PeteyDangerous
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 08:50 AM
Catholic Contraception Debate

Just wondering what you all think about this. As a catholic, it really bother me that the government is trying to place their values on catholic institutions. I just don't know where they get off making the catholic church go against their beliefs and pay for birth control/contraceptives.

The government seems to have an overreaching hand here, and it is a slippery slope. It just seems to me that catholics are getting beat on again (as usual). My religions seems to be the easy target (and i don't want to make this argument about that).

My girlfriend lives over in Germany (going to graduate school), she pays about 40 dollars a month for birth control. Their health care doesn't pay for that. If she can't afford it, I will buy it/make up the difference, especially if i'm going to be there for any length of time. 40$ a month is affordable, and even if it isn't for you, there's places where you can get it for free. I understand that it isn't just for contraception, but it also is used for contraception (that goes against the church's values), and having doctors sign off on same waiver is not some answer. I don't trust the values of many doctors who sign off on things just to be convenient for you.

If the government wants to do this garbage, find some funding outside of the catholic church and make it available to these employees. Do not force the church into something they see as a sin.

I just don't see why the church should be subsidizing a value that they don't believe in. It isn't like they don't want to provide health care, they just don't want to provide contraceptions which goes against its values.

I understand that many Catholics are on the pill, there's no question about that. But that's something between us and god, don't bring our church down.

I'm really hoping that the President changes his mind about this issue today in this speech of his. I know it's a long shot, but it's just another thing that pisses me off about the guy


clevesteve
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 09:24 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Shouldn't it be the individual's responsibility to adhere to their beliefs? The Church won't have to pay for birth control if the employes don't try to get a prescription, right?

BlottoGraham
(Rookie)
Fri Feb 10 2012 09:30 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Except that being catholic means you can not support anyone that goes against the church's rules. That means we can not provide contraception either. I am so tired of the government trying to box in religion. Why cant we have our freedom? To worship as we choose? This country is turning into Communist Russia. How much longer until they simply outlaw religious practice in public?

PeteyDangerous
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 09:33 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Shouldn't it be the individual's responsibility to adhere to their beliefs? The Church won't have to pay for birth control if the employes don't try to get a prescription, right?




That's an issue between its employees/followers and god. Not the church. If people aren't following the church's practices, does the church have to sin too?

The church can't discriminate and ensure that all employees are following their practices. People are free to do what they want, but the church shouldn't have to pay for it


no_logo_required
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 09:34 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Shouldn't it be the individual's responsibility to adhere to their beliefs? The Church won't have to pay for birth control if the employes don't try to get a prescription, right?




the institution is apart of the religion as well. there should be a separation of church and state here and even if individuals within the religion find it acceptable, the rules of the religon are clear (and so why force the institution of the religion to go against it).

it would be akin to forcing the Mormon church to have coffee on hand in the morning and beers at lunch.

i don't think it will matter. there is absolutely no way that the courts will allow it to stand.


PeteyDangerous
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 09:41 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

i don't think it will matter. there is absolutely no way that the courts will allow it to stand.




I sure hope that's the case. It just drives me nuts that the government is doing this


Kingcob
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 10 2012 09:47 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I wasn't really aware of the issue, I had heard a bit of it being a problem at Catholic hospitals. It really doesn't factor into my life though so its not a big deal for me.

As with all things government I would rather I get to pick and choose how they spend my money. I personally wouldn't give a dime for them to even chat with the Catholic Church. But I'm not going to spend my time worrying about things I can't control, or trying to find some way to influence the government. I am however going to sip on my decaf coffee and enjoy these lovely boards and the crickets chirping in the background.

Catholic churches have beautiful masses. My grandmother was Catholic and I always liked their masses much more than the Lutheran services I grew up with. Do you guys attend mass often? My uncle is a catholic / salesian teacher down in Mason.

Hope all is well my brownie brethren


PeteyDangerous
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 09:55 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Catholic churches have beautiful masses. My grandmother was Catholic and I always liked their masses much more than the Lutheran services I grew up with. Do you guys attend mass often? My uncle is a catholic / salesian teacher down in Mason.




I don't go to mass. That's something between me and god. What I have is a lot of respect for the religion itself and what it stands for. My uncle's a priest, aunt was a nun, parents are devout catholics, and the priest comes over for dinner once a month. I know the nuns at my parent's perish, and say hello to them when i see them in the grocery store.

It's an institution that I have a ton of respect for, and it's part of me


no_logo_required
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 10:14 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

if you enjoy Catholic masses, then you should try to check out an Orthodox mass sometime. there are some really gorgeous cathedrals and their ceremonies are beautiful.

clevesteve
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 10:19 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Kingcob, not sure if you're in Clevleand, but if you are, you should check out St. Stanislaus in Slavic Village. Now there is a gorgeous church. Make sure you go during the day to appreciate the windows.

