U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Wells]

Freedom of religion actually ensures that the employer can make his decision.

it also means I don't have to live by his religion's laws.

Like the grocery store leaving out certain products from their sortiment due to religion

I've already shot down this analogy several times now.

I guess the question of the hour is, why?

Because women shouldn't have their birth control access restricted by another's religious beliefs.

The employer argues that his freedom of religion is compromised because his money is being used to fund a free birth control mandate.

And I'm saying thats tough. If he feels not imposing his religion on others is a violation of his religion he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

You argue that your freedom of religion is compromised. How? By 'restricted' access to birth control? (Are you a devotee of the Church of Progesterone?)

By having my bosses's religion involved in what should only involve my doctor and I.

You get coverage, but have to pay for your birth control out of pocket.

Not an option for many.

You get coverage that includes free birth control, and your boss's soul burns in everlasting hellfire.

Actually the Catholic church doesn't fault members who are forced by law to break their faith so long as they do so unwillingly.

Your boss, in order to comply with with Federal mandates, decides to not offer coverage at all to any of his employees.

No one will be forced to drop their health care coverage because adding birth control costs too much. Its not that expensive for an insurer.

[ptwonline]

Better to stand up and say, "Fuck the first amendment if it doesn't agree with me."

Allowing exemptions based on the employer's religious beliefs does open up a can of worms. Can you imagine a Muslim employer disallowing non-Muslim female employees from seeing male doctors because they found it religiously offensive?

But I don't see how forcing Catholic employers to provide contraception to non-Catholic employees violates their First Amendment rights. They are still free to believe contraception is wrong. They are still free to not use contraceptives themselves for religious reasons. What they would not be allowed to do is to have their own personal religious beliefs trump those of other people.

[Wells]

To borrow from John Stewart, I only believe in the power of humor to treat disease, its against my beliefs to allow health insurance that I'm paying for to cover medicine.

[PetersenIII]

it also means I don't have to live by his religion's laws.

You're right. The solution is find another employer. That's how the job-market works. If you don't like the terms of employment you seek it elsewhere. It's not rocket science, here.

[ptwonline]

You're right. The solution is find another employer. That's how the job-market works. If you don't like the terms of employment you seek it elsewhere. It's not rocket science, here.

Unfortunately, that argument could be used to rationalize almost any sort of discriminatory behavior.

[Wells]

You're right. The solution is find another employer. That's how the job-market works. If you don't like the terms of employment you seek it elsewhere. It's not rocket science, here.

Besides the fact hat employment is so often a Hobbsian choice, no, I shouldn't have to suffer through anything or pick another job.

[cutterx2202]

Unfortunately, that argument could be used to rationalize almost any sort of discriminatory behavior.

*facepalm. The concept of freedom just goes /whoosh for you, doesn't it?

[Wells]

*facepalm. The concept of freedom just goes /whoosh for you, doesn't it?

Why do you think freedom can be absolute? All freedoms come into conflict with each other.

[ishootblanks]

And I'm saying he shouldn't be allowed to use his religion to dictate that.




Again, I have freedom of religion, not freedom from my employer's financial decisions.

then I'm going to petition the government to force all Muslim establishments to provide access to Pork products.. fair's fair..

[TechnoKronic]

I know someone already stated what contraceptions are being used for. I wanted to go into how much it is costing woman and giving them very few options.

For those who are having trouble understanding how the cost of birth control can affect women with/without insurance:
http://health.costhelper.com/birth-control-pills.html

For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.
Birth control pills are available only with a prescription; getting one requires visiting a doctor for a pelvic exam and sexually transmitted disease tests. This can cost $35 to $200, or a copay of $10 to $30 for patients covered by health insurance.

