Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

fucktoyprincess -> Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 1:23:16 PM)

Taking the conservative stance (of Limbaugh, Santorum and others) on contraception to its logical conclusion means that we should not provide health care benefits to anyone for anything that is sexually related or that could be construed to promote sexual activity.

So, for example, while an obvious one would be Viagra (currently covered), let's think about some not so obvious ones.

How about no coverage for HIV+/AIDs patients unless they can prove that their condition is due to a blood transfusion or tainted needle use and not due to sexual activity.

How about no coverage for cervical cancer, a high proportion of which are related to HPV, a sexually transmitted disease, again with burden of proof on the patient. There are a variety of other cancers that strike both men and women in a variety of areas that are also related to stds, so again none of those cancers would be covered (these include things like prostate and throat cancer).

How about no coverage for antibiotics for the myriad of treatable stds (chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea etc.), and no coverage for any related issues (blindness, etc.)

How about no coverage for the prenatal care because pregnancy is a condition directly related to sex unless the person can prove that they had sex within a religious marriage and that the specific sex act that they had was directly with the intent of having children (therefore NO coverage if sex was had outside of the ovulation period during the month as such sex would be deemed recreational sex and not in furtherance of procreation). Again burden of the entire proof on the couple involved.

By the same logic, no coverage for the cost of labor using the same burden of proof.

By the same logic, no coverage for pediatric care unless the child can prove they were conceived in a religious marriage by people during an act that was directly with the intent of having children - i.e. during ovulation.

By the same logic, no coverage for adult health care unless the adult can prove they were conceived in a religious marriage by people during an act that was directly with the intent of having children - i.e. during ovulation.

No Medicare for seniors unless they can prove they were conceived in a religious marriage by people during an act that was directly with the intent of having children - i.e. during ovulation.

So what's left. Hmmmmm. Nothing.

Seems like the conservatives can solve the health care public cost issue in one fell swoop by just eliminating anything to do with sex. I don't know how Limbaugh and Santorum ended up on the planet (virgin birth???), but I think the rest of us here are a result of SEX. I can't think of a single medical cost to a human being that is NOT ultimately tied to SEX.



Owner59 -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 1:24:45 PM)

"Healthcare Funding Sex"


We should damm hope so!



Moonhead -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 1:28:40 PM)

The terrible thing is there's at least a few posters on here who'd be up for all of that having its funding removed.



Owner59 -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 1:39:03 PM)

There`s a very ugly, bigoted and cruel line of thought that`s come out from the extremists, that says supplying food-aid and medicines for Palestinian children......is indirect support of terrorists.....

Their extremism would and has allowed children to suffer and perish ........why would the be concerned about full grown woman?



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 1:48:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The terrible thing is there's at least a few posters on here who'd be up for all of that having its funding removed.


The real issue is there is no way to actually prove some of the things that I list. For example, proving a cancer came from one thing and not another? Our understanding of cancer is not that sophisticated.

Married people can end up with HIV due to cheating spouses - it absolutely happens. Do the religious right really want to be on the side of not protecting a married person who never cheated, but ended up with HIV because of their cheating spouse? But again, how to prove that the "victim" did not cheat themselves? And are they really going to put someone in that position?

Look, obviously, I'm just trying to make a point by taking things to their absurd conclusion. I am trying to say there would be NO healthcare covered by employer insurance - and very few Americans would ever support such an idea.

For example, many people have children today because they know a certain amount of healthcare for that child will be covered by their employer healthcare. In other words, covering the cost of a live birth means you are encouraging sex. By that token no birth should be covered.

And every gynecologist will tell you that a couple that is having trouble conceiving should not restrict sex to only the ovulation window - because it adds too much stress - and stress is a huge factor in fertility. Most gynecologists would advise a couple to have sex regularly over the course of the month including the ovulation period. So, again, the ridiculous scenario that I present would actually be counter to procreative activity and thus counter to most religious teaching. I don't know any religion that restricts sex to the ovulation period. So no religion would actually support what I list above - certainly the Catholic church would not.

So this hang up on sex is just a tad silly - we are all here because of sex.





fucktoyprincess -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 1:53:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

why would the be concerned about full grown woman?



Uh, the way I've framed things above would deny healthcare coverage to everyone, male or female. i.e., I'm suggesting that if the conservatives want to tie coverage to sex, then everyone one of us is tied to sex, so therefore - no coverage for anyone, for anything. I can assure you that most Americans would NOT support this view of what should be covered.

some facts

40% of births are out of wedlock

75% of women and MEN will have HPV at least once in their lifetime

How many American voters do you think would really support no coverage for these things?



Owner59 -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 2:45:46 PM)

Good points...this is just important to men.


I`m in favor of not making health-care and private family/sex/lifestyle issues......political footballs......



erieangel -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 5:00:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Good points...this is just important to men.


I`m in favor of not making health-care and private family/sex/lifestyle issues......political footballs......



Amen!! Who I sleep with (or don't sleep with for that matter) is nobody's business except my own.






