Off-Topic Hang out with people and talk about whatever. Feel free to suggest a better description for this forum as everyone seems to have an opinion. :D

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old July 20th, 2013 (9:17 PM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
  • Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunnyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 14,265
Ask and you shall receive, Patchisou Yutohru

Simply put, do you think that religious institutions should be forced to cover the costs for contraceptives and the like, other forms of healthcare, etc, even if they 'contradict' religious doctrines?
__________________
Reply With Quote

Relevant Advertising!

  #2    
Old July 21st, 2013 (11:55 AM).
twocows's Avatar
twocows twocows is offline
Mostly Benign
  • Gold Tier
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Posts: 4,172
Through taxes, yes. Disagreeing with where your tax money is going is not a justifiable reason not to pay them.

They shouldn't have to provide them directly, though. That would be silly.
__________________
8values
Political Simulator
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old July 21st, 2013 (4:06 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
  • Gold Tier
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,128
What twocows said. Pay your taxes, and that's it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old July 21st, 2013 (4:52 PM).
NurseBarbra's Avatar
NurseBarbra NurseBarbra is offline
くら くら?
  • Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Posts: 322
This is the first post back from my break that i'll post a reply to.

Being raised both Irish and catholic , my first response was "Churches don't pay tax though..."
Looking into it a bit more, I came up with the same reason.

As for the people in the church, be they priest or simple follower, then yes, through taxes is acceptable. Just because someone doesn't want to take the option of contraceptives doesn't mean others do as well.
Taxes pay for everything, from Roads, Hospitals, Military spending (though in Ireland we don't have what you'd call a military), Education, ect.
I don't like the fact that my taxes pay for Bank debt in my country that I didn't cause, but it doesn't give me the right to demand my money back specifically for that. (i think i went off topic but still)
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old July 21st, 2013 (8:04 PM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper Esper is offline
  • Silver Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 10,487
If a religious institution wants to do anything in the world outside religion then they should play by those rules. So then if you had a Catholic hospital they should act like a hospital since that’s the role they've chosen to adopt. If you’re not going to meet your obligations, don’t take on the responsibility.

A church or whatever that is acting strictly as a church obviously shouldn't even need to worry about this kind of thing since the only people they should be paying should be priests or whoever and they'll already agree with whatever the church stands for.

"Religious institution" should be very, very narrowly defined. If not, there's too much room for people with strong religious beliefs to abuse their positions of authority in non-religious areas.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old August 11th, 2013 (9:05 PM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
  • Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunnyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 14,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
If a religious institution wants to do anything in the world outside religion then they should play by those rules. So then if you had a Catholic hospital they should act like a hospital since that’s the role they've chosen to adopt. If you’re not going to meet your obligations, don’t take on the responsibility.

A church or whatever that is acting strictly as a church obviously shouldn't even need to worry about this kind of thing since the only people they should be paying should be priests or whoever and they'll already agree with whatever the church stands for.

"Religious institution" should be very, very narrowly defined. If not, there's too much room for people with strong religious beliefs to abuse their positions of authority in non-religious areas.
I agree completely. Although part of me would say that if they're going to be a Catholic Hospital, then there's to be no "interference" with it comes to abortion, contraception, end-of-life procedures, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old August 12th, 2013 (11:00 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper Esper is offline
  • Silver Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 10,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
I agree completely. Although part of me would say that if they're going to be a Catholic Hospital, then there's to be no "interference" with it comes to abortion, contraception, end-of-life procedures, etc.
Do you mean interference by non-Catholics with the Catholic distaste for abortion and contraception, meaning Catholic hospitals should be allowed to opt out of providing those services, or do you mean Catholic Hospitals shouldn't interfere with providing those services?
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old August 12th, 2013 (2:03 PM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
  • Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunnyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 14,265
The Hospital should be forced to provide those services if the need arises.
Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old August 13th, 2013 (10:38 AM).
Psycho Yuffie's Avatar
Psycho Yuffie Psycho Yuffie is offline
     