This shows the effectiveness of the different birth control methods (remember, not all pills work for every woman):
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/hea...hart-22710.htm


This is simply reiterating how high the cost of contraceptions are, but goes into greater detail through the pdf link:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu.../BC_costs.html

There are also plenty of sites women search to help them acquire cheaper birth control(one for example):
http://www.estronaut.com/a/cost_of_pill.htm

as many have said, and contunously try to get others to understand, birth control isnt just to prevent pregnancies.. if that were the only case, why would lesbians need to use it? most do not realize the amount of pain most women go through during their cycles, and just for the boys who do not know how a woman's period works:
http://www.medicinenet.com/menstrual_cramps/page2.htm

Each month, the inner lining of the uterus (the endometrium) normally builds up in preparation for a possible pregnancy. After ovulation, if the egg is not fertilized by a sperm, no pregnancy will result and the current lining of the uterus is no longer needed. The woman's estrogen and progesterone hormone levels decline, and the lining of the uterus becomes swollen and is eventually shed as the menstrual flow and is replaced by a new lining in the next monthly cycle.
Menstrual cramps are caused by the uterine contractions that occur in response to prostaglandins and other chemicals. The cramping sensation is intensified when clots or pieces of bloody tissue from the lining of the uterus pass through the cervix, especially if a woman's cervical canal is narrow.
a woman's menstrual cramps are too severe to be managed by these strategies, her doctor might prescribe low doses of birth control pills (oral contraceptives) containing estrogen and progestin in a regular or extended cycle. This type of approach can prevent ovulation (the monthly release of an egg) and reduce the production of prostaglandins which, in turn, reduces the severity of cramping and causes a light menstrual flow.

[ishootblanks]

look everyone.. for the last 240 years.. religious institutions have not provided birth control.. and the world has not come to an end..

why does it need to change.. RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!?

[bergmann620]

And I'm saying thats tough. If he feels not imposing his religion on others is a violation of his religion he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

And he's saying thats tough. You guys are both trying to stand on the same leg. If you saw his off, you topple over, too. If his freedom OF religion counts for nothing, why does your freedom FROM religion count for anything?

By having my bosses's religion involved in what should only involve my doctor and I.

It still only involves you and your doctor. I don't know where you're getting this notion that your doctor's opinion is going to be compromised. In my experience, doctors are amazing at writing prescriptions that insurance won't cover.

No one will be forced to drop their health care coverage because adding birth control costs too much. Its not that expensive for an insurer.

No, people will drop their employees coverage because it is less morally repugnant to them. Also, it will likely be cheaper to pay the fine than to put in the 'employers' share'. Pretty sure the fine is $2000 per employee... My boss puts in almost $4,000 per employee to keep our costs down.

@ptw:

Not sure how big a deal it is in Catholicism, but according to the Bible, it's something like, "If you lead your brother into sin, you are guilty of the same sin yourself." So, if you, say, pay for your employees' sin of using birth control, you are guilty of the same sin.

[Wells]

then I'm going to petition the government to force all Muslim establishments to provide access to Pork products.. fair's fair..

This thread is suffering under the weight of a million terrible analogies.

look everyone.. for the last 240 years.. religious institutions have not provided birth control.. and the world has not come to an end..

This is what is known as an appeal to tradition and is fallacious.

---------- Post added 2012-03-06 at 02:02 AM ----------

And he's saying thats tough. You guys are both trying to stand on the same leg. If you saw his off, you topple over, too. If his freedom OF religion counts for nothing, why does your freedom FROM religion count for anything?

My employer has no right to be involved in the decisions my doctor and I make, regardless of whether his god says he needs to be or not.

Not sure how big a deal it is in Catholicism, but according to the Bible, it's something like, "If you lead your brother into sin, you are guilty of the same sin yourself." So, if you, say, pay for your employees' sin of using birth control, you are guilty of the same sin.

Catholicism does not place blame on people who are forced to sin so long as you do not do so willingly.

[bergmann620]

Birth control pills are available only with a prescription; getting one requires visiting a doctor for a pelvic exam and sexually transmitted disease tests. This can cost $35 to $200, or a copay of $10 to $30 for patients covered by health insurance.

This would still be covered by insurance; It is the pills themselves that wouldn't be covered.

[ptwonline]

*facepalm. The concept of freedom just goes /whoosh for you, doesn't it?

There are two parties involved. Sometimes one party invoking their freedom infringes on the freedom of the other. When it does, exercising that first freedom usually gets restricted to some degree.

And the argument I responded to used to indeed get made. For example, it used to be used as a rationalization for racist/segregation policies. Don't like the rules in one place? You were "free" to go somewhere else. But now we (most of us anyway) recognize that available alternative choices are no excuse for discrimination to begin with, nor do they make things fair.

[ishootblanks]

This thread is suffering under the weight of a million terrible analogies.




