rpm wrote:The better scenario, which would take some time to implement, would be to sever the connection between health insurance and employment: do not permit employers to deduct for health care costs, but allow employees to deduct the cost of insurance. (the opposite of the current situation) We're in this mess because the government (thank you FDR and liberal Democrats) used health insurance as a way around wage controls during WWII.

I generally agree, but my heritage being what it is I also have a strong baseline for universal healthcare. So while I agree I'd love to see it divorced from employment I'd like to see some sort of efficient universal system. Let's not go into what that would or would not entail

MarkDaSpark wrote:


I just laughed at this one ... hits both candidates.


Okay, now for some bacon!!!

Nice. I also want bacon.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Not at all. Salary and bonuses are taxed, and you pay Social Security on them. Benefits are not taxed to you at all.

And most workplaces don't give you those benefits until you've worked that a set amount of time. Sometimes 3 months, sometimes 6 months, sometimes a year. So if you've "earned" those benefits, why is there a delay in getting them?

Because they are benefits, not compensation!!

Taxation status is not what determines whether something is "compensation". When you are evaluating job offers, do you simply look at the "guaranteed salary" portion of the offer for each and decide based on that? Or do you look at salary + bonus + value of health/other insurance + employer 401k contributions + equity/stock options + other tangible aspects of working somewhere (e.g. Google provides food for all employees essentially 24/7)? If you pick the former then I'll happily outbid your highest other offer by $1000/year and offer only base salary.

klezman wrote:Taxation status is not what determines whether something is "compensation". When you are evaluating job offers, do you simply look at the "guaranteed salary" portion of the offer for each and decide based on that? Or do you look at salary + bonus + value of health/other insurance + employer 401k contributions + equity/stock options + other tangible aspects of working somewhere (e.g. Google provides food for all employees essentially 24/7)? If you pick the former then I'll happily outbid your highest other offer by $1000/year and offer only base salary.

This was what I was getting at. If taxation is what we're basing "compensation" on, then it's going to get messy since some things are taxed at different rates. And then there's the whole, "I make $50k a year but I get $2 million in 'bonuses.'"

I'm fine with it becoming a completely free market for health insurance. I also think that chem's point that the employee generally (always?) pays a portion of their own insurance. In that case, the employer is dictating what the employee is spending his/her money on.

Also, I find the entire argument interesting. A Catholic hospital administrator, or a Jehovah's Witness employer, or whatever, isn't taking birth control or getting an abortion or a blood transfusion so I'm a bit confused (not being religious myself) how it's any of their business if I want to get all three in one day. Which I guess brings us back around to "my freedom of religion, not yours."

MarkDaSpark wrote:No, that males are expected to pay child support. No say, no pay.

I agree that on the surface your no say/no pay has some merit but on deeper inspection I disagree. Intentionally or not (and I don't believe in your case it is intentional) this argument reduces the act of having a child, wanted or not, to some kind of financial transaction. As we fathers know full well, having a child is much more than paying for diapers and college, there are substantial rewards. In short, to me, if you are part of the conception of a child then you have a MORAL and financial obligation to deal with the circumstances come what may. If an unintentional pregnancy occurs it is up to both parties to bear the consequences. If the female desires to give birth to the child and the male disagrees, as the female is bearing the brunt and risk of the pregnancy (or termination) as well as raising the child in the absence of the father than so be it. The father still needs to pay. Certainly the father will have all of the legal rights owed a noncustodial parent should he chose not to be with the woman, so he is getting some benefit from his financial obligation if he desires. If the father doesn't want to have any part in his offspring's life that doesn't relieve him of the financial responsibility. To look at it another way, boy meets girl, girl gets pregnant. They both agree to have the child and raise it together, married or not. After the birth of the child the father decides he doesn't want the responsibility of a child. If he signs an agreement to relinquish all parental rights does he cease to have a financial obligation to the child? No, he is still the father.

