The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Affordable Care Act and the Religious Exemption (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=272079)

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 3:40 PM

Affordable Care Act and the Religious Exemption
 
As I'm sure... Well, actually, I'd be surprised if most people knew about this, as it's fairly under the radar, the U.S. government has backed the Affordable Care Act, ruling it valid just last week.

Sauce
Quote:

We can all agree that universal health care makes sense in that every American should be insured. That's why I can understand a defense of President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, commonly known as "Obamacare." However, there are some shocking regulations that come with this reform which we should all be aware of, as they threaten one of our most basic human rights.

The details of the Obamacare act are being outlined under the Department of Health and Human Services. Under new provisions, which could take effect later this year, both public and private health care plans are required to cover preventative acts. This means surgical sterilization, all methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, education and counseling must now be covered by health care, as mandated by the HHS.

This presents a problem. A number of these forms of contraceptives - including the "morning after" pill - may cause an already fertilized and implanted egg to die, thus destroying a human life as it begins its development into a child. Also included are surgical sterilizations, which make it impossible for pregnancies to occur in the first place.

So why are these new HHS rulings such a big deal? First of all, we will all be paying for them, either in the insurance policy we'll have to buy or the taxes we'll have to pay. We are required by law to be insured, so that means everyone will be forced to pay for these policies in one way or another.

This is where the HHS rulings violate an essential freedom. The Obama administration is mandating that Americans' insurance plans cover specific practices. Unfortunately, those practices force people who respect the sanctity of human life to disobey their beliefs. There are few exemptions to the HHS rulings, which will allow some religious employers, such as a Catholic parish, to qualify. But most Catholics will be obliged under penalty of law to pay for what their church teaches is immoral. And a number of Catholic hospitals, organizations and schools will be faced with a tough choice: Either violate their principles in order to insure their employees, or face the consequences of breaking the law.

Another problem is that surgical sterilizations are being treated like necessary medical surgeries. We have to realize what we're talking about here: Pregnancy is not a disease. Neither is fertility. Rather, they are normal, healthy states of being. Why are we covering and forcing Americans to cover procedures that typically aren't necessary? Would you expect your boss to pay for your Botox injections?

These proposed changes by HHS are not in effect yet; if enough objections are brought up, their passage could be stalled. There are many Catholic organizations that will fight this, as will other religious organizations. But this grim future of squashed religious freedom will be our fate unless we do something about it.

An article published Friday, Jan. 20, on thinkprogress.org called these changes a "huge victory for women's health." But when the government is able to force us to ignore our personal and religious beliefs, I can't see how anyone wins.
Of course, I know there are many differing opinions on the topic of abortion and contraception, and this isn't the thread for such an argument.

The question being addressed is, is the bill constitutional? Should religious organizations be forced to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with? Or should such things be done away with, in favor of what the majority wants?


Before anyone brings it up, the "religious exemption" being offered with the bill only covers organizations where 100% of the employees are believers of X faith. Of course, the argument could be made that "it's unfair to the one person", but how much weight should we put on that? Does one person negate the beliefs of an entire organization?

Should the law be upheld even when it conflicts with moral beliefs? Or should moral beliefs be upheld even when they conflict with the law?

Discuss.

Charlie Kelly January 23rd, 2012 4:21 PM

Emergency contraceptives are legal to anyone over 17 who wants them anyway, and only cost like $40. This article sounds completely biased, also. "[...] thus destroying a human life as it begins its development into a child." Really? Destroying a human life? Isn't that a bit melodramatic?

No one is forcing anyone to get morning after pills. I fail to see any issue here that isn't about pro-lifers being offended about something they probably don't understand and doesn't actually affect them.

But honestly, I didn't read the entire article so I may have missed something.

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 4:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Kelly (Post 7020928)
Emergency contraceptives are legal to anyone over 17 who wants them anyway, and only cost like $40. This article sounds completely biased, also. "[...] thus destroying a human life as it begins its development into a child." Really? Destroying a human life? Isn't that a bit melodramatic?

It was the only semi-coherent one I could find. The rest all concerned a Republican plot to bring down healthcare, and the Church hating human beings everywhere.

I say this sincerely, if you can find a more neutral article, please post it.

Quote:

No one is forcing anyone to get morning after pills. I fail to see any issue here that isn't about pro-lifers being offended about something they probably don't understand and doesn't actually affect them.
It's not about getting medicine, it's about paying for it. Come August of 2013, all employers will be required to offer the option of contraceptives to their employees. As hard as it is to understand, some people find this hard to swallow.

The issue isn't the availability of contraception, that's an entirely different battle that's being fought elsewhere. The issue is, "Should people be forced to pay for, and offer, things that they are fundamentally opposed to?"

Contraceptives aren't a basic necessity, as pregnancy by itself is not a disease. If you think otherwise, I wonder if you wish you mother had agreed with you. Religious institutions, such as hospitals, schools, and charities, should not be forced to give funding to something which is a clear-cut no-no for them.

The alternative to disobeying the law would be to acquire exemption by laying off all non-believers on staff, leading to mass job loss.

Of course, I'm sure that all this fuss, all these people getting upset that their rights are being infringed on, is just a passing thing, and will die down eventually.

However, it seems slightly hypocritical for people to wave the bloody shirt whenever anyone "sticks it to the man" of religion, while at the same time ignoring Christians who voice similar complaints.

But what do I know, I'm a pro-lifer.

Quote:

But honestly, I didn't read the entire article so I may have missed something.
Noted.

Mr. X January 23rd, 2012 5:04 PM

A person has to pay taxes, some of which go to your local school system even if that person doesn't have a child in the school system.

So, essentially, the forced taxation for services that you won't use has been around for a while. Nothing new, just a lot more people *****ing complaining about it.

But contraceptives are not the only thing your having to pay for, even if you never intend to use them. This bill is a attempt to ensure everyone for every condition, even though no single person will ever be effected by all covered conditions.

Allstories January 23rd, 2012 5:17 PM

I don't understand why contraceptives should be singled out as being something people don't want to pay for, when we already pay for contentious things like health care, the military, the post office, and myriad other governmental functions. Oh wait, yes I do: it's because you are personally morally opposed to something because you perceive it to be murder. By dancing around the issue and framing it like "should we have to PAY for this?" you're obfuscating your actual intentions. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suspect that you probably don't believe that emergency contraceptives are perfectly fine otherwise, if you didn't have to pay for them.

Quote:

The question being addressed is, is the bill constitutional? Should religious organizations be forced to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with? Or should such things be done away with, in favor of what the majority wants?
Also, we're not supposed to just go with whatever the majority wants. We're supposed to protect the minority. There's a distinction between democracy and rule of the mob.

TRIFORCE89 January 23rd, 2012 6:16 PM

I'm not against contraceptives or universal health care. I just don't understand why some certain contraceptives would be covered. Assuming, I understood "This means surgical sterilization, all methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, education and counseling must now be covered by health care, as mandated by the HHS" correctly.

It's not the responsibility of the government or your employer to see that you get laid. If you want to have sex, go buy some condoms and do it responsibly. Why would such common over-the-counter stuff be covered?

If I totally misunderstood, please correct me. Abortions, I understand. Surgeries. But, over the counter things?

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 6:50 PM

Ooh, I love posts like this!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 7020997)
I don't understand why contraceptives should be singled out as being something people don't want to pay for, when we already pay for contentious things like health care, the military, the post office, and myriad other governmental functions.

All of which are perfectly acceptable to me, and cause no moral issues by providing for them.

Quote:

Oh wait, yes I do: it's because you are personally morally opposed to something because you perceive it to be murder.
I said this is not an abortion thread, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. However, because you (so cleverly) deduced that I am opposed to abortion, en garde.

Quote:

By dancing around the issue and framing it like "should we have to PAY for this?" you're obfuscating your actual intentions.
I am a Catholic, and I oppose abortion. There, your clever and biting wit hath wrung the truth out of deceitful me.

Quote:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suspect that you probably don't believe that emergency contraceptives are perfectly fine otherwise, if you didn't have to pay for them.
Quote:

Of course, I know there are many differing opinions on the topic of abortion and contraception, and this isn't the thread for such an argument.
I love people that say things that are easily answerable by a little bit of reading.

Quote:

Also, we're not supposed to just go with whatever the majority wants. We're supposed to protect the minority. There's a distinction between democracy and rule of the mob.
So tell me, how are my beliefs being protected by forcing me to pay for something that I regard as morally intolerable?


Anyway, on to the non-troll posts.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not complaining about having to pay more taxes for things I'll never use (for example, I attend a private school, and we still pay taxes for public. I'm cool with that. Reading helps, mate), it's about paying taxes for things that are fundamentally against my beliefs.


