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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I can see your point as long as you also oppose insurance coverage for Viagra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

Hey, Ron Paul, nice to see you here.

[Anonymous]

t seems like people are missing the fact that there is no reqquirement for employers to provide any type of healthcare coverage. Although most companies do offer it these days, they only started providing it to be more competitive. Now, however, it seems like company-provided healthcare is the norm and an expectation, rather than a benefit. To me, all the church is suggesting is that if it is providing or contributing to the coverage for its employees, it should be able to do so consistent with the values upon which the institution was based. It doesn't feel it should be obligated to pay for a benefit to others (that it really has no obligation to provide) that is inconsistent with that. Doesn't seem too out of line to me.

This is exactly on point, which is precisely why everyone is choosing to ignore the post. The Church is not telling employees that they cannot use birth control, they are saying that it is inconsistent with the teachings of the Church and they should not have to pay for something in direct opposition to its teachings. Employees are free to use and obtain birth control from other sources and it is not the Church's business. Jump on over to the Planned Parenthood thread and you can see all of the individuals who have received low-cost birth control from that organization.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

t seems like people are missing the fact that there is no reqquirement for employers to provide any type of healthcare coverage. Although most companies do offer it these days, they only started providing it to be more competitive. Now, however, it seems like company-provided healthcare is the norm and an expectation, rather than a benefit. To me, all the church is suggesting is that if it is providing or contributing to the coverage for its employees, it should be able to do so consistent with the values upon which the institution was based. It doesn't feel it should be obligated to pay for a benefit to others (that it really has no obligation to provide) that is inconsistent with that. Doesn't seem too out of line to me.

This is exactly on point, which is precisely why everyone is choosing to ignore the post. The Church is not telling employees that they cannot use birth control, they are saying that it is inconsistent with the teachings of the Church and they should not have to pay for something in direct opposition to its teachings. Employees are free to use and obtain birth control from other sources and it is not the Church's business. Jump on over to the Planned Parenthood thread and you can see all of the individuals who have received low-cost birth control from that organization.

I didn't ignore it. I specifically addressed it and pointed out PP's mistake.

As I pointed out to PP, we're not talking about any old employer plan; we're talking about "insurance policies that will be supported under the Affordable Care Act." If your problem is with that law and it's requirements in general, then say that instead of focusing on the Church.

I'm guessing you're the OP. You persist in ignoring arguments you find troublesome and simultaneously accusing others of doing the same. A religious hypocrite - what a novelty.

[Anonymous]

An asshole on DCUM - what a novelty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

t seems like people are missing the fact that there is no reqquirement for employers to provide any type of healthcare coverage. Although most companies do offer it these days, they only started providing it to be more competitive. Now, however, it seems like company-provided healthcare is the norm and an expectation, rather than a benefit. To me, all the church is suggesting is that if it is providing or contributing to the coverage for its employees, it should be able to do so consistent with the values upon which the institution was based. It doesn't feel it should be obligated to pay for a benefit to others (that it really has no obligation to provide) that is inconsistent with that. Doesn't seem too out of line to me.

This is exactly on point, which is precisely why everyone is choosing to ignore the post. The Church is not telling employees that they cannot use birth control, they are saying that it is inconsistent with the teachings of the Church and they should not have to pay for something in direct opposition to its teachings. Employees are free to use and obtain birth control from other sources and it is not the Church's business. Jump on over to the Planned Parenthood thread and you can see all of the individuals who have received low-cost birth control from that organization.

And my point was that a lot us pay through taxes for things that we object to, but we don't go around stamping our feet and demanding that the entire tax system be organized to accomodate our particular moral views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I can see your point as long as you also oppose insurance coverage for Viagra.

I agree. It is absurd that insurance covers Viagra. What a scam? This is the result, of course, of big pharma persuading/lobbying the USG to require these life style drugs to be included in insurance plans.

[Anonymous]

Themanwithadumbusername must be very bored at home or getting very little work done with the number of posts he's made.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Themanwithadumbusername must be very bored at home or getting very little work done with the number of posts he's made.

Amazingly, every one was more interesting than this post of yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[quote=
But hey, thanks for proving my point!

Uh, you aren't getting it. OB/GYN practices at ALL of the Catholic hospitals prescribe birth control. So they have already decided that this is ethically acceptable. They will even make money off of the visit to get a script. And yet the same institutions are protesting this.

Providers at Catholic institutions do not provide birth control for contraception purposes, instead for things like heavy menstrual periods or heavy cramping. This is how many providers who believe in using it, but cannot provide it as such do it. They have decided that loop-holing the system is ethically acceptable to them, but that does not change the baseline tenet of a Catholic hospital. The Church has always stood firmly against birth control.

Disagree. My OB is a doctor at Georgetown hospital. That is where I go for checkups and pills. There are no heavy cramps and no heavy periods. Birth control only. Speak what you know, not what you think you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It is ok to cover Viagra for men who want a stiff one, but not ok to cover BP for a woman who does not want an unwanted pregnancy. Viagra has been covered since it's creation, but I have not heard people arguing that it's not health related.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An asshole on DCUM - what a novelty.

Well he may be an asshole, i will give you that, but you are still a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

What if the Scientologists open a hospital(s)? And they expect all the rest of us to follow their cooky rules? Like silent births? What if their religion condems vaccines, and they open pediatric offices? Should they be allowed to simply refuse to offer vaccines? Or to let the patients make their own decisions about these matters? What if a religious health care instituion believe in immediate circumcision - for males and females! upon birth. You got a problem with them bringing your baby back from the nursery minus a few parts? Or should you have a choice in that matter, regardless of what hospital you are in?

I think that there are certain minimum requirements of a health care plan and a health care institution. Regulating that is a legitimate role for the govt. As a society - without reference to any religion's beliefs - if we decide birth control has to be available at a health care institution because it's an integral part of human health, then so be it.

If the Catholic church can no longer reconcile the modern definition of human health - which includes sexual related treatments - then they should get out of the health care business. Meanwhile, each and every Catholic is free to NOT use birth control.

[Anonymous]

19 21 again, and PS:

Meanwhile we've got the state of VA telling us how wide the aisles of our abortion clinics have to be, effectively shutting down numerous abortion clinics through a back door technicality. I don't want to hear you bitch about being required to offer birth control. Oh which BTW would actually PREVENT some of those abortions you are so upset about.

And you want to complain about the feds requiring that we all have access to what is now a main stream health maintenance medication.

I also find it amusing that the same Republcians who froth at the mouth at the idea of "government interference" will tolerate the same interference from a relgious institution. You are seriously going to let a Catholic hospital impose its values on your daughter if that is where the ambulance takes her say, after she's raped? "Sorry, no emergecny contraception pills at this hospital".

ARGH! So frustrating! Conservatives are so damn contradictory and frustrating!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It is ok to cover Viagra for men who want a stiff one, but not ok to cover BP for a woman who does not want an unwanted pregnancy. Viagra has been covered since it's creation, but I have not heard people arguing that it's not health related.

I agree. It is absurd that insurance plans cover Viagra. Viagra and BP are lifestyle drugs. Nothing wrong with that. But I see no reason why I should pay for others to take these drugs. BTW. I am a moderate Democratic, with a 90% plus voting record in favor of Dems, at levels of elections. I also am pro-choice.