To use the analogy of another discussion here, you knew the consequences of sex when you took part in the act, if you are not willing to take that risk then don't have sex or get a vasectomy. As long as women have the uterus, us men have to play by their rules (as it should be).

So my benefits aren't compensation? Great! Now I'm really, really underpaid compared to private sector.

I think that what gets lost in the "I want mandated xxx coverage for ALL insurance" is that premiums for everyone go up because now EVERY single plan HAS to cover xxx. Ostensibly, by allowing some plans to cover more and some to cover less, people have a choice about what they pay and what is important in their coverage. The fact of the matter is that if "bacon" wasn't covered, premiums should be lower. If any of you have ever had to shop for non-employer-sponsored insurance, you'd see the dozens of options available, all with different coverages for different premiums. As I've had to do on numerous occasions, choosing a very low premium plan that happens to have a high deductible with only "catastrophic" coverage and many exclusions (such as pregnancy) made much greater financial sense. Of course, I'm now married and have children, so in a totally different situation, and I would select a different plan. Why can't that be an option any more? Why must EVERYTHING be covered on all plans? It actually only helps the insurance companies' bottom line, as it forces ALL the policies (and their associated premiums) to cover things that only some of the population may ever make use/take advantage/care.

kylemittskus wrote:This was what I was getting at. If taxation is what we're basing "compensation" on, then it's going to get messy since some things are taxed at different rates. And then there's the whole, "I make $50k a year but I get $2 million in 'bonuses.'"

I'm fine with it becoming a completely free market for health insurance. I also think that chem's point that the employee generally (always?) pays a portion of their own insurance. In that case, the employer is dictating what the employee is spending his/her money on.

Also, I find the entire argument interesting. A Catholic hospital administrator, or a Jehovah's Witness employer, or whatever, isn't taking birth control or getting an abortion or a blood transfusion so I'm a bit confused (not being religious myself) how it's any of their business if I want to get all three in one day. Which I guess brings us back around to "my freedom of religion, not yours."

I think we are all talking past each other on the last one.

Again, the employer is NOT telling you how to spend your money NOR are they telling you can't have any of those procedures. What they are telling you is that they won't COVER it. That is not the same thing.

You can have those three procedures, but you might have to pay for them on your own (depending on what your insurance covers). All they are saying is that they won't PAY for it via insurance. That doesn't mean you can't have the procedure performed.


Now, for those who are still confused, you are receiving the coverage you are paying for. You aren't losing anything, because they weren't covering it in the first place.


As to the first issue, when you are applying for a new job, they don't ask what your benefits were, they ask what your SALARY was. Now, when a job offer is made, you can negotiate based on what your previous (or current) benefits and salary were versus what new salary and benefits are being offered. But those benefits are not COMPENSATION. Those are "perks", not entitled compensation. You are paid for compensation, but you are NOT paid for benefits.

Put another way, a company can change benefits company-wide, but they can't lower your salary. They might demote you to a lower position, but they can't change the salary you make. They have to pay you the same.

And I'd like to work at your company, I mean, "I make $50k a year but I get $2 million in 'bonuses.'"

But you would be taxed on both amounts, because you were PAID both.

chemvictim wrote:So my benefits aren't compensation? Great! Now I'm really, really underpaid compared to private sector.

Probably! But then again, you might have way better benefits than most. The key is looking at Salary + Bonus (if any) + Benefits to see how jobs compare. Just look at kyle's job.

