Does the government insist that health insurance companies cover Viagra? If health insurance companies want to cover birth control then good for them. What I am against is the government insisting that all policies must include birth control.
Calculon.
It is a matter of belief. If a woman will not servive a pregnancy because it was too much strain on her system, and she dies it could be a matter of her life. In cases like South Africa where 4 or 5 children are starving to death because of lack of daily necessities, it could make a big difference. Look at Haiti 80% RC, they lack the basic necessities of life. Had they been encouraged to use birth control and limit their family size they could afford better health care etc. The RC church wants a lot of people to be born, but once they are born they are left to pay the consequences of poverty. Lack of proper food,shelter,etc. Now the church has a drive asking Catholics who left the Church to come home. To me it is like asking a child to return to an abusive home and not allowed to think for themselves,or what is best for their family!
Strange how the church doesn’t or at least didn’t worry about their conscience in other matters( I won’t mention here)! And to add, they were hired (in a way) by the church!
Forget Viagra for a second. The reason government should mandate the coverage of birth control is: our society is better when more women can decide when they want to get pregnant. Making birth control more available and less expensive results in better societal and economic outcomes, by avoiding unplanned for pregnancies. It’s the same reason there is mandated coverage for cancer screenings. (Although maybe you’re opposed to those, as well?)
The reason I brought up Viagra is because the demographic of the purchasers of health insurance does not reflect the demographics of the users of that health insurance. The management of companies (overwhelmingly middle-aged and older men) are the ones choosing health plans for businesses, and more often men choose health insurance for their families. Those men are enticed by targeted goodies and insurance companies will cut the cost by not covering women’s needs (I believe I’ve heard of insurance companies that didn’t even cover mammograms, yet still offered ED medication). Imagine if the vast majority of people had to drive the car their bosses picked out for them. There really are no glasses rosie enough to make American health insurance seem like the kind of consumer-choice based market you want it to be.
Maybe something like that is possible, but not with the system we have where most people get their insurance through their employer or the government. Actually, I suspect the very nature of health insurance prevents it from being as flexible as you want it to be. Individualized health plans (the way you might customize a car) are vastly more expensive, whereas large homogenized pools distribute the costs more widely. I’ve never heard of anything like an a la cart health insurance system in any first world nation, but if I’m misinformed, please correct me.
I’m not sure where this started but this is not about poor people getting free contreceptives. Out of curiousity, how is the entire country being screwed and what is the counterproductive productive product?
I should say “as you seem to want it to be”. I shouldn’t presume your position.
No they’re pushing thier views on thier employees when it isn’t nessecary to do so.
You keep repeating this as if it’s a given. It isn’t. That’s essentially the point of this thread. They are not directly purchasing birth control for anyone. They are asking the insurance company to exclude certain coverage, and now that the law doesn’t allow for that, they are asking for a religious exemption, not only for thier churches, which is not an issue, but their affiliates such as hospitals and schools that are open to the public and staffed by non members.
You insist the government is required to have a compelling social interest to refuse any religious exemption. Aside from not buying that completely, I’d say a compelling interest exists in drawing the lines of employees equal treatment under the law and what constitutes a relgious organization.
Ad to that the fact that we already have well established legal precedent that religions are not exempt from the law.
They’ve already accepted that they can’t control how wages are spent. Stop trying to control insurance choices. The insurance is part of wages.
It’s hardly that simple when you’re an employer. When they purchase insurance the money is no longer thiers, its part of wages. The benefits and the choices belong to the employee. There is no need for any exemption.
It’s a little more complex than that.
Should insurance companies be able to select what perscription drugs they will or won’t cover? This has come up in several states before this national issue. If you’re going to sell insurance that covers perscription drugs , you have to cover all drugs approved by the FDA rather than be selective. The mandate is aimed at insurance companies not religion.
The next issue is who qualifies for a religious exemption. Churches, absolutly no question. How about church affiliates like hospitals and schools who serve the general public and are staffed with non members? Why should they get an exemption and be allowed to remove a choice from the insurance package?
I think the compelling reason here is two fold. Equality for employees, and drawing clear lines on where religous exemptions are allowed.
Aside from that , my point from the OP is that this seems to be a matter of perception on the churches part. They can’t control how their employees spend thier wages. Aren’t benefits part of wages? They are not directly purchasing birth control anymore than they are when their employees do it with their paychecks. They are offereing their employees a fairly standard insurance package as part of compensation, and the employee makes the choices after that. Their religious conscience can easily be assuaged by simply shifting thier perception to the insurance as wages.
Or , they might take this opportunity to consider how very stupid thier stance is and the fact that their church members ignore it, and alter thier stance as was suggested in the 60s by other Catholics.