DownrightEvil -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 5:04:51 PM)

Good evening folks,

While I suspect that most people have made up their minds, and nothing anybody says will sway them, let's break this down a bit. First, Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, not a politician. Is he of a conservative bent? Sure. But again, he's an entertainer. Using his words, opinions and acts as somehow the Republican platform is just silly. Unless of course we want to start attributing every progressive/liberal entertainer's words and actions to Democrats as a whole. (Michael Moore anybody? The various 9/11 truthers?)

Now, that being said, if you want to consider the start of this whole issue to have been about sex, we have an argument that quickly devolves into reductio ad absurdum... which we've done a fine job of illustrating in this thread. What really started things rolling however is a federal government mandate for all employers to provide contraception as part of their healthcare plans. That, my friends, is a different topic. While most employers either already do (or would have no problem providing such under a mandate), there exits a large minority of employers for which doing so would directly violate their moral and ethical codes.

Whether or not the federal government should be able to force employers to undertake actions that are in direct conflict with their moral and ethical codes is an interesting and worthwhile discussion. In some cases, the answer would appear to be an obvious "yes". In others, not so much. Should a physician have a federally mandated legal responsibility (not an option, but a requirement) to euthanize a patient that expresses a wish to die? Should it be possible for the federal government to force an employer to provide employees with guns? The point is, and the argument/discussion should be about, at what point does the government overstep its authority in mandating the behavior of companies and individuals.



DarkSteven -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 5:24:46 PM)

Hi, DownrightEvil. Welcome to the collarchat forums.

While you're technically correct that Limbaugh is merely an entertainer, the fact is that the legit GOP pols didn't distance themselves from his comments. They kinda acknowledged that the wording was a mite off, which is bullshit - it was a personal attack and it wasn't just the phrasing.

Second, the mandate would exempt employers such as a church or synagogue where the management and the employees shared the same religion. It applies only where the management and those covered are different religions. An example would be a Catholic-run college where some of the employees and the students were not Catholic. The mandate would prevent the managers from imposing their religion upon their employees.



dcnovice -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 5:27:58 PM)

DownrightEvil ---

Welcome to the CM forums and thanks for a great first post! I hope we'll hear more from you.

I take your point that Rush is an entertainer, but I'm not sure that's all he is. He did, after all, give the keynote speech at CPAC a few years ago, and George Will, hardly a lefty, said on ABC News that “Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

I agree that forcing employers to violate their moral codes is a tricky business--which is why, I believe, the administration's new mandates include an exemption for churches. It's a bit murkier, though, when a church operates an ancillary institution (say a university or a hospital) that employs thousands of people, many of whom may not be adherents to that faith. Shouldn't those employees' religious freedom factor into the equation too?

Again, welcome to the forums!

Cheers,

DC



searching4mysir -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 5:56:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Hi, DownrightEvil. Welcome to the collarchat forums.

While you're technically correct that Limbaugh is merely an entertainer, the fact is that the legit GOP pols didn't distance themselves from his comments. They kinda acknowledged that the wording was a mite off, which is bullshit - it was a personal attack and it wasn't just the phrasing.

Second, the mandate would exempt employers such as a church or synagogue where the management and the employees shared the same religion. It applies only where the management and those covered are different religions. An example would be a Catholic-run college where some of the employees and the students were not Catholic. The mandate would prevent the managers from imposing their religion upon their employees.


In the case of EWTN, they self-insure. The media company's mission is to bring the mission of the Catholic Church to the world. They hire many non-Catholics. They work there KNOWING what the mission is. Why should EWTN violate the morals and doctrines of the faith that they promote? These Catholic employers are not saying that contraceptives should not be available, only that they should not be forced to violate the doctrines of their faith to pay for them.

As an employee, when I am presented with a job offer from a company that doesn't cover what I consider to be important to me, I have several options: I can pay out-of-pocket, I can purchase a rider to the insurance policies that are offered to me, or I can choose not to work there. No one is forced to go to or work at Georgetown University. They know it is a Catholic college when they apply. They aren't exactly hiding it. There is no bait-and-switch going on here. If you don't like what they offer, don't go there. It really is that simple.



SternSkipper -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 5:58:50 PM)

quote:

First, Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, not a politician. Is he of a conservative bent? Sure. But again, he's an entertainer. Using his words, opinions and acts as somehow the Republican platform is just silly. Unless of course we want to start attributing every progressive/liberal entertainer's words and actions to Democrats as a whole. (Michael Moore anybody? The various 9/11 truthers?)



Brilliant, you have successfully figured out ONE of Rush Limbaugh's functions in our society. Now go read up on "Operation Chaos" and his very public fight for control of the party with Michael Steele and Rush.
The blanks will fill in.



searching4mysir -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 5:59:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

DownrightEvil ---

Welcome to the CM forums and thanks for a great first post! I hope we'll hear more from you.