The point isn't that all insurance plans need to cover everything. The point is that an option that includes things that the employer may religiously disagree with should exist. My insurance plan doesn't need BC because I'm a guy. But if my wife works at the same company as me, she should have that option, even if our employer is catholic.

joelsisk wrote:I think that what gets lost in the "I want mandated xxx coverage for ALL insurance" is that premiums for everyone go up because now EVERY single plan HAS to cover xxx. Ostensibly, by allowing some plans to cover more and some to cover less, people have a choice about what they pay and what is important in their coverage. The fact of the matter is that if "bacon" wasn't covered, premiums should be lower. If any of you have ever had to shop for non-employer-sponsored insurance, you'd see the dozens of options available, all with different coverages for different premiums. As I've had to do on numerous occasions, choosing a very low premium plan that happens to have a high deductible with only "catastrophic" coverage and many exclusions (such as pregnancy) made much greater financial sense. Of course, I'm now married and have children, so in a totally different situation, and I would select a different plan. Why can't that be an option any more? Why must EVERYTHING be covered on all plans? It actually only helps the insurance companies' bottom line, as it forces ALL the policies (and their associated premiums) to cover things that only some of the population may ever make use/take advantage/care.

These are good points. What about this scenario though: if 75/100 people use provision X that they specifically pay for then they pay Y. If the number of people paying for X increases to 300, but only 25% of that group use it, then you've got 125/300 using that coverage. Premiums should be able to decrease.

Potentially pathological cases aside, I do believe there is value in establishing minimum requirements for health insurance policies. Not saying that should be full comprehensive coverage necessarily. Unless, of course, we also decide as a society that letting people die because they don't have insurance is reasonable.

edlada wrote:I agree that on the surface your no say/no pay has some merit but on deeper inspection I disagree. Intentionally or not (and I don't believe in your case it is intentional) this argument reduces the act of having a child, wanted or not, to some kind of financial transaction. As we fathers know full well, having a child is much more than paying for diapers and college, there are substantial rewards. In short, to me, if you are part of the conception of a child then you have a MORAL and financial obligation to deal with the circumstances come what may. If an unintentional pregnancy occurs it is up to both parties to bear the consequences. If the female desires to give birth to the child and the male disagrees, as the female is bearing the brunt and risk of the pregnancy (or termination) as well as raising the child in the absence of the father than so be it. The father still needs to pay. Certainly the father will have all of the legal rights owed a noncustodial parent should he chose not to be with the woman, so he is getting some benefit from his financial obligation if he desires. If the father doesn't want to have any part in his offspring's life that doesn't relieve him of the financial responsibility. To look at it another way, boy meets girl, girl gets pregnant. They both agree to have the child and raise it together, married or not. After the birth of the child the father decides he doesn't want the responsibility of a child. If he signs an agreement to relinquish all parental rights does he cease to have a financial obligation to the child? No, he is still the father.

To use the analogy of another discussion here, you knew the consequences of sex when you took part in the act, if you are not willing to take that risk then don't have sex or get a vasectomy. As long as women have the uterus, us men have to play by their rules (as it should be).

If you bring MORALS up, then it is MORALLY inherent to carry the child to term (unless in cases of terrible act, mother's life in danger, etc.).

As in "Don't do the Crime, if you can't do the Time."

Responsibility flows both ways. As I've said before, Abortion just seems a way to avoid said responsibility. So if women can avoid it, then so should men.

kylemittskus wrote:The point isn't that all insurance plans need to cover everything. The point is that an option that includes things that the employer may religiously disagree with should exist. My insurance plan doesn't need BC because I'm a guy. But if my wife works at the same company as me, she should have that option, even if our employer is catholic.

Why? Fuzzy logic like that is the main problem with the Occupy Movement. Someone else makes more money than me and that's not right!


The point is that Religion is supposed to stay out of Gov't, and Gov't is supposed to stay out of Religion. And by forcing companies to carry BC, they are violating that.

Or do you not believe in the Constitution?

kylemittskus wrote:The point isn't that all insurance plans need to cover everything. The point is that an option that includes things that the employer may religiously disagree with should exist. My insurance plan doesn't need BC because I'm a guy. But if my wife works at the same company as me, she should have that option, even if our employer is catholic.