The thread was meant to ask, "Should people be forced to provide for something that runs counter to their beliefs?", but the concept seems like a difficult one to grasp, so I will simplify.



Now, all insurance policies are required to cover contraception (which is considered immoral and wrong by certain religious groups, mine included), and now everyone is more-or-less forced to have insurance.

So, boys and girls, the problem is thus:

Bob is a Christian. Bob is required by Mr. Government to get insurance. Bob's insurance is required by Mr. Government to provide for contraception.

Therefore, Bob is required to pay for other people to receive things that he is fundamentally opposed to.

"But the bill states that churches are exempt!"

However, Bob works at Christian Hospital, which is run by Christians. Christian Hospital, in the interest of not being "close-minded bigots" that everyone accuses them of being, has hired people of other faiths and backgrounds.

Therefore, they are no longer exempt, because what if Charlie wants to get his girlfriend the morning after pill? Therefore, everyone who opposes such things must pay for Charlie's pill through insurance, or face heavy government penalties.


If I need to explain to you why people would be mildly irked, then I'm sorry.


This isn't the thread to debate whether contraception is right or wrong, we already have one for that. This is a thread to discuss how important or unimportant people's morals and beliefs are, and how much the government can intervene.

...

...


Discuss.

Charlie Kelly January 23rd, 2012 7:16 PM

Wait wait wait, so this is the employer actually paying for medicine/healthcare on a per pill/per doctor visit basis rather than some sort of medical insurance/drug plan?

Notes: in my "pro-lifers being offended about something they probably don't understand and doesn't actually affect them" I wasn't implying their thoughts or beliefs are wrong, just that many people don't realize that "emergency contraception" doesn't mean "baby-killing pills." Most work by stopping fertilization in the first place. But for those against contraception I guess it doesn't matter as much. And if they're actually paying the $40 for a morning-after pill, rather than a flat amount of money somewhere, I retract the latter portion of my statement, because they are directly buying it so I can understand the problem there.

But if they are paying a flat rate, it shouldn't matter what pills they buy. Hence the "doesn't actually affect them." Hell, he shouldn't KNOW what pills they're buying, because that's an invasion of privacy.

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 7:36 PM

<Facepalm>

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO.

The problem isn't "knowing what they buy", the problem isn't "paying for something they'll never use", the problem isn't "paying for something that's OTC".

The problem is that we are fundamentally against contraception, and Catholic institutions will be forced to provide for something that they are vehemently against, or lay everyone off.

Charlie Kelly January 23rd, 2012 7:55 PM

Um, just because you're Catholic doesn't automatically give you the right to butt into other people's business. It might be a different story if they had to directly pay for it, but opposing insurance because someone could get birth control is ridiculous. It isn't hurting you, it isn't hurting them, it isn't affecting your life in any way, shape or form. Whether they use said insurance for birth control pills or blood pressure medicine. I don't get why people insist on judging others and getting angry about things that have absolutely no bearing on their own lives until they insert themselves into the situation.

TRIFORCE89 January 23rd, 2012 8:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7021212)
<Facepalm>

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO.

The problem isn't "knowing what they buy", the problem isn't "paying for something they'll never use", the problem isn't "paying for something that's OTC".

The problem is that we are fundamentally against contraception, and Catholic institutions will be forced to provide for something that they are vehemently against, or lay everyone off.

Well.. it would be indirectly funding it. Why disallow the insurance all together for all kinds of so-called legitimate purposes your employees may require because of one aspect of the coverage? And if your employees are of the same mind, then they wouldn't be using the insurance for contraception anyway. That it's now covered wouldn't be encouraging it for those of whom it was never an option in their mind anyway. So, there's no problem. Hypothetically anyway.

We had a somewhat similar problem here. It was decided that all publicly-funded schools must offer an after-school social club for gay students if a student requests it. A school cannot reject having such a club. Personally, I don't really care. However, the argument brought up was that Catholic schools (which here are publicly funded) would have to allow such clubs. Interestingly, the Catholic school board itself didn't make a fuss - but third party interest groups did.

In the end, you bite the bullet. Disallowing it for everyone only hurts those who weren't going to use it anyway.

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 8:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7021237)

Well.. it would be indirectly funding it. Why disallow the insurance all together for all kinds of so-called legitimate purposes your employees may require because of one aspect of the coverage?


Because Catholic organizations use insurance plans that don't cover the objectionable options, while acting as a regular insurance program otherwise.

This would force even the "agreeable options" to offer contraception, which is a bad thing. In all sincerity, I fail to see why we're going through this circle.


Quote:

We have our own And if your employees are of the same mind, then they wouldn't be using the insurance for contraception anyway.
But the simple fact that they are funding it is the issue here, not over whether or not anyone uses it. People are upset because they have to fund something they disagree with.

For example, let's say the government mandated that all citizens must pay taxes that go to supporting, say, sending homosexual kids to gulags. Would you be okay with this because "you wouldn't use it, so why care"?

Quote:

That it's now covered wouldn't be encouraging it for those of whom it was never an option in their mind anyway. So, there's no problem. Hypothetically anyway.
To use the example above, the existence of the gulags does not influence you, so you'd have no problem with paying for the "re-education" of homosexuals, correct?

Hypothetically, anyway.



Quote:

We had a somewhat similar problem here. It was decided that all publicly-funded schools must offer an after-school social club for gay students if a student requests it. A school cannot reject having such a club. Personally, I don't really care. However, the argument brought up was that Catholic schools (which here are publicly funded) would have to allow such clubs. Interestingly, the Catholic school board itself didn't make a fuss - but third party interest groups did.
A few things there, mate.

1. They're publicly funded, so they do whatever they're told, as they're getting the money conditionally. My school, as well as the local hospitals, aren't. They're self-sustained to avoid having the government intervene on their beliefs, which is why this order is so offensive.

2. Catholics have no problems with loving homosexual children. It's typically the fringe groups that are screaming for blood and hellfire. I'm glad someone understands this.

Quote:

In the end, you bite the bullet. Disallowing it for everyone only hurts those who weren't going to use it anyway.
So, you tolerate injustice because it'd be selfish to protest against them?



I'm sorry, I really don't understand. I read this thread, and then I read the thread about the Girl Scouts, where everyone's in a tizzy because rights are being violated, and I just can't reconcile them. It seems that it's only okay to violate some people's rights, so long as they have the same views as the special interest group of the month.

People like me? Sorry, but we're high and dry, because butthurt Catholics doesn't make for good news.

That's what I have a problem with. The lovely double standards. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

Oryx January 23rd, 2012 8:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Kelly (Post 7021228)
Um, just because you're Catholic doesn't automatically give you the right to butt into other people's business. It might be a different story if they had to directly pay for it, but opposing insurance because someone could get birth control is ridiculous. It isn't hurting you, it isn't hurting them, it isn't affecting your life in any way, shape or form. Whether they use said insurance for birth control pills or blood pressure medicine. I don't get why people insist on judging others and getting angry about things that have absolutely no bearing on their own lives until they insert themselves into the situation.

To be fair, to a Catholic abortion is murder. Imagine if you saw someone murdering another person and were told not to judge the murderer or get angry at them because the murder has no bearing on your own life. You may not believe it's murder yourself, but it's not unreasonable when you think of it from a Catholic's point of view why birth control/abortions should not just be avoided by them, but by everybody.

Not implying that the law is unconstitutional or not, because I'm honestly not certain in this case. And this is coming from someone who has gotten birth control off of government health insurance in the past.

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 8:24 PM

The point isn't whether or not it's murder, the point is, how would you feel if someone forced you to fund said murder?

Oryx January 23rd, 2012 8:33 PM

Those two are very interrelated. I was defending your side, no need to try to correct me. Yeesh.

I would really appreciate it if you would cool your jets a little, it makes it difficult to have an actual discussion with you jumping down everyone's throats.

TRIFORCE89 January 23rd, 2012 8:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7021244)
People like me? Sorry, but we're high and dry, because butthurt Catholics doesn't make for good news.

That's what I have a problem with. The lovely double standards. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

I'm Catholic too, you know.

If your organization is no longer recognized as being a Catholic organization because you have non-Catholic employees, well... thems the rules. You can't be exempt. Regain your Catholic status and then you're exempt. There's no inbetween for if your organization is "almost Catholic".

Now, this line of the article you posted...
Quote:

Another problem is that surgical sterilizations are being treated like necessary medical surgeries. We have to realize what we're talking about here: Pregnancy is not a disease. Neither is fertility. Rather, they are normal, healthy states of being. Why are we covering and forcing Americans to cover procedures that typically aren't necessary? Would you expect your boss to pay for your Botox injections?
Is a good example. For the most part, I would agree. However, there are some situations that arise where that (sterilization, not Botox) is necessary surgery. But, in most cases no. Even so, for the circumstances it is covered. Abortion does have some necessary, although unfortunate, uses at times such as ensuring the life of the mother in a high risk pregnancy where the baby is already known to not survive. So, for these exceptions, you see funding. I'm not sure why you can't just cover specific situations ("life-saving" abortions vs "meh, I just don't feel like having a baby" abortions), but that never seems to be the case. All or none.

