Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!)


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/4/2012 6:31:53 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
If you would care to read back on this forum page and the previous 2-3 pages of topics on this particular forum, you will see that all this and more have been well covered already. All questions answered! Including the degree to which Limbaugh is "merely an entertainer." The first amendment, whether a mandate of nature (procreation) can be considered as a mere 'recreation' or fetish, etc., brass tacks, sows' ears, the whole nine yards. It's all there.



< Message edited by Edwynn -- 3/4/2012 6:35:25 PM >

(in reply to DownrightEvil)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/4/2012 6:39:50 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline 		Let me just add this.

For those who feel an employer should not be compelled to cover things that violate their moral code organizationally, then why exactly, are any of the things that I mention above in the original post, currently covered by employer-issued insurance.

For example, a woman who works for a Catholic organization, if she were to get divorced while pregnant would still have her pre-natal care and labor covered. Her child's pediatric care would still be covered. Why doesn't the Catholic church come out against ALL of the things I've outlined above? Why are they allowed to PICK and CHOOSE which aspect of their morality they will impose on NOT their FOLLOWERS, but their EMPLOYEES.

My point is why isolate this ONE issue (contraception) as if it is the ONLY thing that violates their moral code? Why do Catholic institutions cover prostate cancer? Or antibiotics for stds? Or HIV? So it begs the question of why JUST contraception.

And if people think that this is just the beginning of what the Catholic institutions will try to stop paying for - then it is all the more argument to not allow this exception - because then it leads logically to ALL of the exceptions that I outline in my original post. If you let them win on contraception, why would they not be allowed to win on everything else? There is a very dangerous slippery slope here. And I'm not even sure the Catholic institutions involved here understand the full scope of what they are saying. In fact, I'm quite sure they don't.


< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 3/4/2012 6:45:21 PM >

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/4/2012 6:47:09 PM   
searching4mysir


Posts: 2757
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
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.


They aren't paying for them to do that. They aren't paying the legal bills directly (in the case of EWTN who self-insures).

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/4/2012 6:55:02 PM   
searching4mysir


Posts: 2757
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
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.


Is the mission of the organization to promote Judaism? Or did it just happen to be started by Jewish women?

Georgetown is run by Jesuits, a religious order of the Catholic Church. When I worked for Hadassah (a Jewish non-profit), I had ALL the Jewish holidays off (as well as every Friday the office closed at 3pm). I would have fully expected their benefits not to contradict the doctrines within Judaism. It would have been extremely hypocritical of me to want the benefits of all those holidays and reduced hours on Fridays and not be willing to put up with things I see as a negative in regards to the doctrines. I expected to eat kosher-style in the office (for example). I wouldn't have dreamed of bringing a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich from the deli to my desk. If I wasn't willing to do those things then I wouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/4/2012 7:01:34 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Let me just add this.

For those who feel an employer should not be compelled to cover things that violate their moral code organizationally, then why exactly, are any of the things that I mention above in the original post, currently covered by employer-issued insurance.

For example, a woman who works for a Catholic organization, if she were to get divorced while pregnant would still have her pre-natal care and labor covered. Her child's pediatric care would still be covered. Why doesn't the Catholic church come out against ALL of the things I've outlined above? Why are they allowed to PICK and CHOOSE which aspect of their morality they will impose on NOT their FOLLOWERS, but their EMPLOYEES.

My point is why isolate this ONE issue (contraception) as if it is the ONLY thing that violates their moral code? Why do Catholic institutions cover prostate cancer? Or antibiotics for stds? Or HIV? So it begs the question of why JUST contraception.

And if people think that this is just the beginning of what the Catholic institutions will try to stop paying for - then it is all the more argument to not allow this exception - because then it leads logically to ALL of the exceptions that I outline in my original post. If you let them win on contraception, why would they not be allowed to win on everything else? There is a very dangerous slippery slope here. And I'm not even sure the Catholic institutions involved here understand the full scope of what they are saying. In fact, I'm quite sure they don't.