Actually, this is a very good point. Why should I, as a guy, have to pay into an insurance pool that covers birth control for women? Pregnancy costs? Mammograms? And why should women have to pay into the same pool as me when they don't need prostate exams?

Among the many problems is that insurance is supposed to spread risk but we've conflated that. Insurance is also now used to spread the cost of routine procedures. Sigh.

edlada wrote:I agree that on the surface your no say/no pay has some merit but on deeper inspection I disagree. Intentionally or not (and I don't believe in your case it is intentional) this argument reduces the act of having a child, wanted or not, to some kind of financial transaction. As we fathers know full well, having a child is much more than paying for diapers and college, there are substantial rewards. In short, to me, if you are part of the conception of a child then you have a MORAL and financial obligation to deal with the circumstances come what may. If an unintentional pregnancy occurs it is up to both parties to bear the consequences. If the female desires to give birth to the child and the male disagrees, as the female is bearing the brunt and risk of the pregnancy (or termination) as well as raising the child in the absence of the father than so be it. The father still needs to pay. Certainly the father will have all of the legal rights owed a noncustodial parent should he chose not to be with the woman, so he is getting some benefit from his financial obligation if he desires. If the father doesn't want to have any part in his offspring's life that doesn't relieve him of the financial responsibility. To look at it another way, boy meets girl, girl gets pregnant. They both agree to have the child and raise it together, married or not. After the birth of the child the father decides he doesn't want the responsibility of a child. If he signs an agreement to relinquish all parental rights does he cease to have a financial obligation to the child? No, he is still the father.

To use the analogy of another discussion here, you knew the consequences of sex when you took part in the act, if you are not willing to take that risk then don't have sex or get a vasectomy. As long as women have the uterus, us men have to play by their rules (as it should be).

But you don't explain how the opposite circumstance works, MORALLY. I as the biological father want to keep the baby. The biological mother has 100% say, and so decides to abort. Or even the most dramatic situation where the women keeps the fetus, gives birth, and then abandons the child. I am honestly curious about your response to any of the many similar "gender reversed" situations.

MarkDaSpark wrote:If you bring MORALS up, then it is MORALLY inherent to carry the child to term (unless in cases of terrible act, mother's life in danger, etc.).

As in "Don't do the Crime, if you can't do the Time."

Responsibility flows both ways. As I've said before, Abortion just seems a way to avoid said responsibility. So if women can avoid it, then so should men.

I don't think I could disagree with you more. Unwanted (and to a large, but lesser, degree unplanned) children on average do far worse than planned wanted children. You seem to assume that "doing the time" is somehow an appropriate "punishment" for the "crime". If you were only punishing the irresponsible parents fine. But you're not. You're dooming the potential child to a lifetime of potential neglect.

It'd be nice if those who advocated "doing the time if you do the crime" also advocated education about birth control, widely available and cheap condoms and hormonal birth control, and honesty in medicine when one considers an abortion. I don't believe in punishing children for the sins of their parents.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Why? Fuzzy logic like that is the main problem with the Occupy Movement. Someone else makes more money than me and that's not right!


The point is that Religion is supposed to stay out of Gov't, and Gov't is supposed to stay out of Religion. And by forcing companies to carry BC, they are violating that.

Or do you not believe in the Constitution?

Your logic here is fuzzy. I am not forcing you, a Catholic, to violate your constitutional right to religious beliefs, i.e.: using BC. Providing me BC isn't forcing you to use it. If you're concerned about my soul, thanks, but I'll be fine. You have the right to religious beliefs. I have the right to not be affected by them.

Lets shift to something life-threatening and not gender-specific. Do you feel the same way about blood transfusions? Should a JW hospital be able to allow me to die because their beliefs don't allow them to get a blood transfusion?

MarkDaSpark wrote:If you bring MORALS up, then it is MORALLY inherent to carry the child to term (unless in cases of terrible act, mother's life in danger, etc.).