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 8:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7021253)
Those two are very interrelated. I was defending your side, no need to try to correct me. Yeesh.

I would really appreciate it if you would cool your jets a little, it makes it difficult to have an actual discussion with you jumping down everyone's throats.

Ahh, sorry for coming off that way. ^^; I was actually agreeing with you, seeing as how you had the nerve to state what I'd been trying to find the words for.

Also, trying to make seven small children shut up and learn CPR tends to make me extremely cranky. -_-

Apologies! I didn't mean any offense.



@TRIFORCE: So... lay off non-Catholic employees? That creates a whole 'nother problem.

Charlie Kelly January 23rd, 2012 8:52 PM

So wait, do Catholics equate birth control to murder? Serious question here, not incredibly well-versed on the Catholic faith.

Though, to keep this away from being solely about Catholics, this poses a problem to other religions as well... Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Having to pay for blood transfusions and the like.

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 8:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Kelly (Post 7021270)
So wait, do Catholics equate birth control to murder? Serious question here, not incredibly well-versed on the Catholic faith.

We equate abortion to the termination of a human life, which is murder.

Birth control would require a lot of explanation (most of it dependent on certain views of humanity and reproduction), but the short answer is "It's bad, don't do it."

Quote:

Though, to keep this away from being solely about Catholics, this poses a problem to other religions as well... Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Having to pay for blood transfusions and the like.
Which would, of course, be infringing on their rights.

Charlie Kelly January 23rd, 2012 9:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7021276)
We equate abortion to the termination of a human life, which is murder.

Birth control would require a lot of explanation (most of it dependent on certain views of humanity and reproduction), but the short answer is "It's bad, don't do it."

Well, yeah, but there's a big difference between funding a murder and funding something that's bad. I don't think abortion is covered by insurance. And again, emergency contraception is not abortion, even if you believe life begins at conception, because it stops the conception from happening in the first place. So either way, the sole offender would be contraception. I guess my question would be is it morally right to deny someone healthcare based on your belief? Because that's what it essentially coming down to. I find it very petty for someone to say "I don't want you to have healthcare because I don't like birth control and you could potentially use it for that."

Quote:

Which would, of course, be infringing on their rights.
I feel like they shouldn't be pushing their beliefs onto others, especially when that belief contradicts a practice that saves literally thousands of lives every day.

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 9:35 PM

It isn't denying them healthcare, it's just refusing to pay for it. The government isn't poor, it has other ways of acquiring the money.

However, I was taught that it's better to keep yourself morally clean and let the offense be entirely the other person's.

The same principle applies here. Why should I be forced to stain my hands?

Oryx January 23rd, 2012 9:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Kelly (Post 7021316)
Well, yeah, but there's a big difference between funding a murder and funding something that's bad. I don't think abortion is covered by insurance. And again, emergency contraception is not abortion, even if you believe life begins at conception, because it stops the conception from happening in the first place. So either way, the sole offender would be contraception. I guess my question would be is it morally right to deny someone healthcare based on your belief? Because that's what it essentially coming down to. I find it very petty for someone to say "I don't want you to have healthcare because I don't like birth control and you could potentially use it for that."


I feel like they shouldn't be pushing their beliefs onto others, especially when that belief contradicts a practice that saves literally thousands of lives every day.

Emergency contraception works in multiple ways. One of the ways is to not allow a fertilized egg to embed itself in the uterus so it's expelled instead of growing into a fetus/child/what-have-you. Since that practice involved directly not allowing a fertilized egg to live, and the Catholic belief is that life begins once the egg is fertilized, emergency contraception is equivalent to an abortion.

I wouldn't be against an alternate option for employers that identify as Catholic, or a Catholic institution, that didn't include contraceptives and others. So far I haven't really seen an argument that's been very compelling the other way.

And my apologies for misunderstanding you as well Alice, lol. :3

Charlie Kelly January 23rd, 2012 9:49 PM

The government is sorta poor. The country is like 15 trillion dollars in debt.

That didn't exactly answer my question. In fact, it kinda dodged it. I thought the problem was not with companies being forced to pay for healthcare, but with paying for healthcare that didn't conform to your beliefs. What if someone needs a very important surgery? And they can't pay for it because you decided that the healthcare system was wrong because of birth control pills? How is that right?

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 9:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Kelly (Post 7021343)
The government is sorta poor. The country is like 15 trillion dollars in debt.

And yet they still come up with funds for whatever they need. :/ But that's another topic.


Quote:

That didn't exactly answer my question. In fact, it kinda dodged it.
Apologies. I'm tired, and I am, admittedly, starting to skim.

Quote:

I thought the problem was not with companies being forced to pay for healthcare, but with paying for healthcare that didn't conform to your beliefs.
Si.

Quote:

What if someone needs a very important surgery? And they can't pay for it because you decided that the healthcare system was wrong because of birth control pills? How is that right?
Well, then the hospital would probably just eat the cost and give them the surgery.

See that's the thing. The Church is faced with the dilemma of "Lay everyone off and reduce our effectiveness in healthcare, or compromise our beliefs and pretty much make it pointless to believe in anything anymore".

Still. I think your argument is invalid because insurance=/=ability to have the surgery. Yes, it helps a lot to be able to pay, but do you honestly think a man that was willing to protest something like this for his beliefs would deny someone surgery if they needed it to save their lives?


And before you nail me with "What if the pregnancy is life-threatening?", there's a whole slew of moral teachings on that, and that's a thread in and of itself. There are times when it is and isn't okay to kill either the baby or the mother to save the other.

But it's never okay to kill because "I don't want it/can't support it". There are charities and shelters (run by the Church, no less!) for such things.


Err, is that clear? I think I answered your question. :/

Charlie Kelly January 23rd, 2012 10:10 PM

I'm not trying to get pro-choice on you, I'm not sure what exactly inspired that tone but I understand that being a natural reaction.

I needed a serious surgery and didn't have insurance, they pretty much told me too bad. If you pay cash we'll reduce the cost by about 75%... which was still about $14k. They wouldn't do it because it wasn't an emergency, though if I didn't get it I could essentially just drop dead. Hospitals aren't as giving as you think :\

Anyway, I had follow ups but I lost my train of thought here, so... nevermind.

Quote:

Emergency contraception works in multiple ways. One of the ways is to not allow a fertilized egg to embed itself in the uterus so it's expelled instead of growing into a fetus/child/what-have-you. Since that practice involved directly not allowing a fertilized egg to live, and the Catholic belief is that life begins once the egg is fertilized, emergency contraception is equivalent to an abortion.
You posted while I was typing out my post :P Anyway, emergency contraceptives are strongly believed to not actually work like that, but rather disrupt ovulation or fertilization, not interfere with a fertilized egg.
Quote:

The evidence strongly supports disruption of ovulation as a mechanism of action. The data suggest that emergency contraceptives are unlikely to act by interfering with implantation, although the possibility has not been completely excluded. The data also suggest that emergency contraceptives are ineffective after ovulation.

Read More: http://pharmacotherapyjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1592/phco.30.2.158?cookieSet=1

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 10:18 PM

Eh, I'm an idealist, which is a product of my somewhat optimistic youth.

I'll probably get over it in a few years. I'm already starting to realize how much I openly despise the American political system.


Anyway. Bed.

Oryx January 23rd, 2012 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Kelly (Post 7021360)
You posted while I was typing out my post :P Anyway, emergency contraceptives are strongly believed to not actually work like that, but rather disrupt ovulation or fertilization, not interfere with a fertilized egg.

But the drugs themselves are listed as prohibiting implantation.

Quote:

Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel are used together in this product as an emergency contraceptive (EC) to prevent pregnancy after contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse. Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel prevent ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary), disrupt fertilization (joining of the egg and sperm), and inhibit implantation (attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus).

http://www.drugs.com/mtm/preven-ec.html
Quote:

Levonorgestrel is a female hormone that prevents ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary). Plan B also causes changes in your cervical mucus and uterine lining, making it harder for sperm to reach the uterus and harder for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus.

http://www.drugs.com/plan-b.html
Quote:

ella (ulipristal) is an emergency contraceptive. It works by stopping or delaying the release of an egg from an ovary. Ulipristal may also make it harder for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus.

http://www.drugs.com/ella.html
It's by no means the primary method of how it works, and your study supports that as well, but considering that all the drugs have that listed as something it does do, I have a feeling it wouldn't get past the FDA without making sure it does what it says it does. To a Catholic it's the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette, even putting aside the fact that contraception is banned in Catholicism as it is, lol.