    Join Date: Jul 2013
    Location: Minnesota, USA
    Age: 32
    Gender: Female
    Nature: Quirky
    Posts: 44
    It's not just that catholic hospitals don't want to be involved with contraception, abortion, and the like. They also have a tendency of being extremely unaccommodating toward queer people. For instance, they still won't allow same-sex spouses to see their hurt partner. They used to hide under the guise that they aren't legally married, but that's no longer an option where I live--but they still do it anyway. They also don't allow treatment for transgender people. I have to drive an half and a half to get to a clinic that isn't affiliated with the catholic church to go to a doctor that supports transgender people.
    Reply With Quote
      #10    
    Old August 13th, 2013 (10:44 AM).
    Silais's Avatar
    Silais Silais is offline
    That useless reptile
       
      Join Date: Jul 2013
      Gender: Female
      Nature: Quiet
      Posts: 297
      I believe they should. The idea of a religious hospital honestly feels like an oxymoron to me. The fact that some medical institutions can deny people fundamental reproductive rights seems like a constitutional issue that needs to be fixed. Sorry, but I'm a bit tired of religious institutions getting free passes and having little to no consequences for their human rights violations.
      __________________
      Reply With Quote
        #11    
      Old August 13th, 2013 (11:27 AM).
      Entermaid's Avatar
      Entermaid Entermaid is offline
         
        Join Date: Jan 2013
        Location: The States
        Gender: Other
        Nature: Adamant
        Posts: 2,148
        Though, we should also understand the usefulness of religious hospitals. The staff are paid much lower, many of whom volunteer, and they have provided many indigent families with medical care, they otherwise could not afford before the secular hospital ever existed.

        "In 2012, the church operated 12.6% of hospitals in the USA, accounting for 15.6% of all admissions, and around 14.5% of hospital expenses (c. 98.6 billion dollars). Compared to the public system, the church provided greater financial assistance or free care to poor patients, and was a leading provider of various low-profit health services such as breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, and care of the elderly."

        The Church takes a HUGE financial burden off the US Healthcare System and has been involved in healthcare since the inception of the United States. Further, religious institutions operated most hospitals predating the 19th century. So it's not really an "oxymoron" or a contradiction of duties since history demonstrates otherwise.

        And Psycho Yuffe, they do allow the treatment of transgender people, they don't specialize in treatment specifically tailored to transgender people though. If you had a broken arm, they would treat you. Same for other LGBT people. For patients with special LGBT needs, they should seek out help from specific healthcare institutions and doctors that specialize in those needs. These hospitals usual have doctors with a broader fields of medicine. For instance, around 1% or less of the population is transgender and the field of study is fairly new. There are only a handful of specialists that exist for the treatments, and these hospitals can't afford to hire those specialists.

        I will say emergency abortion is a topic that should be discussed. Since, the mother's life is at stake, and the option to go to another hospital may not exist. Therefore, these hospitals should have the duty to provide in the best interest of the woman's health. However, if a woman decides to have an elective abortion, then the Church shouldn't have to provide the service.

        These healthcare facilities are an integral component of the US healthcare system, they are currently NEEDED given the amount of care they provide with lower wages, saving hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Though, yes, some hospitals don't provide care for HIV medications for instance, ect, they lower the burden of other hospitals in other costs, of which would hike up healthcare costs for LGBT patients at secular hospitals. The existence of these hospitals benefits everyone's healthcare needs.
        __________________
        #Team Popplio & Brionne
        Reply With Quote
          #12    
        Old August 15th, 2013 (6:41 AM).
        Slayer1986's Avatar
        Slayer1986 Slayer1986 is offline
           
          Join Date: Aug 2013
          Location: Norway
          Age: 22
          Gender: Male
          Nature: Lonely
          Posts: 15
          Quote:
          Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
          Though, we should also understand the usefulness of religious hospitals. The staff are paid much lower, many of whom volunteer, and they have provided many indigent families with medical care, they otherwise could not afford before the secular hospital ever existed.