PrplPplEater
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 10:47 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I think that the Gov't is overreaching in requiring it of ANY employer, much less a church. It isn't the responsibility of an employer to ensure that you don't get knocked up.
It is the responsibility of you and your partner. Period.

You don't want to get pregnant? Fine, go on the pill, or use condoms - or practice abstinence.
It's complete garbage that the gov't is REQUIRING employers to pay for an employee's responsibility.



Beyond that, they extend exemptions to religious organizations for everything under the sun - so for them to NOT extend the same for this item that goes against the religious beliefs is, to me, purely political crap.


FloridaFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 10:51 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Just wondering what you all think about this. As a catholic, it really bother me that the government is trying to place their values on catholic institutions. I just don't know where they get off making the catholic church go against their beliefs and pay for birth control/contraceptives.

The government seems to have an overreaching hand here, and it is a slippery slope. It just seems to me that catholics are getting beat on again (as usual). My religions seems to be the easy target (and i don't want to make this argument about that).

My girlfriend lives over in Germany (going to graduate school), she pays about 40 dollars a month for birth control. Their health care doesn't pay for that. If she can't afford it, I will buy it/make up the difference, especially if i'm going to be there for any length of time. 40$ a month is affordable, and even if it isn't for you, there's places where you can get it for free. I understand that it isn't just for contraception, but it also is used for contraception (that goes against the church's values), and having doctors sign off on same waiver is not some answer. I don't trust the values of many doctors who sign off on things just to be convenient for you.

If the government wants to do this garbage, find some funding outside of the catholic church and make it available to these employees. Do not force the church into something they see as a sin.

I just don't see why the church should be subsidizing a value that they don't believe in. It isn't like they don't want to provide health care, they just don't want to provide contraceptions which goes against its values.

I understand that many Catholics are on the pill, there's no question about that. But that's something between us and god, don't bring our church down.

I'm really hoping that the President changes his mind about this issue today in this speech of his. I know it's a long shot, but it's just another thing that pisses me off about the guy




Except they aren't making the church pay for anything, the church pays insurance premiums just like everyone else, and that insurance company in turn pays the claims by the employee, not by the church's request. No different than the church paying a salary to someone, they have no right to tell that person what they can and cannot do with the money once it becomes thiers.


Pdawg
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:06 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

The problem is that the government is requiring Catholic institutions to offer contraception, which is in direct violation of church teachings. It doesn't matter if the organizations are paying for it or not. Regardless if Catholics use them or not isn't relevant.

In case someone is confused the church itself is exempted.


DCDAWGFAN
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:14 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Except they aren't making the church pay for anything, the church pays insurance premiums just like everyone else, and that insurance company in turn pays the claims by the employee, not by the church's request. No different than the church paying a salary to someone, they have no right to tell that person what they can and cannot do with the money once it becomes thiers.



But birth control is an add-on to most insurance policies that you can pay for or not pay for.. if the Catholic Church (or any company that provides insurance to it's employees) doesn't want to pay for it as part of their premiums, they shouldn't have to.

With that said, it always baffled me that insurance companies don't automatically cover it. They will pay $15K for you to have a baby but not cover $40 a month for you to NOT have a baby? I suppose they have run the numbers and figured out that over a large group of people it works out in their favor but it still seems odd to me.


FloridaFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:20 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:

Except they aren't making the church pay for anything, the church pays insurance premiums just like everyone else, and that insurance company in turn pays the claims by the employee, not by the church's request. No different than the church paying a salary to someone, they have no right to tell that person what they can and cannot do with the money once it becomes thiers.



But birth control is an add-on to most insurance policies that you can pay for or not pay for.. if the Catholic Church (or any company that provides insurance to it's employees) doesn't want to pay for it as part of their premiums, they shouldn't have to.

With that said, it always baffled me that insurance companies don't automatically cover it. They will pay $15K for you to have a baby but not cover $40 a month for you to NOT have a baby? I suppose they have run the numbers and figured out that over a large group of people it works out in their favor but it still seems odd to me.




guess I misunderstood the mandate, I thought it was requiring insurance companies to include the covereage standard, not requiring companies to include the add-on. Although if you ask me, if 6 of one half dozen of another.


waterdawg
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:22 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Nothing more than Obama ideology and buy votes at the expense of all ( thats the 48% that do pay tax's )

Damanshot
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:29 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

My girlfriend lives over in Germany (going to graduate school), she pays about 40 dollars a month for birth control.




If your here and she's over there,, why does she need birth control

Just funnin you man

Anyway, I grew up catholic as well. But me and the church are on the outs for other reasons. (didn't like the way they handled the priests that messed with little boys)

But I'm gonna say this and I'm gonna get beat upon for it, but here goes, I don't think it's the governments business what a person chooses to do with thier body.

Regarding the church, They have no place in the discussion either if the person doesn't want them there.

