How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Another constitutional fracturing or no?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Another constitutional fracturing or no? Thoughts?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 02-11-2012 05:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

OK, I've never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I confess I'm lost here. Tell me where I go wrong here, grinch (which you have a lot of experience doing)

Under normal circumstances, a company pays an insurance company for employee coverage. One facet of that is to provide contraceptives to employees.
The cost of providing those contraceptives is factored into the premiums.

Under this compromise, the company is not required to pay for them. The employees would now take out a policy with the insurance company to provide contraceptives, free of charge. Does that mean..

(1) The insurance company will lower the premiums allow for the fact they took the contraceptives out...or

(2) Would the premiums remain the same?

In the first case, the insurance would be eating the cost of the contraceptives. I'm certainly not crying over the insurance company's profits being reduced, but that goes against the "everybody wins" comment.

In the second case, if the premiums remain the same, then it is still the organization paying for the contraceptives, which they claim goes against their beliefs. The only difference is that the items will be asked for by the employees directly from the insurance companies.

WHere am I going wrong here?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


51 posted 02-11-2012 06:56 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
1) The insurance company will lower the premiums allow for the fact they took the contraceptives out...or

(2) Would the premiums remain the same? .

Any existing plan would stay the same on day one under the grandfather clause - they would have done even without this latest change.

The Catholic organisations would get zero reduction in premiums because their current plans don't include contraceptives.

So the answer is number two.

quote:
I'm certainly not crying over the insurance company's profits being reduced, but that goes against the "everybody wins" comment.


They win Mike because their profits will be maximised by supplying contraceptives. It isn't hard to work out why, contraceptives prevent pregnancies which are generally covered in their policies and cost the insurance companies a hell of a lot more than supplying free contraceptives. Then you have the reduction in STD's including expensive medical costs for Aids etc.

Like all insurers, the ideal for Health Care insurers is to collect premiums and pay out as little as possible, in that context preventative medicine such as free contraceptives makes perfect sense.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


52 posted 02-11-2012 08:03 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


But for a religious institution's employees
to have these free items the institution
opposes from the insurer the religious
institution has to buy a policy with
the insurer so the religious institution
is acting against itself by doing so.
The religious institution is clear of
any responsibility only if those items
it opposes are offered to its employees
regardless of whether it buys a policy or not.


Now the church could just not buy any policy,
increase their employees' wages by what would
have been the cost and let their employees
decide what to do with the extra money.


.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


53 posted 02-11-2012 08:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

STD's? Catholics? Blasphemy!!

Thanks, grinch.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


54 posted 02-12-2012 08:02 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
STD's? Catholics? Blasphemy!!

You'd think so - but when questioned 96% of Catholic's admitted to using contraceptives at some point during their lives so perhaps Catholics are just as promiscuous as non-Catholics.



quote:
Now the church could just not buy any policy,
increase their employees' wages by what would
have been the cost and let their employees
decide what to do with the extra money.


It's a good idea but what stops the employees from simply spending the money and not taking out any health insurance at all?

If that happens everyone else's premiums will go up and someone is going to have to pick up the tab for the  health care of all those Catholics without cover when their STD's etc. become life threatening.

.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


55 posted 02-13-2012 08:10 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

I believe there’s something most are missing here:

The Catholic Church owns the insurance companies supplying their employee coverage.

Here’s one, just for NY. Fidelis Care

They are in the business of competing with other insurance companies for company/employer group healthcare plans. And, yes, their healthcare plan directs/redirects the employee to their Catholic hospital chains, whether you’ve had prior coverage with SAID non-Catholic hospital for years with SAID non-Catholic Dr…too bad, they are no longer members of the new group affiliated with your new Catholic healthcare plan. It doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic or not. The employee doesn’t make the decisions. Employers go with the most affordable plans and they can switch companies on the employee without notification, until after the fact.

Catholic hospitals push Catholic health insurance packages not only as medical facilities & employers, but under the Catholic Church as founder of two enterprises with sister companies, affiliations and chains across the U.S.

Now, does that mean that you can’t work for them UNLESS you accept Catholic healthcare?? I dunno. What kind of Opt Out plan do they have? They do accept Medicaid and Medicare. I don’t know what other plans of coverage they accept as a walk-in, but their services are limited to what is permitted under canon law.

Google--Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. (The Url was too long to post it properly)

“Catholic health care does not offend the rights of individual conscience by refusing to provide or permit medical procedures that are judged morally wrong by the teaching authority of the Church.”

(Tim Redmond) who is a recent recipient of a new health care plan/redirect thru his employer says: “But still: It's a Catholic hospital chain. With all the issues that creates. And it's part of the city's public-health infrastructure. A lot of us didn't choose a religious-based medical center; our insurance company did that for us.”