          "In 2012, the church operated 12.6% of hospitals in the USA, accounting for 15.6% of all admissions, and around 14.5% of hospital expenses (c. 98.6 billion dollars). Compared to the public system, the church provided greater financial assistance or free care to poor patients, and was a leading provider of various low-profit health services such as breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, and care of the elderly."

          The Church takes a HUGE financial burden off the US Healthcare System and has been involved in healthcare since the inception of the United States. Further, religious institutions operated most hospitals predating the 19th century. So it's not really an "oxymoron" or a contradiction of duties since history demonstrates otherwise.

          And Psycho Yuffe, they do allow the treatment of transgender people, they don't specialize in treatment specifically tailored to transgender people though. If you had a broken arm, they would treat you. Same for other LGBT people. For patients with special LGBT needs, they should seek out help from specific healthcare institutions and doctors that specialize in those needs. These hospitals usual have doctors with a broader fields of medicine. For instance, around 1% or less of the population is transgender and the field of study is fairly new. There are only a handful of specialists that exist for the treatments, and these hospitals can't afford to hire those specialists.

          I will say emergency abortion is a topic that should be discussed. Since, the mother's life is at stake, and the option to go to another hospital may not exist. Therefore, these hospitals should have the duty to provide in the best interest of the woman's health. However, if a woman decides to have an elective abortion, then the Church shouldn't have to provide the service.

          These healthcare facilities are an integral component of the US healthcare system, they are currently NEEDED given the amount of care they provide with lower wages, saving hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Though, yes, some hospitals don't provide care for HIV medications for instance, ect, they lower the burden of other hospitals in other costs, of which would hike up healthcare costs for LGBT patients at secular hospitals. The existence of these hospitals benefits everyone's healthcare needs.
          That does still not justify the discrimination, and that's the problem. The only way I can see this will fix itself is if people donated more to the cause of universal healthcare to all instead of donating to the church, and one can start putting up taxes on the rich, but that is still yet to happen.
          Reply With Quote
            #13    
          Old August 15th, 2013 (8:55 AM).
          Psycho Yuffie's Avatar
          Psycho Yuffie Psycho Yuffie is offline
             
            Join Date: Jul 2013
            Location: Minnesota, USA
            Age: 32
            Gender: Female
            Nature: Quirky
            Posts: 44
            Exactly. I never said that the catholic church doesn't help. It does a lot of charity work and helps a lot with health care. I was just don't think they need to be dicks about it. If you're trying to help people, it shouldn't matter where they come from, who they are, or who they love. If they need help, you should help them.

            Also, your assumption that transgender specialists are expensive is also completely untrue. Any family physician can become a transgender specialist. You don't need to be an endocrinologist to prescribe hormones. My own physician has expressed a desire to help me, but can't because the clinic won't let him because it's affiliated with the catholic church.
            Reply With Quote
              #14    
            Old August 15th, 2013 (10:30 AM).
            Esper's Avatar
            Esper Esper is offline
            • Silver Tier
             
            Join Date: Jun 2009
            Location: California
            Posts: 10,487
            It's an awkward thing when you have an organization that's doing charity work who also discriminates in who they help. (Excluding reasonable discrimination - helping to fix inner city poverty means you probably won't be helping the hungry in Darfur.)

            Ideally we wouldn't have to rely on organizations that discriminate and we'd have the funds for enough medical personnel and facilities so that Catholic or other religiously affiliated hospitals would be an option for people instead of their only choice.

            I think we're doing ourselves a disservice in saying that since a Catholic hospital is operating partially on charity it should be excused. I mean, if I were the boss of a business and I had ten employees and one of them didn't want to do certain tasks I'd replace them as soon as I could, even if I had to pay their replacement as much as the other nine. It's just that there isn't the will to pay for enough proper hospitals in some places. *coughAmericacough*
            Reply With Quote
            Reply
            Quick Reply

            Sponsored Links
            Thread Tools

            Posting Rules
            You may not post new threads
            You may not post replies
            You may not post attachments
            You may not edit your posts

            BB code is On
            Smilies are On
            [IMG] code is On
            HTML code is Off

            Forum Jump


            All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:02 AM.