JMHO..

I'm preparing for the onslaught of beatings I'll now receive


no_logo_required
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:35 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I think you are confusing the issue. This has nothing to do with allowing or not allowing the individual from using contraception.

It has everything to do with forcing a religious institution to pay for the contraceptives when they consider that a sin and wrong.


clevesteve
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:43 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

With that said, it always baffled me that insurance companies don't automatically cover it. They will pay $15K for you to have a baby but not cover $40 a month for you to NOT have a baby? I suppose they have run the numbers and figured out that over a large group of people it works out in their favor but it still seems odd to me.




Yeah, this one.


PeteyDangerous
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:46 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Anyway, I grew up catholic as well. But me and the church are on the outs for other reasons. (didn't like the way they handled the priests that messed with little boys)




This pushed me away from the church also, it drives me nuts. An issue like that should be handed over to the state authorities, and if found to be true, the priests should face the full brunt of the law, and should be excommunicated from the church.

But anyway, back to the topic, I do believe in the fundamental teaching of the church as they are a huge factor in why I am the person I am today. And I have a ton of respect for the true values of the catholic church. I'm definitely on the team.

I just see it as an attack on religious freedom, not to mention the question as to whether or not free birth control should be a government mandated thing. But it infuriates me that they're trying to force this on my religion (and basically religions in general).

If people want birth control, go out and buy it. But don't make a religious institution go against something they see as fundamentally wrong so that people can get their birth control. If religious institutions don't want to have birth control covered in their insurance plan, that's fine. Don't work for them or go ahead and work for them but pay for it yourself. Do not include them in your means of getting it.

You don't have to have sex, it's a choice. And if you want birth control, you should have access to it. Do not put that burden on my church though.


I'm hoping at 1215 the President gives me some good news. He does occasionally do things I like, like the way he criticizes Israel for the immoral apartheid and persecution going on over there (unlike every other freakin politician). But most of the time I'm left just shaking my head.........


Arps
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:49 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Edit: never mind...Im staying out of it


Browns Lifer
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 12:01 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

This is a sticky one. Catholic agencies employ a good number of non-Catholics. Should non-Catholic employees be shut out of contraception benefits? IMO, they should have access to those benefits if the insurance provider offers the option. I wouldn't require the church to PAY for it, mind you. That would be pushing the boundaries of constitutionality, I think. Allowing the insurance provider to offer those benefits a la carte and at the expense of the consumer seems like a reasonable compromise.

As has been mentioned, the decision to use contraceptives or not is between the woman and God. Shouldn't the church have enough faith in its members to make an appropriate choice based on their own faith?


PeteyDangerous
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 12:06 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Allowing the insurance provider to offer those benefits a la carte and at the expense of the consumer seems like a reasonable compromise.




This is what's sorta going through my mind as a possible alternative. I need some time to think it through though and see the implications of it, so I reserve my right not to make a decision on that idea yet


clevesteve
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 12:12 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:

With that said, it always baffled me that insurance companies don't automatically cover it. They will pay $15K for you to have a baby but not cover $40 a month for you to NOT have a baby? I suppose they have run the numbers and figured out that over a large group of people it works out in their favor but it still seems odd to me.




Yeah, this one.




Now that I think about it more, it's probably to avoid large protest groups who like to make a public noise about this sort of thing. They don't want to get blacklisted by some "parents for america" group who like to make a living by telling others their values are wrong.


PDR
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 12:17 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

But birth control is an add-on to most insurance policies that you can pay for or not pay for.. if the Catholic Church (or any company that provides insurance to it's employees) doesn't want to pay for it as part of their premiums, they shouldn't have to.




from what I'm reading, I don't think they have to pay anything extra. At first, it was worded that they would, but was revised

Per the BBC:

Quote:

Under the new plan put forward by the White House insurance companies, rather than the employer, will be required to offer contraception directly to employees of religious-linked institutions if requested.

Religious institutions would not be required to subsidise the cost of offering birth control to their employees, nor would they be asked to refer them to organisations that provide it.




Quote:

Outraged Catholic leaders said that the provision would force them to violate religious beliefs.

Under the original terms of the ruling, Church-linked institutions would have had to cover birth control costs in their health insurance plans.

Word of the compromise came shortly after top Republicans joined the outcry against the contraception rule.




Now, if that's true ... I don't see the problem, really.


PeteyDangerous
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 12:25 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I'm sort of confused on the President's decision.

I mean, won't the church just being paying for these services through increased premiums (so that their employees can get free contraceptives)


Damanshot
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 12:50 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Oh,, OK,, Never mind

Lyuokdea
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 10 2012 12:52 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Just to add in a sidenote - what about women who need birth control for non-contraception related issues (hormonal etc.)?

Should they be covered then to treat the other condition, even if as a side effect they make you temporarily unable to get pregnant?