I take your point that Rush is an entertainer, but I'm not sure that's all he is. He did, after all, give the keynote speech at CPAC a few years ago, and George Will, hardly a lefty, said on ABC News that “Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

I agree that forcing employers to violate their moral codes is a tricky business--which is why, I believe, the administration's new mandates include an exemption for churches. It's a bit murkier, though, when a church operates an ancillary institution (say a university or a hospital) that employs thousands of people, many of whom may not be adherents to that faith. Shouldn't those employees' religious freedom factor into the equation too?

Again, welcome to the forums!

Cheers,

DC


The employer is not preventing them from obtaining contraceptives, they are merely refusing to pay for them.



adommespet -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 6:01:08 PM)

I think one point that fails to get mentioned is that health insurance is a benefit that is part of compensation an employer provides to an employee. This compensation is in lieu of salary. It would be my opinion that even though the employer is providing the coverage the coverage is owned by the employee. As a result it should be the employees decision whether or not they should utilize the coverage to fund birth control. I can remember years back that a company i worked for allowed me to opt out of pregnancy benefits for a reduced premium. My point is it should be left up to the individual in how they use their benefits.



erieangel -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 6:06:05 PM)

I work for an organization that was started by a group of Jewish women 50 years ago. Would that mean when it comes to health care, Jewish dogma would be followed.

For the record, I have excellent health insurance issued by Highmark. I've even talked to the insurance company about weight loss surgery, something they determine on a case-by-case basis, but have moved no further due to the co-payments to see the doctor and the (new) deductible I am carrying.




dcnovice -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 6:07:07 PM)

quote:

Why should EWTN violate the morals and doctrines of the faith that they promote?


Does EWTN (or Georgetown or Notre Dame) have the right to fire employees who divorce and remarry? That, after all, is strictly against the Catholic moral code.



DownrightEvil -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 6:07:39 PM)

DarkSteven and dcnovice,

Thank you for the welcome. Now we can get down to brass tacks. [;)] Yes, Limbaugh made it into a personal attack. In my book, that's just wrong. I'm certainly not going to condone it. Unfortunately it is the stock in trade for what passes for political "entertainment" in today's world. (re: Bill Mahr, Ed Shultz, Keith Olberman, etc..) It should be condemned.

Now a couple of clarifications based on my understanding. The *current* state of the mandate has no legal wiggle-room for employers affiliated with religious institutions. The Obama administrations has promised to change that and insert an exemption, but as it currently stands and should the administration not act, the mandate will go into effect as is.

Next, failure of a company to subsidize an action of an employee is not the same as forcing the company's value structure or religion on an employee. At no point has a company I ever worked for purchased from it's own corporate funds, a single flogger, singletail or any other BDSM equipment for me. That does not mean that they have unfairly imposed their moral beliefs on me. It simply means that the business had decided, rightly or wrongly, that it was not appropriate for them to do so.

And finally, the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom only extends to government action. (Just as the constitutional right to freedom of speech only prohibits the government from limiting speech.) I, as an individual or employer, have no constitutional duty to respect the religious beliefs of others. Moreover, if I as an employer, provide health insurance, I am under no obligation to insure that it does not conflict with a given employee's religious beliefs. To take an absurd example, I don't have to insure that the healthcare plan covers exorcisms for evangelical Christians who might believe that a given illness is caused by demonic possession.

In short, I believe the question really boils down to this: If I have put my capital on the line to start or run a business and am providing a benefit that I am partially or wholly paying for out of company funds, to what extent should the government be able to dictate what that money is spent on?




DesFIP -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 6:10:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

I work for an organization that was started by a group of Jewish women 50 years ago. Would that mean when it comes to health care, Jewish dogma would be followed.



Yes if they only use their own monies to pay for things. Once you accept government funding, you agree to play by the government's rules. So there goes Medicare, state funds, not for profit status etc. Since it's axiomatic that no religious organization can afford to pay for everything themselves, they immediately cede to the government the right to make the rules in exchange for government funding.



DownrightEvil -> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) (3/4/2012 6:24:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Why should EWTN violate the morals and doctrines of the faith that they promote?


Does EWTN (or Georgetown or Notre Dame) have the right to fire employees who divorce and remarry? That, after all, is strictly against the Catholic moral code.


dcnovice,

The honest truth is that in most places, the answer is simply "yes, they do", at least in theory. Most jurisdictions are "at-will" meaning that an employee can leave a job at any time and for any reason and an employer can fire an employee at any time and for any reason. (Note that I said "in theory".) In practice there are many issues that will land the employer in court defending against a wrongful termination suit.

But let me turn the question on its head if I may. Why shouldn't an employer be able to fire an employee for what he/she/it considers to be against the companies moral code? Let me clarify. The employer/employee relationship is symbiotic. The employer receives some kind of work product from the employee that it can sell for a profit. The employee receives payment for producing that work product. Both benefit. If the employee can terminate that relationship because he or she finds the employer to be behaving in a manner that goes against his or her moral beliefs, why shouldn't an employer be able to do the same?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125