutions. I don't come into you house and tell you how to abort your babies.

That's exactly the same short-sighted argument used against all civil rights laws. You don't like it that this hotel doesn't welcome blacks? - find one that does! You don't like it that this employer insists on groping his female employees? - find one who doesn't! The people of small towns X, Y, and Z will just start a new hospital to compete with the established Catholic ones - piece of cake.

Are you OK with the Church hospitals violating employment discrimination laws, environmental laws, etc.? If not, then tell us the difference here.

How about this: The only hospital in town is run by an obscure pagan religion. Two of its core practices are that women must always be topless and men must perform fellatio on their superiors upon request. They naturally insist that their employees comply. You're cool with that?

Abortion isn't remotely part of this issue, much as you may enjoy screeching that word. The administration already gave the Church that one, as the article reminds us. And as is often observed, birth control results in fewer abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why Catholics are so upset about the possibility of indirectly financially supporting someone else using birth control. Should pacifists be allowed to opt out of income tax because a very large portion of it goes to pay for military spending? If you live in a community (or a country) you have to have some degree of tolerance for other people's lives, and it seems the approach of the new rules is a reasonable compromise-- within your own religious organization you can do what you want, but when you are operating universities and hospitals then you should follow the same rules everyone else does.

The central premise of the article - which almost openly states it - and the position in general is that articles of religious faith should be honored to the same degree as reasoned conclusions. Of course, the author and others never look at the fact that they only apply that to Christian, or at most major, religions. I.e., they'll tell us what's a legitimate article of faith and what isn't.

There's a well-known case of some native Americans arguing for the right to smoke peyote as part of traditional rituals. Guess which way that went.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why Catholics are so upset about the possibility of indirectly financially supporting someone else using birth control. Should pacifists be allowed to opt out of income tax because a very large portion of it goes to pay for military spending? If you live in a community (or a country) you have to have some degree of tolerance for other people's lives, and it seems the approach of the new rules is a reasonable compromise-- within your own religious organization you can do what you want, but when you are operating universities and hospitals then you should follow the same rules everyone else does.

The central premise of the article - which almost openly states it - and the position in general is that articles of religious faith should be honored to the same degree as reasoned conclusions. Of course, the author and others never look at the fact that they only apply that to Christian, or at most major, religions. I.e., they'll tell us what's a legitimate article of faith and what isn't.

There's a well-known case of some native Americans arguing for the right to smoke peyote as part of traditional rituals. Guess which way that went.

That would change the whole tenor of this argument, wouldn't it, if you substituted Islamic group for Catholic group?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why Catholics are so upset about the possibility of indirectly financially supporting someone else using birth control. Should pacifists be allowed to opt out of income tax because a very large portion of it goes to pay for military spending? If you live in a community (or a country) you have to have some degree of tolerance for other people's lives, and it seems the approach of the new rules is a reasonable compromise-- within your own religious organization you can do what you want, but when you are operating universities and hospitals then you should follow the same rules everyone else does.

The central premise of the article - which almost openly states it - and the position in general is that articles of religious faith should be honored to the same degree as reasoned conclusions. Of course, the author and others never look at the fact that they only apply that to Christian, or at most major, religions. I.e., they'll tell us what's a legitimate article of faith and what isn't.

There's a well-known case of some native Americans arguing for the right to smoke peyote as part of traditional rituals. Guess which way that went.

That would change the whole tenor of this argument, wouldn't it, if you substituted Islamic group for Catholic group?

The easy test under our Constitution: How would this case go if it were the Church of Satan? Start asking that question, and you'll see the Christian bias in our courts and elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a supporter of Obama but I see a fundamental difference between covering birth control pills because I want to have sex with my DH and covering birth control pills because they serve some health benefit (ovarian cancer for example). I have never understood the rationale for the former. Whether an insured wants to have sex, and how often an insured wants to have sex, has very little to do with health. Health insurance is supposed to cover my health related expenses.

Having a baby is very much a health related expense. It is cheaper to give BC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The nuns run the hospital systems, and they are not against it. If there is any hiding going on, it is to keep the bishops at bay.

Sadly, this proves that you are completely out of your element in your knowledge of the church. The nuns run the hospital systems!?! Are you for real??

What are you kidding? Of course they do. Georgetown is the rare exception.

[Anonymous]

Yes, well, I'd like to choose whether or not to hire Muslims, Jews, or Mormons, too. That's not discrimination, is it? I mean, it's my right to choose we're talking about!