PeteyDangerous
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 12:54 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Just to add in a sidenote - what about women who need birth control for non-contraception related issues (hormonal etc.)?

Should they be covered then to treat the other condition, even if as a side effect they make you temporarily unable to get pregnant?




It's an unfortunate side effect of the issue. Because if you got a waiver signed off for those people, tons of people who don't need it will get the same waiver.

As I said earlier in the thread, I have very little trust for doctors and honesty with prescriptive drugs


archbolddawg
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 01:38 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

j/c

Okay, so Obama apparently just changed the rules. Religiously affiliated schools and hospitals will not be required/forced, to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees. BUT, insurance companies will be forced to offer contraceptive coverage at no cost to women that work for any of those organizations.

How does that work? The president can just make the rules? I don't get it. The president can just tell insurance companies what they will cover, and mandate that the users don't have to pay any extra?


http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


Browns Lifer
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 01:53 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Yeah, I don't get the "free" part (well, I do since it's the government, but that's a separate issue...). I'd be OK with insurance companies offering contraceptive coverage at the negotiated rates they can make available to their customers (often there's a co-pay of $5 or less). Telling insurance companies they have to provide it free of charge only pushes the expense back to the church-based organization in the form of higher premiums. Makes no sense.

PrplPplEater
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 02:06 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I don't get how/where the President gets to dictate any of this... and I certainly don't think it is something that needs to be done and I'm completely against it.

You want birth control? Try abstinence.
You want to have sex? Then accept - on your own - the responsibility and cost of doing so.


Squires
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 10 2012 02:06 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Everything should be free.

clevesteve
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 02:07 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Most health insurance plans will cover one or more of viagra, cialis, or levitra, but many of those will not cover birth control. That's just wrong IMO.

PrplPplEater
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 02:09 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

If they want to do that, that is their prerogative. I do not believe that the government is mandating that those items be covered.
Mandating this coverage out of some whacked sense of "fairness" is just stupid.


BrownieElf
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 10 2012 02:36 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

That still don't say who's paying for it.

If the initial proposal was that the church had to offer it as part of the plan, then the costs of the insurance plan go up. The church would either pay it, or pass the costs on to the "employees" so to speak.

now its changed to the insurance company has to offer it, and the church doesn't have to subsidize the cost of it.

That means that the insurance company has to offer something for free...which they aren't going to do, or recoup the money from somewhere else.

They are either going to create some kind of fee that brings in enough money to cover this additional cost so the church isn't paying for the "pill". This would mean that anyone with that insurance company is paying.

Or the insurance companies will demand that the government subsidizes the additional costs...which means we all are paying.

The church thinks its immoral, and doesn't want to pay for it, but its a go if they don't?

I hope that this wasn't a compromise with the church as much as the feds getting around the churches right to say they are not paying for something they don't believe in.


This is all so screwed up.


RocketOptimist
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 10 2012 02:44 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

J/C

If the government changes policies, does this mean that Mormons could contest the outlaw of polygamy? It is part of their belief system after all. Catholics believe contraception is a sin and Mormons fundamentally believe(d), at one point at least, that salvation required many lives.

Not trying to introduce a carnival of ridiculousness in the thread but I think it's something to consider.


YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 02:57 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Frankly, I never saw why polygamy was illegal to start with.

If a man wants to subject himself to the torture of more than one wife ...... who am I to stop him?

Seriously though ...... I just don't care anymore. Let anyone marry anyone ...... and as many as they want involved. I just don't care anymore. If someone wants to marry a member of the opposite sex, or many members of the opposite sex .... a member or many members of the same sex ...... a mixture ....... their dog ...... a chair ....... I just don't care anymore.

The only thing I would object to is forcing churches to perform such ceremonies, or to recognize such marriages that are opposed to their beliefs. (or forcing them to hire people living a lifestyle that goes contrary to their beliefs and teachings) Other than that ... I just don't care anymore.


DCDAWGFAN
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 03:08 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Catholic agencies employ a good number of non-Catholics. Should non-Catholic employees be shut out of contraception benefits?



Yes. Without a doubt. The culture of the business should dictate what benefits they offer and the government should stay the heck out of it.

If I went to work for the Athiest Society of America and everybody got 8 days vacation a year and I needed an extra week off in the summer to do the work of the Lord and go on a mission trip to Nigeria, should they be forced to let me go?


PeteyDangerous
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 03:14 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

The only thing I would object to is forcing churches to perform such ceremonies, or to recognize such marriages that are opposed to their beliefs. (or forcing them to hire people living a lifestyle that goes contrary to their beliefs and teachings) Other than that ... I just don't care anymore.