This is what is known as an appeal to tradition and is fallacious.

---------- Post added 2012-03-06 at 02:02 AM ----------



My employer has no right to be involved in the decisions my doctor and I make, regardless of whether his god says he needs to be or not.




Catholicism does not place blame on people who are forced to sin so long as you do not do so willingly.

it's not terrible.. it's an equivalent analogy.. people don't need contraception.. they choose it.. just like people don't need pork to survive.. they choose to eat it..

and there is nothing fallacious about the very simple fact that most religious institution owned insurance plans don't provide coverage for contraception..

your employer has no right to be involved in the decisions you and your doctor make.. your employer has the right to decide what they pay for..

---------- Post added 2012-03-06 at 02:10 AM ----------

There are two parties involved. Sometimes one party invoking their freedom infringes on the freedom of the other. When it does, exercising that first freedom usually gets restricted to some degree.

And the argument I responded to used to indeed get made. For example, it used to be used as a rationalization for racist/segregation policies. Don't like the rules in one place? You were "free" to go somewhere else. But now we (most of us anyway) recognize that available alternative choices are no excuse for discrimination to begin with, nor do they make things fair.

in this case the infringement of freedom is only on the side of government..

it would be like your parents telling you to buy me a pack of condoms because i don't have enough money to buy them myself..

the correct response should be #$%^ that! if you can't afford rubbers you shouldn't be humping anyway

[TechnoKronic]

This would still be covered by insurance; It is the pills themselves that wouldn't be covered.

I feel the same way about viagra, however you dont see woman picketing to have it taken off of your insurance.

This is mainly meant for woman who spend more money through their insurance trying to cover birth control. You do not seem to realize all this adds up at the woman's expense. you also seem to have ignored the fact that you would be alienating millions of women who do not use birth control for contraception purposes.

[Wells]

it's not terrible.. it's an equivalent analogy..

No its not. There's no such thing as meat insurance

people don't need contraception.. they choose it..

Again, just flat wrong. how many times do we have to explain what hormonal birth control is used for? But I guess pain killers shouldn't be covered either, you don't need them.

and there is nothing fallacious about the very simple fact that most religious institution owned insurance plans don't provide coverage for contraception..

What's fallacious is you used that as a justification to continue the practice.

your employer has no right to be involved in the decisions you and your doctor make.. your employer has the right to decide what they pay for..

And we're saying you can't restrict what an employee does with their health insurance based on your own moral beliefs. To do so is to give the employer even partial control over their employee's medical decisions.

[ptwonline]

your employer has the right to decide what they pay for..

This is fine for most things because for there isn't a problem: if it's a health issue, they cover it. But for one particular class of item they refuse.

The reason it's an issue in the first place is, IMO, the traditionally misogynistic attitudes of the Catholic Church along with a poor understanding particularly amongst men of the actual significance of birth control in women's lives. Hence the outrage about having all-male panels discussing and deciding on these sorts of issues. Effective and available birth control is one of the greatest social changes in human history, and for women in general it is a massive improvement in their lives and their personal opportunities.

[bergmann620]

My employer has no right to be involved in the decisions my doctor and I make, regardless of whether his god says he needs to be or not.

You keep saying this, and yet the scenario you paint is patently false. You are using the same arguments Republicans are making against socialized medicine, just subbing God for Government. I can't afford my brother's Advair, and yet that has never stopped his doctor from prescribing it.

In case you're not getting the picture, this isn't an argument you can win. Your boss, based on what his god tells him, is going to cancel your policy, and spend his savings on fetus pictures for the next anti-abortion rally.

How is that going to affect the decisions that you and the doctor you can't afford to see anymore make?

Catholicism does not place blame on people who are forced to sin so long as you do not do so willingly.

Well, at least we've established that our government can force citizens to sin for others' convenience. Sounds like a nice place to live.

The REALLY comical thing is, if I wanted to buy coverage for, say, 6 random struggling single moms and their children, with the caveat that that coverage cannot include BC, I would have a line miles long waiting to sign up. And Wells would prefer that I pocket that money. Wait- because I am godless, my random condition is just fine. It would only be no good if my religion informed my decision.

Cirque du Soleil wouldn't be able to keep up with these logical gymnastics.