Says you. All of us here probably have different faiths, or lack thereof. I'm not sure about how I feel about God, but I am absolutely certain that you are not Him, and neither are any of our politicians. This is why I believe strongly that people must make these decisions for themselves, and gov't intervention is offensive and insulting.

kylemittskus wrote:Your logic here is fuzzy. I am not forcing you, a Catholic to violate your constitutional right to religious beliefs, i.e.: using BC. Providing me BC isn't forcing you to use it. You have the right to religious beliefs. I have the right to not be affected by them.

Lets shift to something life-threatening and not gender-specific. Do you feel the same way about blood transfusions. Should a JW hospital be able to allow me to die because their beliefs don't allow them to get a blood transfusion?

But you are forcing me to violate my religious beliefs. Which is the very definition of violating my constitutional rights.

Put another way, using better examples, Is it okay to force a Islamic restaurant to serve Pork? To force a Vegan restaurant to serve meat? To outlaw circumcision by doctors or rabbis?

And I don't believe that there ARE any JW hospitals. But if there were, I wouldn't go to one. And the paramedics wouldn't take me to one if I needed blood. So really bad example there.

But evidently in YOUR world, it would be okay to go there and FORCE them to give me blood.

joelsisk wrote:But you don't explain how the opposite circumstance works, MORALLY. I as the biological father want to keep the baby. The biological mother has 100% say, and so decides to abort. Or even the most dramatic situation where the women keeps the fetus, gives birth, and then abandons the child. I am honestly curious about your response to any of the many similar "gender reversed" situations.

Biology and modern medicine being what it is, there is no "gender reverse" situation. Until men can carry pregnancies to term and give birth, there's an inherent imbalance that we just have to live with.

MarkDaSpark wrote:But you are forcing me to violate my religious beliefs. Which is the very definition of violating my constitutional rights.

Put another way, using better examples, Is it okay to force a Islamic restaurant to serve Pork? To force a Vegan restaurant to serve meat? To outlaw circumcision by doctors or rabbis?

And I don't believe that there ARE any JW hospitals. But if there were, I wouldn't go to one. And the paramedics wouldn't take me to one if I needed blood. So really bad example there.

But evidently in YOUR world, it would be okay to go there and FORCE them to give me blood.

Your religion doesn't allow you to eat pork. Doesn't allow you to get a blood transfusion. Allow you to use BC. Why should you make those choices for me?

I'm not saying the govt should intervene. I'm just arguing the logic of a religious person disallowing me to do something because his/her religion doesn't allow him/her to do it him/herself.

Again, not arguing govt intervention, but if our theoretical hospital existed, it would be insane! A hospital's job is to save lives. And them not doing so is absurd. And I know that's not the point. But people do allow their children to die because their religion says that God wants kids to die more than he wants them to get transfusions. Religion gets in the way more than it doesn't.

chemvictim wrote:Says you. All of us here probably have different faiths, or lack thereof. I'm not sure about how I feel about God, but I am absolutely certain that you are not Him, and neither are any of our politicians. This is why I believe strongly that people must make these decisions for themselves, and gov't intervention is offensive and insulting.

True, but gov't money is okay? The problem is that with any gov't money, you can get gov't intervention. Without gov't $$$, you don't need to worry that much about gov't intervention.

So allow Abortion, but no gov't funds for it. Cuts the legs out from under the (stupid) politicians.

MarkDaSpark wrote:True, but gov't money is okay? The problem is that with any gov't money, you can get gov't intervention. Without gov't $$$, you don't need to worry that much about gov't intervention.

So allow Abortion, but no gov't funds for it. Cuts the legs out from under the (stupid) politicians.

Medicare/cal should provide abortion money (if we assume it should exist at all). The reason is that unless there's a non-religious reason against abortion, then doing anything but allowing it is making religion-based policy.

Again, blood transition argument is applicable. No govt $$ for blood transfusions? What about other things that my religion dictates but yours doesn't?