Bold statement......... I'm good with the state recognizing gay marriages (and letting religious institutions do their own thing with that)

Can't agree with you on polygamy though. I say, if I can't have more than one lady, then you can't either. May be that's me being selfish (although I'm not married yet; i've heard that marriage changes everything...... kinda makes me not wanna get married)

But man, if I tried to pick up another girlfriend, my life would be chaos. My girlfriend told me today about how she had a nightmare last night where I cheated on her, and we discussed it during lunch, and how she threw balsamic vinaigrette all over me and then hit me over the head with a bottle!


YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 03:21 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

If a guy has a wife and 3 girlfriends, and they all agree to the situation, they the law is fine with that. if he wants to marry the 3 girlfriends, and keep his wife though, well, then that's illegal.

Who cares? I don't. It won't effect me in the least. if the country winds up going the rest of the way to hell in the next 50 years ..... well, odds are that I won't be around to see it anyway ...... and if I am, I probably won't care one bit.


I_Rogue
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 03:23 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

j/c

Okay, so Obama apparently just changed the rules. Religiously affiliated schools and hospitals will not be required/forced, to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees. BUT, insurance companies will be forced to offer contraceptive coverage at no cost to women that work for any of those organizations.

How does that work? The president can just make the rules? I don't get it. The president can just tell insurance companies what they will cover, and mandate that the users don't have to pay any extra?


http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1




The dictator can dictate what he wants.

Election time is creeping up on the big 0 and he knows that if this stood, separation of church and state would bite him in the arse. This isn't reconsidering anything as far as ideology / socialist ideals. Its about votes and having to answer this question time and time again against the Republican nominee. This is akin to the criminal who apologizes not because he is sorry for the crime, but because he is sorry he got caught.


FloridaFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 03:49 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

JC..



What I don't get is what is the purpose of this? Do they think it's going to help unwanted pregnancy? I highly doubt that, as I doubt those that are truly concerned with an unwanted preganacy are choosing not to use birth control due to cost.


SaintDawg
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 03:49 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

JC

I don't care who screws who. If you get preggers, thats your problem not mine. I won't pay to bail you out.

Hmm EDIT.. IF my money gets used in taxpayer funds for abortion, there isn't much I can do about that except vote accordingly.


clevesteve
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 04:53 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

what about taxes that go to paying government assistance to families where the parents weren't financially prepared to care for children on their own?

Contraception is a good thing. especially in countries that are "12% to 15% overpopulated."


Browns Lifer
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 04:59 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:

Catholic agencies employ a good number of non-Catholics. Should non-Catholic employees be shut out of contraception benefits?



Yes. Without a doubt. The culture of the business should dictate what benefits they offer and the government should stay the heck out of it.





So long as Catholic organizations remain not-for-profit, the government has every right to impose rules upon them. If they want to forfeit not-for-profit status, then this argument has merit.

Quote:

If I went to work for the Athiest Society of America and everybody got 8 days vacation a year and I needed an extra week off in the summer to do the work of the Lord and go on a mission trip to Nigeria, should they be forced to let me go?




Of course not. ... and in my original post, I agreed that religious organizations shouldn't have to PAY to provide contraception benefits. I merely suggested that permitting insurance companies to offer them a la carte at the consumer's expense seemed like a decent compromise.


PrplPplEater
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 05:01 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Why should ANYONE *HAVE* to pay for contraception benefits????


This is the part that I can't get over. Why the hell is ANYONE having to do this????


PeteyDangerous
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 05:03 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Of course not. ... and in my original post, I agreed that religious organizations shouldn't have to PAY to provide contraception benefits. I merely suggested that permitting insurance companies to offer them a la carte at the consumer's expense seemed like a decent compromise.




I liked this idea. Because it seems to me that religious organizations will just be paying indirectly through higher premiums..........

With this "Concession" that the government made, it's like putting some newspaper over dog dookie. You can't see it, but you know it's still there


DCDAWGFAN
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 05:04 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I'm not sure I understand why the government should get to mandate insurance policy to an organization just because it's non-profit or tax exempt... How are those 2 things related?

Browns Lifer
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 05:12 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Why do organizations pay for benefits at all? Because they would be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring. Contraceptive coverage is a microcosm of that idea. As the percentage of women in the workforce increased, it was almost inevitable that the vast majority of healthcare plans would eventually offer these benefits.

You'll notice that coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs was almost instantaneous once they became available. Why? Because millions of men in the workforce who were middle-aged and beyond wanted access to them.


PrplPplEater
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 05:16 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Yeah, that's great as a choice.... WHY is it being FORCED on companies?

no_logo_required
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 06:00 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

ED drugs should absolutely not be covered by insurance. That is ludicrous.

If an old man can't get his willy up, then why should I have to help pay him to do it? He should consider it an "entertainment" expense not a medical one.


Tulsa
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 07:38 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

ED drugs should absolutely not be covered by insurance. That is ludicrous.

If an old man can't get his willy up, then why should I have to help pay him to do it? He should consider it an "entertainment" expense not a medical one.




Man, are you an elderly bigot or what?