I believe that “assault on religious freedom” could be smacked right back at ‘em, but more importantly, here I go again—listening to what’s NOT being said: Why isn’t the Church kicking up a hell-storm about the loss of revenue?? Oh, yeah. They’re a Church. That would seem . . . tacky . . . in the least. But I do not believe this issue is solely one of moral bounds or grounds. There is too much money at stake changing hands in too many handshaking ways!! And if anyone takes the time to read the directives link I posted above? You are granted rights within their rights of rites with rights thrown all over the place except the right to services extended to citizens by US Gov. Brilliant! But acrobatically dangerous!
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


56 posted 02-13-2012 08:51 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“Here’s what the Obama plan would mean in practical terms: If a “non-exempt religious employer” — that is, a religiously affiliated employer, such as a Catholic social-service agency, that is not exempt from the mandate as a house of worship — chooses to offer health insurance to its workers, that insurance must always include among its benefits free contraception, sterilization, and access to abortion-inducing drugs. Which is to say that if they offer health insurance at all, many religious employers would be complicit in funding products and services that are in direct violation of the fundamental norms of their faiths. The substance of the “compromise” is the fact that the requirement to provide these services free of charge would be relocated, moving out of the employers’ insurance contract and into a federal regulation governing what insurers must include in the policies they sell to non-exempt religious employers. In effect, religious employers will be told that they can buy whatever policies they want, but insurers will be able to sell them only policies that cover contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and the like. This “compromise” leaves religious employers in precisely the same position they were in before: with no way to offer insurance that does not include coverage they find morally objectionable.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290899/compromise-isn-t-editors


.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


57 posted 02-13-2012 04:21 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of “increased access” to “reproductive services” for “poor” women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling.

As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” “

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290717/lsquoto-stop-multiplication-unfitrsquo-michelle-malkin


.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


58 posted 02-18-2012 01:57 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The only 'contraceptive' that even reduces the chances of contracting STD's are condoms. Not something covered under any insurance policy that I am aware. Birth control pills, abortofacients and sterilization procedures have nothing to do with preventing STD's. But they do increase the risk of stroke, breast and uterine cancer down the road.

I don't believe that any insurance company will be giving anything away 'free'. They will just recoup the cost in the next round of premium increases.

I also don't believe that the government has the right to demand that a private company provide anything for free.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


59 posted 02-18-2012 07:42 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I also don't believe that the government has the right to demand that a private company provide anything for free.


They don't have that right Denise, they can only suggest it. The health insurance industry will then either decide it makes financial sense or not. If they decide to go along with the idea individual companies will then work out whether they will absorb the costs based on longer term savings or recoup the costs by increasing premiums.

However if they decide not to go along with the idea they'll definitely pass on the increased costs of all the extra pregnancies etc, they be dealing with.

What the government does have a right to do is to demand that the goods and services supplied are of a minimum standard and applied equally. In the case of health care the government has decided that contraceptives should be included as part of that minimum standard in all new policies.

You could make an argument that the standard is too high, that contraceptives shouldn't be included in any policy but then you also have to accept that the additional costs those services prevent will be passed on to you in the form of increased premiums.

Is that what you're suggesting Denise?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


60 posted 02-18-2012 11:06 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

What I'm suggesting is that organizations should not have to provide or pay for policies that contain items and services that violate that organizations moral and religious beliefs and the government shouldn't force them to. If people who work for these organizations wish those services they should be able to purchase a separate rider through the insurance company. The government shouldn't mandate they be provided for 'free', which will only result in the cost being passed along in higher premiums to the employing organization anyway. Or people can get their contraceptives and abortofacients and abortions through Planned Parenthood, whichever makes better economic sense for them.

Of course the cheapest and most effective form of birth control is abstinence. That's always an option for people who don't want to get pregnant.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


61 posted 02-18-2012 12:17 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

That's one possible solution Denise.

Contraceptives and the other services involved could be removed from all policies sold to religious institutions and anyone who wants them could pay extra out of their own pocket. Any increased costs incurred due to unwanted pregnancies etc. would be paid for by raising the premiums of all policies.

What were the original problems with the American health care system again? Wasn't it high costs and limited coverage?

There are lots of options.

The government could allow individuals to opt out of any employer managed schemes that don't include contraceptives. The employer would pay the employee what they'd normally pay in premiums and the employee could join an alternative public option scheme that did include those services.

Of course the costs for those employers would go up as the number of employees opting out of their schemes increased. Though at least they'd not be violating any of their beliefs and the employee would be free to choose what sort of services they wanted.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


62 posted 02-18-2012 05:37 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Currently people are free now to opt out of accepting employer insurance programs. The government doesn't have to allow it. Some employers will pay a certain amount per month to those who opt out, some don't.

People can prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD's simply by going to the Pharmacy and purchasing a box of condoms for about $7 to $10. That would also reduce the use of cancer causing and blood clot causing chemicals and hormones found in oral contraceptives.