Edit: if govt funding exists at all, it needs to cover everything and force you to use none. That's the only way that everyone's religious beliefs can be observed and not trampled. Again, no one forces you to participate in using BC or abortions or transfusions or psych medication (scientologists have feelings too!).

MarkDaSpark wrote:But you are forcing me to violate my religious beliefs. Which is the very definition of violating my constitutional rights.

Put another way, using better examples, Is it okay to force a Islamic restaurant to serve Pork? To force a Vegan restaurant to serve meat? To outlaw circumcision by doctors or rabbis?

And I don't believe that there ARE any JW hospitals. But if there were, I wouldn't go to one. And the paramedics wouldn't take me to one if I needed blood. So really bad example there.

But evidently in YOUR world, it would be okay to go there and FORCE them to give me blood.

Evidently in your world, there are lots and lots of hospitals nearby, and they can refuse to treat you and it's fine 'cause you'll just go to another one. It's not like that for everyone.

That aside, we're not talking about going to a Catholic hospital and demanding contraception. We're talking about the fact that insurance companies are required to cover contraception. The employer pays a portion of the policy (not all of it), and then the costs are spread among all the people in the pool and the insurance company takes all those funds and pays for the contraception from this big pile of cash. That's a couple steps removed from the direct situation you're talking about. In fact, if my employer hands me a paycheck and then I go use it to buy contraception, the employer is one step closer to buying it himself compared to the insurance situation.

kylemittskus wrote:Your religion doesn't allow you to eat pork. Doesn't allow you to get a blood transfusion. Allow you to use BC. Why should you make those choices for me?

I'm not saying the govt should intervene. I'm just arguing the logic of a religious person disallowing me to do something because his/her religion doesn't allow him/her to do it him/herself.

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!! Where are they "disallowing" you? Because they don't want to pay for it?

You can still do it, it's just that they won't PAY FOR IT. You can still pay for it yourself, or get a job where it is covered.

This is still the USA, not the USSR. We still have freedom here, especially the freedom to say "No". We aren't entitled to a free ride.


And using your fuzzy logic, if I go to work for someone who is against caffeine, and they don't provide Coffee at work, I should force them to provide said Coffee. Even though I knew they didn't have Coffee before I went to work there.

MarkDaSpark wrote:True, but gov't money is okay? The problem is that with any gov't money, you can get gov't intervention. Without gov't $$$, you don't need to worry that much about gov't intervention.

So allow Abortion, but no gov't funds for it. Cuts the legs out from under the (stupid) politicians.

And no gov't funds for those transfusions, or vaccines, or whatever else a particular sect finds abhorrent?

kylemittskus wrote:Medicare/cal should provide abortion money (if we assume it should exist at all). The reason is that unless there's a non-religious reason against abortion, then doing anything but allowing it is making religion-based policy.

Again, blood transition argument is applicable. No govt $$ for blood transfusions? What about other things that my religion dictates but yours doesn't?

But in your example, the gov't is FORCING the hospital to do so. Again, a violation.

But the clincher that refutes your argument, is that a JW wouldn't want one, so there would be no $$$ involved for them. Whereas the vast majority would want (and need) it.

chemvictim wrote:Biology and modern medicine being what it is, there is no "gender reverse" situation. Until men can carry pregnancies to term and give birth, there's an inherent imbalance that we just have to live with.

are you intentionally misunderstanding? I was clearly referring to a gender reversal of the situations that edlada provided, as articulated by the two particular ones I presented... namely that it is not the father who wants an abortion, but the mother and that it was the mother who abandoned the child, not the father.

Caffeine isn't a medical treatment. BC/transfusions/etc. are. And just because you don't drink beer doesn't mean you can't provide me with some.

I'm confused as to what were talking about now. Govt $$ or insurance policies covering things or something else. I also think we're talking past each other.

Edit: or men having babies? I'm lost.