Mr. X January 24th, 2012 3:31 AM

Just saying, but religion has been preventing progress for a very long time.

Anyway, I see a church interfering with a government as the same as a massive corporation. Each way, they want their own way no matter how many people are screwed over because of it. Arguably, religion doesn't screw people over as bad as corporation does though.

But still, religious objection?

Are you forcing them to use the contraceptive? No.
Are you forcing them to get abortions? No.
Are you the one selling the contraceptive? No.
Are you the one doing the abortion? No.

Your not forcing them to do something, or doing it yourself. So where exactly does Religion have a issue with this?

Final point, don't like how this country is run? Options are : 1) Get over it. 2) Move. 3) Become a politician and change how the country is run.

TRIFORCE89 January 24th, 2012 6:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7021348)
And yet they still come up with funds for whatever they need. :/ But that's another topic.



Apologies. I'm tired, and I am, admittedly, starting to skim.


Si.


Well, then the hospital would probably just eat the cost and give them the surgery.

See that's the thing. The Church is faced with the dilemma of "Lay everyone off and reduce our effectiveness in healthcare, or compromise our beliefs and pretty much make it pointless to believe in anything anymore".

Still. I think your argument is invalid because insurance=/=ability to have the surgery. Yes, it helps a lot to be able to pay, but do you honestly think a man that was willing to protest something like this for his beliefs would deny someone surgery if they needed it to save their lives?


And before you nail me with "What if the pregnancy is life-threatening?", there's a whole slew of moral teachings on that, and that's a thread in and of itself. There are times when it is and isn't okay to kill either the baby or the mother to save the other.

But it's never okay to kill because "I don't want it/can't support it". There are charities and shelters (run by the Church, no less!) for such things.


Err, is that clear? I think I answered your question. :/

Yes, most likely the hospital would take them in. They don't reject you. However, they only won't be on the hook if they're homeless. But, I would hope that you're paying your employees enough such that they have a house, and if they have a house, then they do have to pay. And if they can't afford it because you denied them health insurance because it funded something you don't agree with but that they may not have used, then they face the very real possibility of losing their house in order to cover the cost.

How is that good? Or moral for that matter? Put someone out on the street because you wouldn't give them insurance and they had the audacity to get sick.

Esper January 24th, 2012 11:00 AM

I just want to point out a couple of things about contraception.

1) Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that people can just buy contraception, but emergency contraception is not always available even for people paying out of pocket at the drug store. There are scattered cases of pharmacists refusing to sell the pill to people "for religious reasons" and especially if the one looking to buy it is a man.

2) Birth control is often given to women for non-contraception reasons because it can help regulate menstruation and so on. I know someone personally who uses birth control because she gets debilitating periods and some days she wouldn't be able to leave the house because they're so bad. It's simply the best option for her for a number of reasons, not the least being the cost, to use birth control. Point of the story: it would be wrong to deny her this medicine because she happens to work at a Catholic (or whatever) job that is morally opposed to contraception.


Anyway, on the other topic of "paying for something you're morally opposed to" I could say that we all have things we're morally opposed to that the government does and yet we still pay taxes because most of what the government does is okay for us. I don't really like that answer though.

I agree that at some point a government could be doing something that a person finds so objectionable they can't stand it anymore and should not be made to support it, but I'm not sure where that point is and wouldn't want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand. If I were to draw a line in the sand I'd want it to be a line that everyone could see, that is, one not based in subjective beliefs but in objective facts. To use contraception as an example: calling an egg a person is an unsupported belief and the failure of an egg to implant on the uterine wall can't therefore be called murder. (Compare this to, say a newborn baby which can be objectively called a person and the killing of it murder.)

When you start talking in terms of something being morally unacceptable you have to ask how much is it morally unacceptable? Does everything a person finds morally unacceptable have the same weight? If, for instance, I find it morally unacceptable to deny gay couples the right to marry and another person finds it morally unacceptable to allow gay couples the right to marry, how do we solve this dilemma? If the government steps in to support one side or the other someone will feel their morals are being trampled over, that they shouldn't have to support a government that tramples over their morals, and so on.

jpp8 January 24th, 2012 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7021244)
I'm sorry, I really don't understand. I read this thread, and then I read the thread about the Girl Scouts, where everyone's in a tizzy because rights are being violated, and I just can't reconcile them. It seems that it's only okay to violate some people's rights, so long as they have the same views as the special interest group of the month.

People like me? Sorry, but we're high and dry, because butthurt Catholics doesn't make for good news.

That's what I have a problem with. The lovely double standards. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

ITT: My Catholic faith is being persecuted in America.

Is the government or anyone else actively preventing you from practicing your beliefs? Are you actively singled out and harassed because of your beliefs? (And I'm not talking about "hurrdurr he disagrees with my view and called me stupid, I mean ACTUAL harassment.) As a whole, have people of your religion been targeted and physically harmed because of their religion in this county? No? Then what double standard? Your religion oppresses marginalized persons in the name of their beliefs and because the government wants to help those said people reach a better standard of living and acceptance, your "religious" rights are being violated?


On the topic of contraception and birth control, accidents happen. Condoms are not perfect and some will break on occasion. There are even those with skin allergies to the latex and what other material condoms are made of. The contraception and enhancement of males is readily available to all, but women's birth control and emergency contraception is becoming increasingly difficult for them to obtain. Allowing contraception and the like to be covered under healthcare and insurance would oppress no one. Your religion will be completely unaffected.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 3:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpp8 (Post 7022024)
ITT: My Catholic faith is being persecuted in America.

Is the government or anyone else actively preventing you from practicing your beliefs? Are you actively singled out and harassed because of your beliefs? (And I'm not talking about "hurrdurr he disagrees with my view and called me stupid, I mean ACTUAL harassment.) As a whole, have people of your religion been targeted and physically harmed because of their religion in this county? No? Then what double standard? Your religion oppresses marginalized persons in the name of their beliefs and because the government wants to help those said people reach a better standard of living and acceptance, your "religious" rights are being violated?

Absolutely wonderful for the government for putting down my horrific Hell Church, then.

But please, don't make me pay for it. They can do whatever they want, but I see no reason why I should be forced to pay for something I actively disagree with.


However, it's been made clear, and abundantly so, that I honestly need to sit down and shut up because I have, and I mean personally so, oppressed millions of people and probably run their dogs over as well.

I understand. I have no room to protest, and I have no room to argue my beliefs. If I do, I'm probably arguing in support of widespread death and hatred everywhere.

Of course, I don't know how I could've been so blinded. I merely assumed that, because several other threads here concern people being offended that their beliefs were being attacked, that I had the right to voice my opinion.

I see that I am in error, and I will stop trying to stand up for what I believe in. After all, I'm merely getting in the way of everyone else doing the same.

EDIT: Actually, no. Not [/Thread]. I have had one too many Hannibal Lecture this week. One on why I'm a worthless human being, one on how I'm little more than a nuisance to everyone around me, and one on why I need to be quiet about what I believe in. And it's time to make a fool of myself once again, to show everyone why I'm little more than a raving idiot who's a waste of space, just one more time. Because even though I've been told for years that I'm worthless, that I'm stupid, that I'm whatever the hell you want to say, I'm still a human, and I still have a voice. I may stutter, I may stammer, I may be completely and totally unintelligible all of the time, but I still have a voice, even if I can only express it in text.

I know that what I believe in is unpopular. I know that there are many, many horrible things in my religion's history, and that, currently, my politics are unpopular because of who's in office right now.

However, I find it totally ironic that, in the same breath people use to tell me that I oppress the downtrodden and minorities, they also tell me to silence myself, to hide what I believe in, to not take a stand. I find it funny that people who can so blindly spew hatred and bile can also accuse me of bigotry and ignorance.

It's ironic, it's so horribly ironic, that the same people who denounce those that hate and blame are the ones who blame me for everything done in the past two thousand years that was even tangentially related to my beliefs.

Friends, let me make one thing clear. I am not a Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone preacher, I am not a skinhead with a shotgun who beats up the neighbor kids, and I am not a cross burning zealot.

I'm just a guy, just one man, who's trying to make his way through life the best he can. Personally, I think that the doctrine of "be good to others" isn't a bad one, and I think that actually taking a stand, actually having a spine, is something to be valued. I deeply apologize for not bringing an army to back me up, for not waiting to state my views until they were wildly popular with guaranteed support. I apologize for bringing controversy, for bringing in a topic that isn't the usual "CONSERVATIVES RAPE AND MURDER TWENTY SEVEN BABIES". I dearly, dearly apologize for that.

Now, with that out of the way, I hope we can resume the topic, keeping in mind that I have never tortured a Moor, nor have I even been to Spain. Neither have I colonized the New World, or wiped out Indians.


