Obama: Health Plans must include free birth control, even for Religious Organizations

[Harry]

Originally Posted by snoo

Actually I don't have a problem with it as long as all employers have that option. What I have a problem with is Catholic organizations getting special treatment. Or any religious organization getting special treatment for that matter.

[Standtall]

Originally Posted by NotUrAvgXBar

I think that for a law to be passed, it needs to be good. That's all that matters to me. And if a law is good, people shouldn't be able to ignore it just because of religious reasons.

If a deadly plague breaks out that can only be cured by pork, then I could support a bill forcing hospitals to serve it. I don't care if it violates your religion, it's important enough that it should apply to everyone.

If a law is dumb, don't waste your breath talking about how you don't like it because goes against your religion. Bring up actual reasons why the law is dumb.

The law is dumb because the Government made it.

[Standtall]

Originally Posted by snoo

Actually I don't have a problem with it as long as all employers have that option. What I have a problem with is Catholic organizations getting special treatment. Or any religious organization getting special treatment for that matter.

But this is the law. The law says everyone must do this. Giving everyone an exception makes the law impotent.

Of course then the government will force everyone to pay to treat that too.

[gomer_tree]

Originally Posted by snoo

If a Catholic organization has employees that are on payroll - it's being run as a business, to make money. In this case, they should be treated as all other businesses.

According to this, pretty much every non-profit, religious or not, is a business. Now, it may need to be run with a business mindset in order to use funds efficiently and satisfy government requirements for accounting, taxes, and regulations. But that doesn't mean its purpose is to make a profit, like a business.

In fact, any church has someone on payroll, even if it's only a pastor or a priest. So, actually, I find this entire point you made ill-conceived.

[gomer_tree]

Originally Posted by Lucy

First, it's not "free", it's just covered by insurance. I assume that any deductibles, etc., that apply to other medications or procedures would apply to bc. Is that not true?

Second, while you can argue the value of "insuring" low-cost stuff, like flu shots or IUDs or strep tests, I don't see why birth control should be singled out as a form of health care that is excluded.

Third, yes, I do think it is comparable to requiring minimum liability coverage. It's setting a baseline of coverage that "counts" as insurance.

What if government mandated the plan pay for abortions? No problem there for you, I imagine.

[gomer_tree]

Originally Posted by wolferine

Should they mandate that they cover tooth brushes, toilet paper, tooth paste, and pine nuts?

Pine nuts?

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Originally Posted by Lucy

Second, while you can argue the value of "insuring" low-cost stuff, like flu shots or IUDs or strep tests, I don't see why birth control should be singled out as a form of health care that is excluded.

Being fertile is not an illness. I don't see why birth control ought to be considered a form of health care. It should be in the same aisle where they keep other feminine products like tampons and nail polish and plastic eggs with panty hose in them.

[gomer_tree]

Originally Posted by Lucy

Yeah, and it's a lot like tetanus shots being insured. But that's not in the news, because no one is fighting to be exempt from providing "free tetanus shots".

There is a reasonable question about whether health insurance ought to cover preventative care at all, (as I've mentioned a couple of times already)but that is not the question that's up at bat today. THAT question is whether religious institutions should be allowed to carve out birth control, unique among preventative care, due to their moral objections to it. Or perhaps whether the government should be able to mandate which types of preventative care must be covered.

Comparing vaccinations to birth control with respect to moral stance from the paying employer is completely missing the point, and is not the argument. Granted, there is a second argument about whether or not health care should pay for these things at all from an economic standpoint, but it is not the primary issue here.

[gomer_tree]

Originally Posted by NotUrAvgXBar

I don't care if it violates your religion...

And... wow.

[erosewater]

Originally Posted by NotUrAvgXBar

I think that for a law to be passed, it needs to be good. That's all that matters to me. And if a law is good, people shouldn't be able to ignore it just because of religious reasons.

If a deadly plague breaks out that can only be cured by pork, then I could support a bill forcing hospitals to serve it. I don't care if it violates your religion, it's important enough that it should apply to everyone.

If a law is dumb, don't waste your breath talking about how you don't like it because goes against your religion. Bring up actual reasons why the law is dumb.

If that's all you want us to do it's way easier to strike this one down without even needing the religion angle