MarkDaSpark wrote:YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!! Where are they "disallowing" you? Because they don't want to pay for it?

You can still do it, it's just that they won't PAY FOR IT. You can still pay for it yourself, or get a job where it is covered.

This is still the USA, not the USSR. We still have freedom here, especially the freedom to say "No". We aren't entitled to a free ride.


And using your fuzzy logic, if I go to work for someone who is against caffeine, and they don't provide Coffee at work, I should force them to provide said Coffee. Even though I knew they didn't have Coffee before I went to work there.

I don't think we're going to agree on this. To me, the employer is not providing contraception the way you'd provide coffee. Every insurance policy I've ever had covered contraception (because it's cheaper), but I couldn't just go into the break room and grab some birth control pills out of a basket. Employer is not buying the pills for me. Employer is not paying for pills, he's paying for health insurance. Why don't we say it this way: I'm paying a portion of my insurance costs. That portion is what's paying for the contraception, employer's hands are clean. He's only paying for things that good Christian women would need, like allergy shots or whatever.

I think it's reasonable to argue about forcing employers to provide insurance in the first place on general principle, but I'm just not seeing this as a religious freedom problem.

chemvictim wrote:Evidently in your world, there are lots and lots of hospitals nearby, and they can refuse to treat you and it's fine 'cause you'll just go to another one. It's not like that for everyone.

That aside, we're not talking about going to a Catholic hospital and demanding contraception. We're talking about the fact that insurance companies are required to cover contraception. The employer pays a portion of the policy (not all of it), and then the costs are spread among all the people in the pool and the insurance company takes all those funds and pays for the contraception from this big pile of cash. That's a couple steps removed from the direct situation you're talking about. In fact, if my employer hands me a paycheck and then I go use it to buy contraception, the employer is one step closer to buying it himself compared to the insurance situation.

Who's the Frontrunner?? Where did you get that hospital thing?? I never said that.

We're not talking about treatment (which is kyle's bad example), but forcing violations of religious beliefs, by forcing companies to pay for insurance coverage for their employees of procedures that are against their beliefs.

And I'm not sure that BC is required to be carried by all insurance companies, because that's what the gov't is trying to force the hospitals to carry. It's probably offered as an option, but it's up to the company to select it.


It seems as if we're just talking past each other at this point. And I have much better things to do.

Religious question from a non-religious person:

Does me doing something that is against your religion/morals affect you, assuming it doesn't directly (like me shooting you)?

This applies to so many different topics we've discussed (govt-recognized marriage, BC, abortion, drug use, policy-making, etc.).

joelsisk wrote:are you intentionally misunderstanding? I was clearly referring to a gender reversal of the situations that edlada provided, as articulated by the two particular ones I presented... namely that it is not the father who wants an abortion, but the mother and that it was the mother who abandoned the child, not the father.

Not intentionally. I'm saying that you can't flip the two people and compare apples to apples. I'm not certain what you're talking about. If a mother abandons her child (to whom? the father? or what?) she would possibly be prosecuted and could definitely be held liable for child support. If a father becomes a father against his wishes (mother refuses to abort), he'll be on the hook for child support. If the father was able to force the mother to bear the child, she'd still be on the hook for child support, quite possibly the lion's share of childcare, AND with the added bonus of pregnancy and childbirth. There is no equivalent situation for men. It's inherently imbalanced, that all I was saying.

chemvictim wrote:I don't think we're going to agree on this. To me, the employer is not providing contraception the way you'd provide coffee. Every insurance policy I've ever had covered contraception (because it's cheaper), but I couldn't just go into the break room and grab some birth control pills out of a basket. Employer is not buying the pills for me. Employer is not paying for pills, he's paying for health insurance. Why don't we say it this way: I'm paying a portion of my insurance costs. That portion is what's paying for the contraception, employer's hands are clean. He's only paying for things that good Christian women would need, like allergy shots or whatever.