If anyone should get free stuff in this country it's our elderly folks.

I say, UP WITH WILLY'S!



YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 08:03 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I'm kinda concerned that you are so interested in elderly mens' willys ........

Tulsa
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 08:07 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

What? Maybe I should have said, "Free Willys!"



YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 08:08 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Well I doubt that anyone was gonna pay for it.

Tulsa
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 08:16 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I must admit I'm a bit biased.

In a couple of more years I'll be eligible for that 10% off the creamed corn surprise at my local iHop!

So I'm all in for elderly causes...


Ballpeen
(Legend)
Fri Feb 10 2012 08:28 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

what about taxes that go to paying government assistance to families where the parents weren't financially prepared to care for children on their own?

Contraception is a good thing. especially in countries that are "12% to 15% overpopulated."





I agree, but the 12%-15% who overpopulate the country would receive less in food stamps.



If you can't support the children you mare they should be removed from the house an be put up for adoption.


Lyuokdea
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 10 2012 09:46 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

NRTU,

Good piece from Yglesias on how offering cheap birth control is a no-brainer for insurance companies (much much cheaper than abortions, natal care, or having to cover a child under the employers own health care plan)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/10/the_economics_of_birth_control_subsidies.html

Quote:


The Catholic view that helping women control their own reproduction constitutes "material cooperation with evil" is, I suppose, outside the scope of the Moneybox beat but the fusionist view that even secular people should endorse Catholic obscurantism on broadly libertarian grounds is on the inside. This strikes me as simply one of those cases where a strong form of libertarian opposition to subsidizing anything at all just ends up flying in the face of the common sense view that public policy should aim to make things better. Here Ben Smith quotes a study (PDF) from the Business Group on Health which argues that "Unintended pregnancies result in substantial excess direct medical claims costs and indirect costs such as disability, employee replacement costs, lost productivity, and presenteeism."

The point here is simple. While birth control costs more than nothing, it costs less than an abortion and much less than having a baby. From a social point of view, unless we're not going to subsidize consumption of health care services at all (which would be a really drastic change from the status quo) then it makes a ton of sense to heavily subsidize contraceptives. Now of course sometimes the economically rational course of action (kill everyone in Alberta and steal their oil) is immoral (killing is wrong) and therefore we don't do it. But just on the dollars and cents subsidizing birth control is a no-brainer. The unfortunate thing is that under the American setup the subsidies tend to be passed through the employer, which has set the stage for this controversy.

Another point worth making is that this is one of these issues where the actual incidence of the costs of a policy and the legislative incidence are going to be quite different. Liberals often like making "employers" pay for things as an alternative to taxing people. But in practice, employers are making a tradeoff between health care spending and wages. If your employer shifts from not subsidizing contraceptives to subsidizing them, what happens is that the workers who don't use contraceptives are providing cross-subsidy to those who do. It's in effect the same as financing a free birth control policy through a tiny increase in the payroll tax, which seems to me like a totally reasonable course of action, but like it or not employers are only bearing uhe cost in a very formalistic sense.




dawglover05
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 09:49 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I'm a devout Catholic. I agree with you Petey. I do feel like we get beaten on a lot, but it doesn't really make me that upset. I roll with the punches and I laugh about the jokes people make about the church because you need to have a sense of humor.

The only thing that really bothers me is the "double standard." It irks me how it's become funny to make fun of Catholicism (such as on SNL), but people still walk on eggshells when it comes to other certain religions. I'll give Family Guy some credit because they're pretty even across the board.

Back to the subject, my whole view on this law is that it is flawed because I really don't see where the federal government has the power to mandate health insurance at all. I can't seem to find anything in the Constitution that really gives it the power to do so. However, it seems pretty trendy lately to disregard anything the Constitution says.

This argument is all made without even approaching the First Amendment argument, which is put at the forefront of this whole mess.


~TuX~
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:06 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Yeah, I don't get the "free" part (well, I do since it's the government, but that's a separate issue...). I'd be OK with insurance companies offering contraceptive coverage at the negotiated rates they can make available to their customers (often there's a co-pay of $5 or less). Telling insurance companies they have to provide it free of charge only pushes the expense back to the church-based organization in the form of higher premiums. Makes no sense.




If people can get birth control at no charge, I want my maintenance drugs that I need to keep me going for free as well. Birth control pills are not a life and death situation and they are being forced to provide them free of charge. I want my medication, which is a life and death situation for free as well.


Lyuokdea
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:26 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:


If people can get birth control at no charge, I want my maintenance drugs that I need to keep me going for free as well. Birth control pills are not a life and death situation and they are being forced to provide them free of charge. I want my medication, which is a life and death situation for free as well.




I don't see the "free of charge" part - I think it's supposed to be the normal co-pay?