...


What is the topic, you ask?

Why, it's simple!

The topic is, "Is it acceptable for the government to require someone to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with?"

Pay for.

Those two words right there would have saved half this topic.

Not use, not see, not look at...

Pay for.


If I need to elaborate further, let me know.


(See? That's jumping down people's throats.)

jpp8 January 24th, 2012 4:36 PM

You do have the right to voice your opinion. And I have the right to tell you that your train of thought is backwards and completely unaccepting of change or progress. That the ideas you "stand for" are outdated and only serve to oppress. You have the right to practice your religion. And I will DIE to protect your right as a human being to practice your religion freely and openly without fear of persecution. I WILL NOT however respect your religion and its ideas which have and continue to oppress a sizable amount of the world's population in the name of "morality".

The premise of taxes in the first place are so that governments can give back to their people. Within the last century, this has come in the form of social security, government funded projects to create jobs, and more. This also means that our tax dollars are used to fund other unwanted projects such as wars, paying foreign debt, and government funded bail-outs. Though these may be against our beliefs and desires, it is what the government feels is the best interest for the people (well, more like corporations in today's government, but in an ideal situation like with this healthcare bill) and no one is exempt from paying taxes for it (well, except for the wealthiest in this country, but again, another thread). The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees your right to freedom of expression which includes practice of religion. It DOES NOT however grant anyone special permissions and exemptions because of their beliefs. EVERYONE SHOULD PAY TAXES regardless of their religious affiliation.

Oryx January 24th, 2012 4:53 PM

It's a fine line tbh. There are religions specifically created to be pacifist, or that hold pacifism as a main tenant of their religious beliefs. Do you feel that they should have the right to choose that their taxes not go to war? It's a highly similar situation in that they would feel war is needless suffering and killing in a similar way to abortion for Catholics.

CapricornPsyche January 24th, 2012 5:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpp8 (Post 7022337)
You do have the right to voice your opinion. And I have the right to tell you that your train of thought is backwards and completely unaccepting of change or progress. That the ideas you "stand for" are outdated and only serve to oppress. You have the right to practice your religion. And I will DIE to protect your right as a human being to practice your religion freely and openly without fear of persecution. I WILL NOT however respect your religion and its ideas which have and continue to oppress a sizable amount of the world's population in the name of "morality".

The premise of taxes in the first place are so that governments can give back to their people. Within the last century, this has come in the form of social security, government funded projects to create jobs, and more. This also means that our tax dollars are used to fund other unwanted projects such as wars, paying foreign debt, and government funded bail-outs. Though these may be against our beliefs and desires, it is what the government feels is the best interest for the people (well, more like corporations in today's government, but in an ideal situation like with this healthcare bill) and no one is exempt from paying taxes for it (well, except for the wealthiest in this country, but again, another thread). The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees your right to freedom of expression which includes practice of religion. It DOES NOT however grant anyone special permissions and exemptions because of their beliefs. EVERYONE SHOULD PAY TAXES regardless of their religious affiliation.

Since when did this topic become a "Conservative Nazi Vs. Liberal Communist" contest...? (not meaning to say all Conservatives and Liberals are like that, that's just how I typically call the regular riff-raff arguments between the two)

Getting back to topic, Since this topic is about forcing people to pay for something they don't believe in, they should change the exempt part of said law, such as if the individual strictly disapproves of their insurance or tax money having to pay for contraceptives and Abortions, then they should have the option to tell the insurance company to not have that an an option for them to pay for or tell the local government(or federal, however it may work) to exempt them from paying said tax.

Basically Speaking, don't make it an absolute requirement for everyone, but make it optional to make someone be exempt from it upon request.

This should be able to cater to Conservatives since they can request to opt out of paying for it, and liberals if they're ok with paying for this, thus not needing to make the request to opt out of said tax.

Mr. X January 24th, 2012 5:17 PM

Ad on to that, but if they opt out of paying then that means that they should not be allowed the benefits of the service either.

You don't want to pay for the full service because you disagree with a small part of it? Fine. But that means you don't get any of the service.

Empoleon144 January 24th, 2012 6:16 PM

Personally, I believe that the Military as it is is much, much worse than adding Abortion to Health Care. The Military should be used in offence sparingly, and should be used to protect the resources we have.

Abortion is perfectly sane option. I believe this, mostly because the more people that are born, the more horrible life will be on this planet, a planet low on resources, a planet where over 5 Billion people live in poverty, and with every new person alive, we have a new hungry mouth there is to feed.

I may be incredibly cynical to some, but I'm just trying to be realistic.

According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”

SOURCE

Note that the statistic cited uses children as those under the age of five. If it was say 6, or 7, the numbers would be even higher.)

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 6:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. X (Post 7022404)
Ad on to that, but if they opt out of paying then that means that they should not be allowed the benefits of the service either.

You don't want to pay for the full service because you disagree with a small part of it? Fine. But that means you don't get any of the service.

So, if I pay for everything in healthcare, save for the one thing I disagree with, I should be denied healthcare entirely?

TRIFORCE89 January 24th, 2012 6:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7022262)
What is the topic, you ask?

Why, it's simple!

The topic is, "Is it acceptable for the government to require someone to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with?"

Pay for.

Those two words right there would have saved half this topic.

Not use, not see, not look at...

Pay for.


If I need to elaborate further, let me know.

If it wasn't something so controversial as abortion, what would be your opinion?

If someone who doesn't make use of cars or the roads but rely solely on the subway and in addition to that is actually anti-car. Deep down they see the car and the road as a destructive force full of pollution, something no one should use. Should their tax dollars go toward upkeep of those very roads?

A little bit like comparing apples and oranges, but it a topic that's popped up in my local area once or twice and I think its a relevant comparison.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 6:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7022532)

If it wasn't something so controversial as abortion, what would be your opinion?

If someone who doesn't make use of cars or the roads but rely solely on the subway and in addition to that is actually anti-car. Deep down they see the car and the road as a destructive force full of pollution, something no one should use. Should their tax dollars go toward upkeep of those very roads?

A little bit like comparing apples and oranges, but it a topic that's popped up in my local area once or twice and I think its a relevant comparison.

In that case, if they feel like they're paying for something that they think is actively detrimental to humanity, then they have the right to protest.



inb4 more "but... they aren't using the cars, so why do they CARE?"

TRIFORCE89 January 24th, 2012 6:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7022536)
In that case, if they feel like they're paying for something that they think is actively detrimental to humanity, then they have the right to protest.



inb4 more "but... they aren't using the cars, so why do they CARE?"

Protesting is one thing. All for it. But, do they have any grounds upon which they can claim exemption? Like the "almost Catholic" organizations?

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 6:51 PM

Hows about the fact that, in the case of Catholic hospitals, the items are contrary to their mission and purpose?

Of course, that raises the question of "Should one employee's lack of protest invalidate the 98% that do have objections?"

TRIFORCE89 January 24th, 2012 6:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7022545)
Hows about the fact that, in the case of Catholic hospitals, the items are contrary to their mission and purpose?

Of course, that raises the question of "Should one employee's lack of protest invalidate the 98% that do have objections?"

Will an employee at a Catholic hospital necessarily always seek treatment at that very same hospital? Or any hospital employee for that matter, not just Catholic. I don't think there's a guarantee that they will seek treatment where they work. Maybe they commute to work, but in the case of medical need its too out of the way. While the Catholic hospital may not carry these items or perform these procedures (is this protected under this legislation by the way? I'm assuming it is) and may only want to provide insurance for the services the offer, there is no reason their employees can't seek medical service elsewhere that does offer those services - in which case they would require the insurance.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 7:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7022554)

Will an employee at a Catholic hospital necessarily always seek treatment at that very same hospital? Or any hospital employee for that matter, not just Catholic. I don't think there's a guarantee that they will seek treatment where they work. Maybe they commute to work, but in the case of medical need its too out of the way. While the Catholic hospital may not carry these items or perform these procedures (is this protected under this legislation by the way? I'm assuming it is) and may only want to provide insurance for the services the offer, there is no reason their employees can't seek medical service elsewhere that does offer those services - in which case they would require the insurance.

See, that's the alternative being discussed, if the workplaces just threw up their hands and, rather than withholding paychecks for insurance, allowed the employees to purchase the insurance.

That's a whole 'nother can of worms entirely,though.

Mr. X January 24th, 2012 7:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7022515)
So, if I pay for everything in healthcare, save for the one thing I disagree with, I should be denied healthcare entirely?

If you want to opt out of the program, then you shouldn't get any benefits of the program.

The issue isn't a tax that funds only abortions. The issue is that the tax will provide fund for all/alotof medical procedures and preventive measures, some of which will be ones you disagree with.