I think it's reasonable to argue about forcing employers to provide insurance in the first place on general principle, but I'm just not seeing this as a religious freedom problem.

Okay, one last time.

1) Catholic Hospitals do not have BC as part of their Insurance coverage for their employees.

2) I also doubt they provide BC to patients, but they will provide health services to someone in need.

3) Employees are paying nothing towards BC, because BC isn't part of the coverage.

4) Insurance coverage for non-Catholic Church companies probably cover BC.

5) Employees (at non-Catholic Church companies) may pay some (or none at my last company, they paid all of my health insurance) of the Insurance costs.

6) 4 & 5 are not what we are talking about, there is no disagreement there.

7) I am talking about 1, 2, & 3, where NO BC coverage exists.

8) According to the Catholic Church, ANY form of BC is a sin. The only accepted BC method is the "Rhythm Method" (and we all know White Men have none!). So allowing BC is a Sin.

9) Forcing them to cover it, means that they would be allowing Sin. Which is against their Religious Beliefs.


There are some people (our Founding Fathers among them) out there that consider Religious Beliefs are important.

kylemittskus wrote:Religious question from a non-religious person:

Does me doing something that is against your religion/morals affect you, assuming it doesn't directly (like me shooting you)?

This applies to so many different topics we've discussed (govt-recognized marriage, BC, abortion, drug use, policy-making, etc.).

No. But you forcing me to sell you the drugs, etc. does.

MarkDaSpark wrote:8) According to the Catholic Church, ANY form of BC is a sin. The only accepted BC method is the "Rhythm Method" (and we all know White Men have none!). So allowing BC is a Sin.

9) Forcing them to cover it, means that they would be allowing Sin. Which is against their Religious Beliefs.


There are some people (our Founding Fathers) out there that Religious Beliefs are important.

I think you're missing an important word: "using." Using BC as a contraceptive is a sin. BC isn't a sin itself (which is why Catholic women can use it for non-contraceptive reasons). No one is asking a Catholic to use BC; just provide coverage (since it's cheaper for the employee) for the non-catholic to get it. (I'm not saying whether I agree or not.)

MarkDaSpark wrote:No. But you forcing me to sell you the drugs, etc. does.

Why?

kylemittskus wrote:I think you're missing an important word: "using." Using BC as a contraceptive is a sin. BC isn't a sin itself (which is why Catholic women can use it for non-contraceptive reasons). No one is asking a Catholic to use BC; just provide coverage (since it's cheaper for the employee) for the non-catholic to get it. (I'm not saying whether I agree or not.)

I keep trying to leave, and they keep pulling me back in ....


Are you truly that obtuse???

"The Roman Catholic Church has disallowed artificial contraception for as far back as one can historically trace."

Also, "Contraception is defined as "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible." Contraception so defined is considered intrinsically evil."

A sin is a sin is a sin. Allowing someone is just as much of a sin as doing it yourself.


Edit: And the only reason they are allowed to use the "Pill" is for health reasons, and not for contraceptive purposes (thus not a sin).

kylemittskus wrote:Why?

Why if you shelter a criminal, are you charged as an accessory?

You rob a bank, but I drive the getaway car, am I not as guilty of robbing the bank as you?

MarkDaSpark wrote:Why if you shelter a criminal, are you charged as an accessory?

You rob a bank, but I drive the getaway car, am I not as guilty of robbing the bank as you?

Ok. But you're not giving me the BC or the transfusion or psych meds or abortion.

Edit: "Allowing someone is as much of a sin..." This is what I was trying to understand. It was the missing piece I didn't get. So, you have to do everything in your power to disallow me to not sin? Or, if I sin and you don't tell me or try to stop me, it's a sin?

Double edit: I'm really trying to understand. Not being intentionally daft or anything. I couldn't care less what you do religiously so I'm trying to understand from the opposite side why the opposite isn't true.