~TuX~
(Hall of Famer)
Sat Feb 11 2012 12:31 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:


If people can get birth control at no charge, I want my maintenance drugs that I need to keep me going for free as well. Birth control pills are not a life and death situation and they are being forced to provide them free of charge. I want my medication, which is a life and death situation for free as well.




I don't see the "free of charge" part - I think it's supposed to be the normal co-pay?




"Under the new plan, religious employers such as charities, universities and hospitals will not have to offer contraception and will not have to refer their employees to places that provide it. If an employer opts out of the requirement, its insurance company must provide birth control for free in a separate arrangement with workers who want it."

web page

"The move, which would revise a Health and Human Services Department rule by allowing those employees access to free birth control via their employers' insurance companies,"


web page


Lyuokdea
(Dawg Talker)
Sat Feb 11 2012 12:50 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Ah - didn't know that.

YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Sat Feb 11 2012 01:21 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

When has an insurance company ever given anything away for "free"?

This will bump up insurance costs, because the more thing get paid for, the more insurance will cost. It's a pretty simple formula.

Personally I think that a few shots of Crown and a cute blonde every once in a while are good for my health.Can I get those paid for by my insurance company?

This is a massive overreach by the Obama administration, and I think that it will bite them squarely in the ass. I see if going to the Supreme Court right after the Obamacare fight.


Lyuokdea
(Dawg Talker)
Sat Feb 11 2012 04:07 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

When has an insurance company ever given anything away for "free"?

This will bump up insurance costs, because the more thing get paid for, the more insurance will cost. It's a pretty simple formula.

Personally I think that a few shots of Crown and a cute blonde every once in a while are good for my health.Can I get those paid for by my insurance company?

This is a massive overreach by the Obama administration, and I think that it will bite them squarely in the ass. I see if going to the Supreme Court right after the Obamacare fight.




Not if the insurance companies find that contraceptive care lowers cost (as the cite I posted above reasoned) - sure maybe cost increases in the short run "hey, we're providing this so we will charge more", but given competition, a lower equilibrium should be established.


YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Sat Feb 11 2012 04:52 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:

When has an insurance company ever given anything away for "free"?

This will bump up insurance costs, because the more thing get paid for, the more insurance will cost. It's a pretty simple formula.

Personally I think that a few shots of Crown and a cute blonde every once in a while are good for my health.Can I get those paid for by my insurance company?

This is a massive overreach by the Obama administration, and I think that it will bite them squarely in the ass. I see if going to the Supreme Court right after the Obamacare fight.




Not if the insurance companies find that contraceptive care lowers cost (as the cite I posted above reasoned) - sure maybe cost increases in the short run "hey, we're providing this so we will charge more", but given competition, a lower equilibrium should be established.




I almost want to laugh ...... because I cannot ever, ever remember my insurance costs going down.

Not once.

Has your health insurance cost gone down in the past decade or 2?


tjs7
(All Pro)
Sat Feb 11 2012 07:42 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

jc

My wife works as an RN at a "Catholic" hospital. Here is the reality (maybe specific to her hospital, but I suspect this is a common model, since there is no way that the collection plate is paying for all the Catholic hospitals in the US). I'm almost positive that they get a lot of their money from non-Catholic institutions (Medicare, Medicaid, some cash flows and insurance from Cleveland Clinic, patient payments from non-Catholics), they serve a wide community of all faiths, and they employ a vast majority of non-Catholics. Employees already pay a good chunk of their own insurance premiums out of their own pocket.

Speaking as a practicing Catholic, not allowing contraception to be covered is clearly an overreach on the part of the Church. Until they account for the majority of the money, serve only Catholics (which would be illegal), and pay 100% of an employee's health insurance, then they don't get to impose their beliefs on the majority at that institution IMO.

There have to be lines in society. Religion is a great thing for many people. It cannot dictate rules in institutions that serve wider communities of different religions, as that is an impingement on other individual's freedom of religion. Hospitals fall under that category IMO, b/c you can't set up a community hospital that only serves one religion. Churches are another matter altogether, as are universities and schools dedicated solely to Catholic teachings and run solely by Catholic money; those are protected under freedom of religion b/c the vast majority participating are of one religion.

Freedom of religion is about protecting individuals from persecution for religious beliefs they hold that are within the law. It is not about protecting the beliefs of the spirit of an institution that used to be predominantly Catholic at the expense of the majority of non-Catholics it now serves.

On another note, I know there is some way that this could be dealt with on balance sheets. Since so much money comes from non-Catholic sources, can't that money be used for the coverage? I feel like this is more of a wedge issue trying to stir up trouble for the news cycle than a true problem that can't be solved.


Adam_P
(Hall of Famer)
Sat Feb 11 2012 11:18 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

jc...

How do religious employers of Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian and sundry other faiths feel about this plan?


Lyuokdea
(Dawg Talker)
Sat Feb 11 2012 12:09 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:



I almost want to laugh ...... because I cannot ever, ever remember my insurance costs going down.