Unless it has already been decided, right now, what funds will go where then it will essentially be impossible to determine what percentage of your tax will fund what type of procedure. But currently, funding for insurance is usually variable so the amount of overall funds, and the distribution of those funds will change year to year.

In the end you either have to deal with it, or completely opt out of the program. While your money might not be funding abortions, its still funding a program that supports abortions.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 7:09 PM

Perhaps I was unclear earlier.

It's not so much the tax that's irking me, but more of the fact that insurance companies will be required to offer this. Because everyone is now required to have insurance, everyone will now be required to provide for contraception.

A simple solution would be to allow insurance companies to offer an individual package for conscientious objectors that does not include the offending items. Honestly, I'm clueless as to why our government doesn't simply allow that.

American politics at work, I guess. :/

jpp8 January 24th, 2012 7:31 PM

1. Contraception and other forms of birth control should be made readily available to those who wish to become sexually active. It is a woman's right to her own body. Others, especially those without uteri, have no ground denying women the basic privilege of birth control/contraception. These products are about as offensive as vaccinations, prescription drugs, and facial care.

2. It's all or nothing. We didn't keep *some* establishes Whites only in order to pander to those who believed that the White man and the Negro could not intermingle. We should not allow the option for people to not pay their fair share for insurance because they find it "objectionable" to their beliefs. People paying for healthcare infringes upon no one's rights.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpp8 (Post 7022589)
These products are about as offensive as vaccinations, prescription drugs, and facial care.

See, here you have the advantage, because arguing this would require me to use religious beliefs, all of which you would just refute with, "Lol Commienazies are invalid".

Still, contraception, sterilization, and abortion are not "about as offensive as vaccinations, prescription drugs, and facial care". They remove the possibility of human life or, in the latter case, kill human life. Of course, this is not an abortion thread, so the previous sentence was simply my humble opinion.


Quote:

2. It's all or nothing. We didn't keep *some* establishes Whites only in order to pander to those who believed that the White man and the Negro could not intermingle. We should not allow the option for people to not pay their fair share for insurance because they find it "objectionable" to their beliefs. People paying for healthcare infringes upon no one's rights.
We're not asking for an exemption to healthcare entirely. Why must I repeat this?

We're simply asking that our money not go to contraception. It will still receive funding, and it will still be readily available, but we will not be responsible for funding it.

I still fail to see why this is difficult to grasp.

Mr. X January 24th, 2012 8:02 PM

But you will be responsible for supporting a program that enables abortions. While your money might not be funding the abortions, your money is what will help keep the overall program working smoothly.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 8:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. X (Post 7022626)
But you will be responsible for supporting a program that enables abortions. While your money might not be funding the abortions, your money is what will help keep the overall program working smoothly.

In that case, the blood is on their hands. Of course, seeing as there were several thousand in Washington freezing to death in the March for Life these past few days, it would be inconsistent to fund abortions while we send groups to D.C. to protest it.

Also, we're Catholics, not anarchists. We want to practice our religion, not bring the government to its knees.

Oryx January 24th, 2012 8:25 PM

Welp I feel officially ignored. I know you mentioned that it's not about the tax, but the point is analogous anyway. There are religions such as Jainism that believe in avoiding death at all costs, to the point that they filter their water excessively so they don't accidentally kill tiny life forms by drinking them, and their religious leaders sweep the ground they're about to walk on so they don't accidentally step on any bugs and kill them. They're all vegetarians and avoid eating root vegetables, since you can take the leaf or fruit of a plant without killing the plant, but not the root. Say a group of these people were practicing in the United States. Do you think they should have the right to keep their tax money from being used in wars? How far does this extend? What about the Westboro Baptist Church, should they be able to make sure their taxes don't go towards anything that may help the LGBT community because it's against their beliefs?

Although to be honest, I'm not sure I understand the whole issue here, maybe I'm just not really that versed on how the insurance works. But isn't it how it works that the employee buys the drug, and then the company pays for it? Wouldn't the logical solution be to hire only practicing Catholics? While that is unfortunate for non-Catholics that currently work at a Catholic institution, it does seem like a solution that would be viable.

I would just like to point out in addition that there are instances in which birth control is used as a medication beyond its main purpose, I've known a lot of people that have.

jpp8 January 24th, 2012 8:57 PM

1. No, I don't have the advantage because of your religion. I have the advantage because of facts. Abortions of unborn fetuses, especially those in the first trimester, is just a removal cluster of cells. ALL cells have potential for human life. All of them. Exfoliation? Killing cells with potential for human life.

2. As Toujours pointed out, your beliefs shouldn't entitle you to a special privilege of dictating companies as to where their funds can and cannot be invested. Government should ensure equal opportunity for its citizens, not pander to beliefs of entitlement.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 9:48 PM

1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

This is not a thread for abortion, however.


2. In that case, why was there a big flareup when Sharia Law got taken out?

I think you're right, though. The government should allow absolute openness for all viewpoints, and cater to none.

Therefore, let's cease federal aid, let's cut the scholarships, and let's remove race from the equation entirely. We should all be given blank slates and an even playing field, and our viewpoints be damned.



Anyway.

@Toujours: However, there are many non-Catholics working at Catholic institutions. Is it morally justifiable to fire everyone and throw them on the street because of "Lolsorry guys!"?

And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.

Of course, I believe that the government really does need to stamp out this "pregnancy" disease thing, and I honestly wish that our mothers would have agreed.

1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

This is not a thread for abortion, however.


2. In that case, why was there a big flareup when Sharia Law got taken out?

I think you're right, though. The government should allow absolute openness for all viewpoints, and cater to none.

Therefore, let's cease federal aid, let's cut the scholarships, and let's remove race from the equation entirely. We should all be given blank slates and an even playing field, and our viewpoints be damned.



Anyway.

@Toujours: However, there are many non-Catholics working at Catholic institutions. Is it morally justifiable to fire everyone and throw them on the street because of "Lolsorry guys!"?

And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.

Of course, I believe that the government really does need to stamp out this "pregnancy" disease thing, and I honestly wish that our mothers would have agreed.

TRIFORCE89 January 24th, 2012 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpp8 (Post 7022687)
Abortions of unborn fetuses, especially those in the first trimester, is just a removal cluster of cells.

Ehhh, I don't know about that. I'd say only during the first trimester. Otherwise you're getting into formed organs and eventually live-births and stages where if a baby were born significantly premature that there would be effort made to save it.

Oryx January 24th, 2012 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7022718)
@Toujours: However, there are many non-Catholics working at Catholic institutions. Is it morally justifiable to fire everyone and throw them on the street because of "Lolsorry guys!"?

They have over a year at least to phase in the new insurance programs. That's plenty of time to tell people that aren't Catholic to start looking for a new job without screwing them over.

Ivysaur January 25th, 2012 1:36 AM

If we allowed people to opt-out of paying taxes if the Government is going to use that money for things they consider are morally wrong, lots of people would not pay for most of them. More money for them!

No, seriously. I'm a pacifist, so give me back the army fund percentage. And the money which is used to murder fully-born-and-alive people sentenced to death penalty. And I don't believe in police so give me that part back. And I have my kid homeschooled and so on and so on.

I feel I'm repeating already existing arguments but our taxes go in a full package which the Government uses for whatever they feel fit. One part from my taxes is given to the Catholic Church (here in Spain) and hell if I disagree and protest against it. But I wouldn't stop paying my taxes for that. That's not how it works.

The result of your plan? The State would have seriious funding problems, and social services would be greatly damaged. Because you aren't the only one who sees how their taxes are being used to pay something that's morally wrong for them. And, if we allow you to cheat the system, we'll have to allow everyone to. It's a good way to take a Government down, though, denything them money based on moral grounds.

Mr. X January 25th, 2012 5:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7022718)
1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.

1. Why is it that when it's human, it's a abortion, and if it's a chicken, its a omelet? If a fetus is a human being, why doesn't the Census count them? If a Fetus is a human being, why don't they have a funeral when their is a miscarriage? If a fetus is a human being, then why does a woman say I have one child and one on the way instead of just saying I have two children?

And yes, all taken from George Carlin's '96 show. But the questions that he asked still apply to today.

2. So, its OK for your sister to take pills that prevent the medical condition known as Pregnancy, but its wrong for anyone else to? Unless you are referring to other medical conditions, in which case your arguments against birth control pills being bad pretty much goes out the window. Even then, it matters not the condition because even IF its being used for something else, the fact is that it's still birth control which is meant to stop the creation of life.

TRIFORCE89 January 25th, 2012 6:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. X (Post 7022973)
1. Why is it that when it's human, it's a abortion, and if it's a chicken, its a omelet? If a fetus is a human being, why doesn't the Census count them? If a Fetus is a human being, why don't they have a funeral when their is a miscarriage? If a fetus is a human being, then why does a woman say I have one child and one on the way instead of just saying I have two children?