Obamacare isn't doing anything to contain costs. They are skyrocketing. I believe I mentioned that my portion of the premium skyrocketed 400% last March, and mine is through the AFL-CIO/AFSCME union....one of the ones who got the waivers to keep their costs down in the near term. It didn't stop them from raping their members' pocketbooks. It's all a scam.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


63 posted 02-19-2012 09:31 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

"Before the President’s announcement, it was the intention of the administration to force religious groups to purchase health insurance that provided contraceptive services free of charge.  Now it is the intention to require religious groups to purchase health insurance from a carrier that will provide contraceptive services free of charge.  The coverage would be provided as a part of the employer’s policy, not as a separate rider. What’s the difference?  For all intents and purposes: none.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .  And this duck, as far as conscience rights are concerned, is a dead one."
http://aclj.org/obamacare/accommodation-not

Obama's 'compromise' is just a distinction without a difference.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


64 posted 02-19-2012 05:18 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


There's also the issue of Catholic
institutions that are self insured.


.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


65 posted 02-19-2012 06:16 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Some employers will pay a certain amount per month to those who opt out, some don't.


Well there you go - I'm sure those nice Catholic employers would be willing to render unto their employees that which they normally render unto the insurers. That way the employees can decide for themselves whether they want cover for contraceptives.

Problem solved.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


66 posted 02-19-2012 07:39 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

That's a good point, John. What happens with the employers who self-insure and have religious or moral objections to covering birth control and abortions?

Private coverage costs far more than employer group coverage, though, Grinch, so most probably wouldn't be able to afford to pay for a policy with the money the employer would give them in lieu of employer provided coverage. Most folks who opt out of employer coverage have coverage under a spouse so they don't need it, and if they do get money from the employer in lieu of coverage it is extra bucks in their monthly budgets but certainly not enough to buy a personal policy.

Plus the plan under Obamacare is to charge a penalty to an employer who doesn't provide a 'government approved' plan. I don't know how that will impact the current practice of being able to opt out. It probably won't be allowed if the employer will be charged a penalty payable to the government.

From what I can see this government intrusion into health insurance/healthcare has solved none of the problems and only created new problems.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


67 posted 02-20-2012 09:38 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Here is a very informative article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577220950656734864.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


68 posted 03-02-2012 02:54 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“whose services are being offered . ..
free of charge”


http://www.smh.com.au/world/mobile-euthanasia-units-go-on-the-road-t o-make-house-calls-20120302-1u7y3.html


Watch for it
in a second term


.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


69 posted 03-03-2012 01:14 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    
quote:


“When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of “increased access” to “reproductive services” for “poor” women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling.

As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” “
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290717/lsquoto-stop-multiplication-unfitrsquo-michelle-malkin




       Margaret Sanger was a mixed bag to say the least.  She was apparently quite serious about her goal of "improving the race,"  and I believe there was a lot of what we'd consider to be racism today in her motivation.  It's difficult to argue with the best facts and information you can get.

     I disagree with birth control and Abortion both as means of achieving a better race, if only because I think you'd be hard pressed to define what a race is in the first place, at least if my understanding of modern anthropology is correct.  I do agree that women ought to have free access to Abortion and to contraception, however, on demand.  Just because Ms. Sanger seems to have been a racist, doesn't mean that some of the things she was saying and some of the conclusions people have come to building on her work are wrong.

     We see evidence of trephining when we look at the skulls of some of our  new stone age ancestors.  I doubt that any of those holes chipped in any of those skulls were for the purpose of allowing any sort of sophisticated decompression work, slipping little pieces of teflon behind a place where a vein presses on a nerve, for example, to allow intractable pain to subside.  Simply because Those neolithic folk were probably dealing with evil spirits more than anatomy doesn't mean that we've stopped drilling bore-holes in skulls; nor does it mean that our current reasons aren't good ones.

     The inference the earlier posting would have us make, as it was made in the article by Ms. Malkin the posting seems inspired by, seems to be otherwise:  That because Ms. Sanger was a racist, all her actions must necessarily be disposed of without discussion or examination as to their merit independent of that glaring flaw in their originator.  

     Despite the fact, for example, that Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, he was also one of the finest and most innovative of the Generals who fought in the Civil War.  The one doesn't make the other go away; not in either direction.

     Ms Malkin should, however, pay more attention to her facts.  The Abortion Clinic in Philadelphia she speaks of deserves all the scorn she heaps upon it, but she allows the readers to believe that it was a legal clinic, and that it was performing legal abortion under legal conditions.  In fact, it was performing illegal abortion in violation of Pennsylvania law and should have been closed down long before it was.  I know of no prochoice agencies that would approve of abortions  delivered under those conditions, by unlicensed providers, on third trimester pregnancies and on fetuses that were viable.  Ms. Malkin implies that this is not the case, and should be ashamed of herself for doing so.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Another constitutional fracturing or no?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors