Bishops Be Crazy

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1328809328' post='2384248']
Yeah, I got that... Just that, in my circle of aquaintances-- 35-45 year old homeschool moms-- you just don't hear that phrase all that much, I guess.
[/quote]
[img]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/13/nowai128631649822910881.jpg[/img]

[Scofizzle]

[quote]
[font="Georgia"][color="#000000"]In a sane world, the government would be running the whole health care plan, the employers would be off the hook entirely and we would not be having this fight at all[/color][/font]
[/quote]

So many things wrong with the article, but this caught my eye first. This guy or gal must assume his reading audience is socialist. There is NOTHING the government can do more efficiently or effectively than free enterprise.

[Scofizzle]

[quote]
[size=4][font="Georgia"][color="#000000"]The churches themselves don’t have to provide contraceptive coverage. Neither do organizations that are closely tied to a religion’s doctrinal mission. We are talking about places like hospitals and universities that rely heavily on government money and hire people from outside the faith.[/color][/font][/size]
[/quote]

This lady clearly doesn't know what she is talking about. In our Archdiocese our inusrance "group" is the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. Therefore everyone employed by a Church will have to pay and the Churches will pay.

[Scofizzle]

[quote]
[size=4][font="Georgia"][color="#000000"]The problem here is that they’re trying to get the government to do their work for them. They’ve lost the war at home, and they’re now demanding help from the outside.[/color][/font][/size]

[/quote]

She is flat out off her rocker. This premise is moronic. The Bishops aren't trying to deny anyone access to contraception, they are refusing to pay for it. This person is a terrible writer. I won't break down this whole article, but those three thigns really bothered me.

[Scofizzle]

[quote]
[size=4][font="Georgia"][color="#000000"]We are arguing about whether women who do not agree with the church position, or who are often not even Catholic, should be denied health care coverage that everyone else gets because their employer has a religious objection to it. If so, what happens if an employer belongs to a religion that forbids certain types of blood transfusions? Or disapproves of any medical intervention to interfere with the working of God on the human body?[/color][/font][/size]

[/quote]

ok one last one. People choose to work for the Church. As far as I know if there is no more indentured servitude, so stop with this croutons. If you don't like it go find another job that covers whatever kind of junk you put in your body, or pay for it yourself.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Scofizzle' timestamp='1328810974' post='2384278']
This person is a terrible writer.
[/quote]

BLASPHEMY!

DO NOT PROFANE THE MOST HOLY NEW YORK TIMES

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328781348' post='2384160']
here's my solution: if we must go through with the unconstitutional individual mandate (please excuse my editorializing there, but I do not share the ridiculously broad application of the general welfare clause), we should have as a general rule this: any organization that has a conscientious objection to any particular unnecessary medical procedure (ie, there is no illness being cured by it, no serious injury, no life threatening problem) should be allowed a conscience exemption so that they do not have to provide this unnecessary medical procedure. sure, have them prove their case that it's a legitimate conscientious objection (just like one once had to prove themselves to be a conscientious objector to be exempted from the draft), and we'd have to have medical experts testify as to whether it's a necessary or unnecessary medical procedure in order to hammer out the rules just right... but the case of Catholics and birth control can easily pass both tests: huge amount of teaching documents against birth control from the Catholics dating back centuries, and an easily established FACT that birth control is not a necessary medical procedure, but rather a lifestyle luxury. you could try to talk about low-income folks (unlikely to be those who work for Catholic hospitals, I'm pretty sure hospital jobs pay pretty well) can't afford children... but low-income folks CAN afford condoms. it's a lifestyle choice to want to be able to use birth control pills, so you better work enough to be able to afford that $30/month if you want to be on the pill. you could always cut off your cable service, you know, prioritize whether it's more important to use birth control pills or watch cable--two things that are luxuries.
[/quote]
[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328781947' post='2384162']
heart transplants are demonstrably necessary medical procedures. birth control is a demonstrably UNNECESSARY medical product. no to conscience exemptions for heart transplants, yes to conscience exemptions for birth control (and under my posts solution, I'd back track away from allowing JWs to be exempt on blood transfusions, again my solution is IF we must have a mandate, THEN allow conscience objections only for unnecessary medical procedures)
[/quote]
[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1328798231' post='2384194']
I never understood why birth control is even offered on health benefits/insurance packages. Fertillity is not an illness or disease that needs to be eradicated/removed/etc. Our culture has been royally duped to believing that the standard lifestyle for women includes that they be on birth control and that it is a medical necessity in thier life.
[/quote]

I believe this goes to the heart of one of the problems with health insurance in the US. The government mandates a lot of "bells and whistles" that drive up the costs. I've seen a lot of channges in the past 20+ years in the health insurance industry and market. I remember in the past, there were basic policies that would cover basic hospitalization and major medical costs. Now, there are what are commonly known as "Cadillac plans" that have coverages for "luxury" items, and even the non-"Cadillac" plans may have government mandates to cover such "luxuries". One obvious mandate was one put in place in the 1990s in Illinois that insurance companies cover in vitro fertilization. Maybe more people would be able to afford health insurance if they had more choices of coverages and could build their own plans so that they did not have to buy coverage that they did not need.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1328799047' post='2384199']
pregnancy is an illness

fetuses are parasites
[/quote]

Unfortunately, some states mandate on the basis of "anti-discrimination" laws; others believe that paying for contraceptive coverage is cheaper than paying for pregnancy/childbirth costs.

Go figure, right?

[Papist]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1328854640' post='2384738']
I believe this goes to the heart of one of the problems with health insurance in the US. The government mandates a lot of "bells and whistles" that drive up the costs. I've seen a lot of channges in the past 20+ years in the health insurance industry and market. I remember in the past, there were basic policies that would cover basic hospitalization and major medical costs. Now, there are what are commonly known as "Cadillac plans" that have coverages for "luxury" items, and even the non-"Cadillac" plans may have government mandates to cover such "luxuries". One obvious mandate was one put in place in the 1990s in Illinois that insurance companies cover in vitro fertilization. Maybe more people would be able to afford health insurance if they had more choices of coverages and could build their own plans so that they did not have to buy coverage that they did not need.
[/quote]

A la carte sounds great. Normally, people have the option to have or not have vision and/or dental care.

[fides' Jack]

Forget about artificial contraceptives!! Catholics have a moral kind of contraception, too, and actually, it's been proven to be more effective than condoms or pills. And it's not harmful to the woman's body, like pills are.

Best of all, it's FREE!!! $0/year. If the government wants us to have a plan to cover that, I'd be up for it.