And yes, all taken from George Carlin's '96 show. But the questions that he asked still apply to today.

Chicken eggs we eat are unfertilized.

And there may not be a funeral over a miscarriage because usually that's something you keep private. I don't have any personal experience with this, but generally people feel shame and embarrassment. Even that early on in your pregnancy you don't announce generally, because there is the possibility of a miscarriage. And even then, the parents do grieve for a while.

Because it is on the way. It's like if you order something from Amazon. You've paid for it, it's yours, but it hasn't arrived yet. It exists but it hasn't arrived yet. And maybe it'll get lost along the way. Don't count all your chickens until they've hatched.... to bring your analogy full circle.

Esper January 25th, 2012 10:42 AM

If you want to be with the program, but not have your money go to contraception, would you still be okay paying the same amount as people who do want contraception?

So yeah. I find it hard to see how someone could want to be part of a program, like health insurance, that includes things they object to, like contraception. Even if your money doesn't go directly to paying for the pill or condoms it's still going to pay for something like cancer screening and that will free up money to go to contraception. The bottom line doesn't change.

jpp8 January 25th, 2012 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7022718)
1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

This is not a thread for abortion, however.

Nah, I said EVERYTHING has potential for human life. If you outlaw abortion on the grounds that it kills human life, then you'd have to outlaw a bunch of other basic everyday things as well because that too is killing human life. I can see how you would get the two mixed up though.
Quote:

I think you're right, though. The government should allow absolute openness for all viewpoints, and cater to none.

Therefore, let's cease federal aid, let's cut the scholarships, and let's remove race from the equation entirely. We should all be given blank slates and an even playing field, and our viewpoints be damned.
In an ideal situation, yes, nobody should judge based on race, but there is and likely will always be inherent racism in the system. "Blank Slates" are anything but. To give marginalized persons an even playing field, they are given aid in order to reach the same level as privileged persons. To say this aid is preferential treatment is similar an older sibling's jealousy toward their newborn sibling because they get new baby toys and all they have are their laptops and smartphones.
Quote:

And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.
"The only moral abortion is my abortion". Birth control is still birth control. Do you think your sister would appreciate it if you supported government making it harder for her to obtain her medication?
Quote:

Of course, I believe that the government really does need to stamp out this "pregnancy" disease thing, and I honestly wish that our mothers would have agreed.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? First you go off saying that this isn't the thread for it and then you keep bringing it up? Second, a common misconception of the pro-choice movement is that people think we're going to force people to get abortions. That is not the pro-choice movement. The pro-choice movement advocates a woman's right to her body and her choice of whether or not to follow through with her pregnancy. It's not rocket science to give women complete control over their bodies?
Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7023000)

Because it is on the way. It's like if you order something from Amazon. You've paid for it, it's yours, but it hasn't arrived yet. It exists but it hasn't arrived yet. And maybe it'll get lost along the way. Don't count all your chickens until they've hatched.... to bring your analogy full circle.

And to complete your analogy, what if a mother didn't intentionally order the package and it was an accident? What if someone forced it on her? What if, somewhere along the line, her situation changed or she realized she would no longer be able to afford this package? Should she not be able to return or cancel her order? People always say "regifting" as if it's a guarantee that the package will receive an owner, but the process of delivery is already incredibly painful to go through and there's no guarantee that the package will find an owner since there's already a terribly large backlog of regifted orders.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 7023185)
If you want to be with the program, but not have your money go to contraception, would you still be okay paying the same amount as people who do want contraception?

So yeah. I find it hard to see how someone could want to be part of a program, like health insurance, that includes things they object to, like contraception. Even if your money doesn't go directly to paying for the pill or condoms it's still going to pay for something like cancer screening and that will free up money to go to contraception. The bottom line doesn't change.

This pretty much. It's all or nothing. Your money either goes to an organization that funds availability of contraception as well as provide you with healthcare, or you pay nothing at all and thus receive no healthcare. As Went pointed out, taxes don't pander to your beliefs since people can exploit these tax loopholes to try to obtain non-existent taxes. Additionally, with Obama's mandated health insurance policy to ensure that no American is denied coverage, you'll just have to accept that taxpayer money will be used to fund projects such as contraception and abortion.

Oryx January 25th, 2012 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpp8 (Post 7023266)
"The only moral abortion is my abortion". Birth control is still birth control. Do you think your sister would appreciate it if you supported government making it harder for her to obtain her medication?

Just pointing out that when I said 'birth control is used as medication as well', it's under the assumption that the person in question isn't having sex. It can be used especially to help with intense cramping menstrual cycles. If you're using birth control but not having sex, then there's no chance of an abortion or contraception.

Esper January 25th, 2012 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7023275)
Just pointing out that when I said 'birth control is used as medication as well', it's under the assumption that the person in question isn't having sex. It can be used especially to help with intense cramping menstrual cycles. If you're using birth control but not having sex, then there's no chance of an abortion or contraception.

Not to get too far off topic, but what is one to think if, in the middle of taking one's not-for-use-as-contraception birth control, one decides she's just too tempted by the flesh and ends up putting that contraception to another use?

TRIFORCE89 January 25th, 2012 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpp8 (Post 7023266)
And to complete your analogy, what if a mother didn't intentionally order the package and it was an accident? What if someone forced it on her? What if, somewhere along the line, her situation changed or she realized she would no longer be able to afford this package? Should she not be able to return or cancel her order? People always say "regifting" as if it's a guarantee that the package will receive an owner, but the process of delivery is already incredibly painful to go through and there's no guarantee that the package will find an owner since there's already a terribly large backlog of regifted orders.

That's not entirely related to the line in question of Mr. X's post that I was commenting on. But whatever.

I am pro-choice, but with restrictions. I am not anti-abortion. And I am certainly not against contraception. However, for the reasons I already discussed in my previous post I'm not fond of abortion after the first trimester, with the exception being for situations like emergencies, complications, health reasons, etc. And very much against partial-birth abortions. That you're killing a baby in one room, but in the room next door trying to save a baby of the same age who was born prematurely is just mind-baffling.

I see abortion as serving a medical purpose. But, if you want it to use it just as contraception, I think an abortion should be the last resort; but that's their choice if they choose to do it. Personally, I think adoption is the better alternative as your last resort, but I don't want to deny them that option either.

But, to continue this analogy game... Yes, they should be able to cancel or return her order. But, within the parameters. Most retailers have a return and cancellation policy. Return within the first 30 days, for example. Or cancel your order before it ships. So... continuing with this analogy, if you're going to abort - do it during the first trimester, not after. That's your window of opportunity.

But, we're drifting from the topic of the thread now. Which, to reiterate... my stance was that they shouldn't be exempt, no.

Oryx January 25th, 2012 1:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 7023294)
Not to get too far off topic, but what is one to think if, in the middle of taking one's not-for-use-as-contraception birth control, one decides she's just too tempted by the flesh and ends up putting that contraception to another use?

According to Catholics, that would be a sin and one would have to confess it, sincerely regret it and resolve not to do it again, and then will be forgiven by a priest and it's as if the sin was never committed since it's washed from the record by God.

Of course, it's the 'regret and resolve' part that usually gives Catholics trouble.

TRIFORCE89 January 25th, 2012 1:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7023321)


According to Catholics, that would be a sin and one would have to confess it, sincerely regret it and resolve not to do it again, and then will be forgiven by a priest and it's as if the sin was never committed since it's washed from the record by God.

Of course, it's the 'regret and resolve' part that usually gives Catholics trouble.

Personally, I've got issues seeking forgiveness from a priest. But that's another matter XD

Mr. X January 25th, 2012 1:39 PM

Given the number of priests that were on the news in the last few years for molestation, it seems like they don't even follow the words that they preach. Arguably though, this stuff is what happens when you tell a person to repress any and all sexual urges that they have. Sooner or later, some of them will stop repressing them and seek whatever release they can get.

The ones in the news though are just the ones we know of. Odd's are, the corruption reaches much further then is currently known.

Oryx February 13th, 2012 8:01 AM

Hi you guys there's more news on this!

Obama announces birth control compromise

Thoughts? I find it pretty agreeable and agree with the idea that if people still aren't happy with it they seem to be "advocating for a system where religious groups could actually bar all their employees from taking birth control, regardless of who pays for it". But I'd like to see if any people who aren't quite as liberal as me agree with that. The article mentions that a few Catholic universities have come out supporting it already as well.

Esper February 13th, 2012 8:25 AM

Great compromise. Personally, I don't think there needed to be one and that whiners should have shut up about their "religious freedoms" that they didn't seem to care about when 28 states already had laws like this on the books, but that's just me. I mean, when you get all these tax breaks from the government because you're a religious institution you're still playing in the secular world and have to play by some of its rules. Can't have it both ways.