I pay taxes. It happens all the time. Iraq being a stellar example.
It’s a matter of perception. I sometimes give money to panhandlers on the street. I’ve wondered if they use the money for drugs or booze , but I can’t control that. I give, they choose. I wouldn’t go buy some panhandler a bottle.
They pay thier employees wages and accpet that they have no say over how that moeny is spent. It doesn’t seem to offend thier relgious conscience for that to be happening. Why are benefits different from wages. They are not directly buying anything they find abbhorent. They are buying an insurance package as part of benefits and the employee is doing the choosing after that.
Imagine working for a Jewish employer who offers as compensation a weekly gift card to a local grocery store. Then you discover he’s made a deal with the store to not let you buy ham and other items his relgion doesn’t allow him to have.
Why? I’m not a member of your faith, the grocery store offers it. Why are you limiting what I can buy?
"Well because of my faith. I’d feel bad knowing my money was pruchasing those things. It’s a matter of religious conscience. "
I buy those things with my paycheck when I cash it. That’s was your money too. How is this any different?
It just is. Now stop talking about it or I’ll file religious persecution charges.
The legislation is aimed at insurance companies, not at religions. The only reason it afffects them is because they want an exemption for thier affiliates that are not churches which are staffed by non members.
The compelling issues are equal treatment for employees and drawing the lines of where religious exemptions apply.
In this situation, not granting them an exemption is saying, no you can’t impose your beliefs on your employees by customizing thier insurance policy to fit your beliefs. You’re a hospital, a school, you’re not a church.
Individuals are not compelled to consume birth control.
That is because the question contains a mistake. “Have you stopped beating your wife—yes or no?”
I think an important thing to note is the purpose of church funded organization. For example I wouldn’t expect the government Catholic church to accept openly gay priest as it would seriously undermine their teachings. But if let say the church funded hospital fires a gay doctor for his sexual orientation I don’t think the church will get any protection. If the institutions primary function is nothing to do with religion then I don’t see why protection should apply.
One could argue the church set up a hospital to heal the sick in accordance with the Bible and as an extra earn some brownie points with the community. What I fail to see is how this axing of exemption interferes with with the primary purpose of church-affiliated organization, or to put it another way how does this contraception insurance stop the church’s aim to heal the sick or help the poor? Surely it’s not the financial cost since many here stated the cost is marginal.
Also since when health insurance “church’s money”, I always thought it was paid through the employer to gain greater bargaining power much like pension fund, not because the employer pays out of his own pocket due to his kindness.
My understanding is that church-affiliated organizations are given very wide latitude on these issues. The SCOTUS just ruled on a case recently:
9-0 opinion in favor of the church’s right to fire, in this case. Had she still been a teacher instead of a minister, maybe that case would have gone the other way, but it’s not at all clear. I strongly suspect a majority of the court would allow churches to fire anyone on any grounds in any capacity if they claim religious reasons. I’ve personally heard of many anecdotes of Catholic school teachers being fired for essentially doctrinal reasons, but most teachers simply accept that the church has the right to do so, and thus don’t file wrongful termination suits. Whether that’s right or not, I’m not prepared to take a position.
(Incidentally, as far as I’m concerned, it speaks incredibly poorly of any church for fire anyone for health reasons, regardless of their rights. I consider most large churches and especially the Catholic Church to be a morally bankrupt cancer on humanity that is thankfully continuing its centuries-long decline into irrelevance. It’s a fluke that they continue to perform secular social services like education and health care, but I suspect that won’t last too long, anyway. But that’s just my opinion.)
I’ve never seen you post anything this ridiculous.
Employees can choose whatever they want with their own money, and they can choose whatever medical services they want with their health insurance coverage.
If the Catholic church is so concerned about what its affiliates’ employees are doing in their downtime, it can refuse to hire employees who use birth control. Problem solved.
Your wages and these kinds of mandatory expenses come out of a common pool. If your employer is able to pay $50,000 to secure your services, every mandatory expense imposed by the government is coming out of your salary. Forcing your employer to buy useless insurance drives your wages down.
What does that have to do with religious freedom?
:rolleyes:
The Church is not concerned with what it’s employees are doing. The Church is concerned with what it is being forced to do. Nowhere is the Church saying employees shouldn’t be able to buy birth control or to buy insurance that provides it. They are saying that the Catholic Church should not have to buy it for them.
They aren’t buying it if the people aren’t using it. They also aren’t buying it if people are using it. The insurance company is buying it.
The Church is mad because it knows people will use it. It can’t stop people through its message, so it wants to stop them from exercising their will via the insurance companies.