I actually didn't read any of the above, so I can't actually say that I actually give a shit but....

I fucking love your screen name.

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/4/2012 7:09:28 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

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.




Correct. And most Catholic hospitals accept medicare/medicaid payments; many students (I was one) of Catholic colleges and universities are able to attend those colleges and universities because of government grants and guaranteed student loans--and that money ends up being paid to the school. But the argument, as it is being phrased, is not taking into consideration that these places of business are receiving government funds and therefore are exempt from any exemption that may be made.



(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/4/2012 7:27:17 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir


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.


Is the mission of the organization to promote Judaism? Or did it just happen to be started by Jewish women?

Georgetown is run by Jesuits, a religious order of the Catholic Church. When I worked for Hadassah (a Jewish non-profit), I had ALL the Jewish holidays off (as well as every Friday the office closed at 3pm). I would have fully expected their benefits not to contradict the doctrines within Judaism. It would have been extremely hypocritical of me to want the benefits of all those holidays and reduced hours on Fridays and not be willing to put up with things I see as a negative in regards to the doctrines. I expected to eat kosher-style in the office (for example). I wouldn't have dreamed of bringing a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich from the deli to my desk. If I wasn't willing to do those things then I wouldn't have taken the job in the first place.


Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses (both established religions) do not believe in medical intervention for many, if not all, conditions. They teach that certain medical procedures are not allowed, or recommend that members generally reject medical attention in favor of prayer. Christian Scientists, for example, believe that sickness and disease are a sign of moral failing. They do not believe "science" can cure moral failing. Only prayer can.

Not every journalist and employee who works for the Christian Science Monitor is of Christian Science faith. And the Christian Science Monitor actually offers a standard health package to ALL employees of whatever faith even though it contradicts their moral teachings. A standard package means they are not picking and choosing what the package covers based on their own faith (because really, they wouldn't offer medical insurance at all if they went by their faith).

So there are religious organizations out there who employ people of various backgrounds who do not share your perspective.

Again, the whole contraception controversy begs the question of why the Catholic Church is upset about this one narrow issue? It is not the only standard health care coverage that violates a Catholic moral teaching.


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to searching4mysir)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/4/2012 7:30:32 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

I actually didn't read any of the above, so I can't actually say that I actually give a shit but....

I fucking love your screen name.


Well you really should read my post. Good stuff there.

And thank you. I like my screen name, too.


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/4/2012 7:49:03 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:



I actually didn't read any of the above, so I can't actually say that I actually give a shit but....

I fucking love your screen name.


And to think ... Limbaugh's referring to women as "sluts"?

Rush obviously hasn't met you.

_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/4/2012 8:47:23 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Georgetown is run by Jesuits, a religious order of the Catholic Church.


Georgetown is my alma mater, so I can't resist sharing a bit of history.

On May 5, 1891, a Washington gentleman named Ethelbert Carroll Morgan died, leaving a substantial sum to Georgetown. The bequest hit a snag however, due to a local law requiring that bequests to "sectarian" institutions be made more than a month before the person's death. This was to prevent preachers from preying on the emotions of the dying to score bequests.

Morgan's family challenged the will in court. With money at stake, Georgetown argued that it was not a "sectarian" institution. The litigation went all the way to the Supreme Court: Speer v. Colbert, 200 U.S. 130 (1906). The Court ruled that Georgetown was indeed not "sectarian," and the university got its money.

Given that background, it's intriguing that--again, with money at stake--the university now seems to be arguing that it is sectarian and deserves a religion-based waiver from rules that bind other employers.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to searching4mysir)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/4/2012 9:12:50 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Given that background, it's intriguing that--again, with money at stake--the university now seems to be arguing that it is sectarian and deserves a religion-based waiver from rules that bind other employers.



THANKS! I went through a similar suit along with a few hundred other staffers at a Benedictine school back in the early 80s, it was over various benefits, but because those deemed 'most injured were the minimum wage employees to whom they didn't wish to pay minimum wage.
Similar cases occurred elsewhere and one of those I think went up first.
However, I was trying to remember the old case that was cited where a church based institution had argued successfully that it was non-sectarian. I'll bet that was the one.