Aaaaaannnnnnddddd........There's a bit more to add to this news. Mitch Mcconnell, leading Republican in the US Senate, is supporting a proposed law that would allow any employer to exclude covering any birth control they wanted to based on "moral grounds." Yeah. First it was all up in arms about religion being trampled over (which I think was just a political stance anyway) and when Obama finds a clever way around that to make everyone happy (except insurance agencies, probably) they can't let him have his victory and need to spin it into something that still vilifies him as an anti-religious crusader who forces you to do something against your morals.

Blue Nocturne February 16th, 2012 3:28 AM

I'm sure this has already been brought up, but I'm fundamentally opposed to the way money in the military is spent. I don't like that my tax money is being spent on wars we have no real place in. Where can I sign up to bump down my payments? (I'm neither American, nor a tax payer, but this is more for the sake of argument)

TRIFORCE89 February 16th, 2012 5:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 7046886)
Great compromise. Personally, I don't think there needed to be one and that whiners should have shut up about their "religious freedoms" that they didn't seem to care about when 28 states already had laws like this on the books, but that's just me. I mean, when you get all these tax breaks from the government because you're a religious institution you're still playing in the secular world and have to play by some of its rules. Can't have it both ways.

Well, who cares about what those other states do. It's only a problem because Obama proposed it.

I don't know, the compromised wasn't needed, but whatever works I guess. As long as more people have access to health care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 7046886)
Aaaaaannnnnnddddd........There's a bit more to add to this news. Mitch Mcconnell, leading Republican in the US Senate, is supporting a proposed law that would allow any employer to exclude covering any birth control they wanted to based on "moral grounds." Yeah. First it was all up in arms about religion being trampled over (which I think was just a political stance anyway) and when Obama finds a clever way around that to make everyone happy (except insurance agencies, probably) they can't let him have his victory and need to spin it into something that still vilifies him as an anti-religious crusader who forces you to do something against your morals.

Oh boy. I don't like this. Let's deny access to healthcare based on your employers point of view. The religious freedom argument... had some legs to it even though I didn't agree with it. But, this is just stupid. This is a slippery slope. What if you have an employer who only supports holistic methods? We're putting a lot of faith in assuming that corporations are moral.

Livewire March 11th, 2012 6:41 PM

Last I saw on this issue, some kind of compromise was reached, IIRC. I'll have go look an the details, but I vaguely remember a court backing up the President on this.

Netto Azure March 26th, 2012 5:25 AM

The Constitutionality of the American Affordable Healthcare Law
 

Quote:

A Republican-led challenge to the Democrats' most ambitious social legislation in a generation goes before the Supreme Court on Monday, with President Obama's healthcare law hanging in the balance.

The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, may decide whether the Constitution puts any limit on Congress' power to regulate not just healthcare, but the entire economy.

- The arguments begin with a technical discussion of whether the proposed penalty for not buying health insurance amounts to a tax. If the justices find that it is, under an old law they may have to postpone ruling on most of the issues until after the penalty goes into effect in 2014.

- On Tuesday, the justices will get to the heart of the matter, debating whether Congress has the authority to make people purchase a product: health insurance.

- On Wednesday, they will talk about whether the rest of the law can stand on its own even if the insurance mandate is struck down, and the separate issue of whether the federal government’s plan to fund a massive expansion of state Medicaid programs violates states’ rights under the Constitution.

Since 1936, the justices have not struck down a major federal regulatory law on the grounds that Congress went too far. The court's forbearance on matters touching Congress' authority to regulate commerce has allowed Washington's power to grow, to protect civil rights and the environment, to ensure safer automobiles and drugs, and to help boost the wages and benefits of workers.

All the while, however, conservatives and business groups have insisted there must be a limit. Otherwise, they say, an all-powerful federal government would be free to write its own rules.

Such a limit -- if the Constitution indeed sets one -- is at the heart of the healthcare case.
I am quite amazed at how fast the US Supreme Court has moved on taking this very landmark case up. And the fact that it's in the middle of a full-scale Presidential Campaign Post-Citizens United. Usually it takes a case 4 years or so to get into the court's plate.

Anyways if the Individual Mandate does get struck down, it takes away any viable "Market-oriented" reform for the Healthcare field. In my opinion it was a seriously short-sighted attempt to score some political points to target the individual mandate considering the fact that the current system is stuck between Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, not having all of the younger generation in the insurance pool, a patchwork of payment systems that includes thousands of insurance companies, the Veterans Affairs Hospital System, The Native American Reservation health system, Medicaid and Medicare.

Anyways, you guys know my position. I support the law etc.

But in the end if it does get struck down and the opposition celebrates it only gives alternatives that are very unpalatable to the opposition as it's going to be a more Social Security/Medicare route as our health system becomes thoroughly unsustainable in the near future.

TRIFORCE89 March 26th, 2012 7:54 AM

I don't think it'll get shot down. I think enough judges will pull for it.

Forgive my non-American understanding... but if it doesn't mesh well with that sacred piece of paper why not just ammend it like has been done many times over?

Dakotah March 26th, 2012 9:20 AM

I've been watching this conversation from the sidelines with some interest for a while now. Although I haven't contributed to the conversation, I feel it necessary to point out this one interesting fact:

Religious run organizations, such as hospitals and schools, object to the taxes they pay to the government going towards allowing women to kill unborn babies. And yet, they do not raise the same objection to their taxes paying for a soldier to go kill a Muslim.

I find that very interesting.

Mr. X March 26th, 2012 12:13 PM

But (Forgive me, I'm misquoting this... I know.) killing a heratic is not murder. Or something. (It was in a movie about the crusades.)

But still, this is how things usually are for them. They want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.

I think that this case could easily decide our next president though. If this law is struck down, odd's are that Obama is getting replaced. If it isn't, odds are that Obama will be staying for another 4 years.

Netto Azure March 26th, 2012 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7099939)
I don't think it'll get shot down. I think enough judges will pull for it.

Forgive my non-American understanding... but if it doesn't mesh well with that sacred piece of paper why not just ammend it like has been done many times over?

Well amending the sacred piece of paper (And yes, we Americans like to venerate it as closely as a holy document u_u) requires a 3/4 vote in the affirmative of the amendment in the House of Representatives and US Senate or the States in convention. Which in turn either a 3/4 supermajority of State Legislatures vote in approving it or a 3/4 supermajority of the states in a convention approve of it.

And considering that the political landscape as it is barely gets a majority of the US Congress to pass funding bills and other essential legislation such as the Debt Ceiling, I doubt an amendment would actually pass on such a hyper-partisan piece of legislation.

Livewire April 11th, 2012 7:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7099939)
I don't think it'll get shot down. I think enough judges will pull for it.

Forgive my non-American understanding... but if it doesn't mesh well with that sacred piece of paper why not just ammend it like has been done many times over?

Given how polarized American Politics has become, a Constitutional Amendment would be damn near impossible as of right now. The feasible way would be once President Obama is re-elected, and if the Democrats re-take the House of Representatives with a large majority. Same with the Senate.

Netto Azure April 11th, 2012 9:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Live_Wire466 (Post 7126208)


Given how polarized American Politics has become, a Constitutional Amendment would be damn near impossible as of right now. The feasible way would be once President Obama is re-elected, and if the Democrats re-take the House of Representatives with a large majority. Same with the Senate.

I highly doubt that even with the 2009-2010 Democrat Supermajority any constitutional amendment would pass. I still remember how close the votes on PPACA were back then, 219-212 in the House IIRC, and the 60-39 in the Senate. That's not enough for an amendment. :/

TRIFORCE89 April 11th, 2012 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 7126294)


I highly doubt that even with the 2009-2010 Democrat Supermajority any constitutional amendment would pass. I still remember how close the votes on PPACA were back then, 219-212 in the House IIRC, and the 60-39 in the Senate. That's not enough for an amendment. :/

Agreed. Even with a supermajority back then, the democrats conceded a lot.

Obamacare is a step in the right direction. But what you need is a universal health care or national insurance system. But, even with a supermajority there was no chance of that happening. Constitutional amendment or not.

Netto Azure April 11th, 2012 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7126563)

Agreed. Even with a supermajority back then, the democrats conceded a lot.

Obamacare is a step in the right direction. But what you need is a universal health care or national insurance system. But, even with a supermajority there was no chance of that happening. Constitutional amendment or not.

I still remember thoroughly criticizing the various proposals being floated back then. (Except for HR 676 of course) Remember this?

http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=189588

and

http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=197741

But after experiencing actually having insurance myself and seeing how other college students are benefiting from various provisions in the Law, I've realized that this is way better than what we had before. The US as it is can only accept these modest forms of reform due to entrenched interests, but that is life.

Yet sadly the issue is being used as a political football with some very unfounded fears being peddled around.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:47 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.