Thanks for the background!


_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/5/2012 9:11:39 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


If you would care to read back on this forum page and the previous 2-3 pages of topics on this particular forum, you will see that all this and more have been well covered already. All questions answered! Including the degree to which Limbaugh is "merely an entertainer." The first amendment, whether a mandate of nature (procreation) can be considered as a mere 'recreation' or fetish, etc., brass tacks, sows' ears, the whole nine yards. It's all there.



No where in those threads though did I see a discussion of the slippery slope issue.

If you grant the Catholic institutions the contraception carve-out what stops them from demanding other coverage limitations to bring insurance in line with all of Catholic morality?

And then what stops other religions, including ones like Christian Science, from asking for the same protections?

Let us also consider that what constitutes a religion in America is basically anything - the First Amendment guarantees that. So anyone can come along and claim that for the purposes of their "religion" they don't need to cover this, that or the other thing.

If we consider ourselves to be a secular nation that supports the true notion of religious freedom, then we can't start down this slippery slope. Otherwise, exceptions will have to be carved out for everyone - and soon, no one will have any decent health coverage anymore. I don't see how this helps any of us in the long run.

Most of the discussion on the boards that I've seen have been limited to contraception and the Catholic church and not imposing their restriction of others, or not "forcing" the Church to do something it doesn't want to do. Nowhere have I seen a discussion for the ultimate impact on insurance if we start allowing religious exemptions across the board. Forgive me if I missed it.

If the Catholic Church is allowed to cite exemptions on moral grounds then it can cite exemptions for any moral issue that it has issue with. In addition, every other religion can also cite moral reasons for exemption any or all medical care coverage. This would also include any close run business where the majority of the shareholders are from a particular religious background. By the same argument, they should then be allowed to deny health care coverage for things that run counter to their moral beliefs. Is this really what people want? This is not just about the Catholic church and contraception.



< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 3/5/2012 9:14:58 AM >

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/5/2012 1:47:58 PM   
SoftBonds


Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline 		Simple solution:
No religious organization shall be required to pay their own money for coverage of medical care that they have a moral objection to. However...
Any religious organization which receives federal, state, or other governmental funding shall devote 100% of such taxpayer funds to the items they object to, until either all such funding is exhausted or all such coverage is paid for.
So the Catholic Church won't pay a dime for contraception, but they will provide it for their employees using the millions and millions (billions?) of dollars they get from the taxpayers...
Moral quandary solved?

_____________________________

Elite Thread Hijacker!
Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply)

The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) - 3/6/2012 5:19:22 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

Given that background, it's intriguing that--again, with money at stake--the university now seems to be arguing that it is sectarian and deserves a religion-based waiver from rules that bind other employers.


I believe Belmont Abbey College did the same flip flop. I was unable to find the EEOC ruling yesterday, but here's some background:

Belmont Abbey College discriminated, retaliated against faculty, say EEOC findings

August 5, 2009

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that Belmont Abbey College discriminated against women and retaliated against faculty members who filed a charge of employment discrimination, according to EEOC documents.

An EEOC determination letter states that the college discriminated based on gender by denying contraceptive benefits in the college’s health coverage plan, according to an EEOC determination.

Contraception, abortion and voluntary sterilization came off Belmont Abbey College’s faculty health care policy in December 2007 after a faculty member discovered that coverage, according to an e-mail Belmont Abbey College President Bill Thierfelder sent to school staff, students, alumni and friends of the college.

“By denying prescription contraception drugs, Respondent (the college) is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives,” wrote Reuben Daniels Jr., the EEOC Charlotte District Office Director in the determination. “By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women.”

Read more: http://www.gastongazette.com/articles/college-36646-discriminated-eeoc.html#ixzz1oLIeubp0

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 34
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Healthcare Funding Sex (!) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.281