Not once.

Has your health insurance cost gone down in the past decade or 2?




This is certainly not a big enough shock that insurance costs would go down overall - it's a small decrease against the rising tide of things that send insurance costs up (new treatment techniques, longer lifetimes etc.). You'd need some huge change of laws to actually see the cost change as the consumer.

That doesn't mean that there are never negative shocks in the cost of health insurance - I'm just arguing that this might be one of them.


~TuX~
(Hall of Famer)
Sat Feb 11 2012 01:30 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

jc...

How do religious employers of Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian and sundry other faiths feel about this plan?




I believe muslims were a little upset as well over this, but the others I don't think so much. Catholics are more inclined to have the belief that sex is only for procreation than the others.


clevesteve
(Legend)
Sat Feb 11 2012 01:34 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

ED drugs should absolutely not be covered by insurance. That is ludicrous.

If an old man can't get his willy up, then why should I have to help pay him to do it? He should consider it an "entertainment" expense not a medical one.




Insurance is not a charity, it's a buisness. You can bet if they offer coverage for Viagra and not for Levitra that Pfizer is paying them big bucks to do so. In fact, it's likely that the fact that they are more of a luxury item that they are being offered as covered by insurance.

The only reasons I can see for birth control not being covered by insurance are:
1) the kinds that women often need are too specific and the many companies that provide them don't all pony up the dough to get them covered
2) they're afraid of backlash from the "abstinence only" crowd... you know, the states like Texas and Arizona which are year after year in the top 5 for teen pregnancies.


FloridaFan
(Legend)
Sat Feb 11 2012 03:42 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:

jc...

How do religious employers of Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian and sundry other faiths feel about this plan?




I believe muslims were a little upset as well over this, but the others I don't think so much. Catholics are more inclined to have the belief that sex is only for procreation than the others.




Unless it's with little boys......sorry couldn't refuse.


Divot
(All Pro)
Sun Feb 12 2012 11:20 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

There are many Jewish retirement/nursing homes near me. Few, if any, employees are Jewish. Many patients are not Jewish. They receive tax dollars for payments.

Do employees have the right to cook bacon in the microwave? Do patients have the right to bring in ham?

Your "they serve the public" argument is specious, in my opinion.


dawglover05
(Hall of Famer)
Sun Feb 12 2012 06:20 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:

jc...

How do religious employers of Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian and sundry other faiths feel about this plan?




I believe muslims were a little upset as well over this, but the others I don't think so much. Catholics are more inclined to have the belief that sex is only for procreation than the others.




Just a point of clarification - it doesn't have to be solely for procreation - the rule is you just always have to be open to procreation. The Church has okayed NFP.


Lyuokdea
(Dawg Talker)
Sun Feb 12 2012 07:49 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:



Just a point of clarification - it doesn't have to be solely for procreation - the rule is you just always have to be open to procreation. The Church has okayed NFP.




So basically birth control is ok - so long as it is ineffective?

The all-powerful god could still intervene and make you pregnant via NFP, but can't quite make a condom break?


dawglover05
(Hall of Famer)
Sun Feb 12 2012 10:50 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

LOL... I believe it has to do with free will there bud and God giving us the choice, but I really didnNt want to create a religious belief argument or bashing thread but discuss what certain faiths Tin this case Catholic) believe and how it affects the law.

tjs7
(All Pro)
Tue Feb 14 2012 06:02 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

There are many Jewish retirement/nursing homes near me. Few, if any, employees are Jewish. Many patients are not Jewish. They receive tax dollars for payments.

Do employees have the right to cook bacon in the microwave? Do patients have the right to bring in ham?

Your "they serve the public" argument is specious, in my opinion.




I detailed several reasons why hospitals are public institutions. Do you have any reasons why they aren't?

Cooking bacon in a Jewish nursing home, something that is directly offensive and in the face of patients, is quite different than an employee's personal sex life and/or their personal health problems (as a significant percentage of women need birth control for health problems).

IMO, there is little place for religion in evidence-based medicine. If a person wants to forego medical treatment on religious grounds, they are welcome to do so. They should not be telling other people how they should utilize medical treatments based on their own beliefs. To me it is extremely ironic that not being allowed to dictate to someone how they treat their own body is somehow infringement upon religious rights. In my wife's case, it is absolutely preposterous b/c the Cleveland Clinic provides 80% of the benefits and the employee pays the other 20%. The Church pays 0%, yet gets to state that the coverage can't include birth control.

Some other examples of where religious belief and medicine don't necessarily mix: I went to high school with a person who was a practicing Jehovah's witness. He didn't believe in blood transfusions. Why don't we have Jehovah's witness hospitals that won't cover blood transfusions for its employees? Or imagine if a religious hospital wouldn't cover antibiotics because they don't believe in evolution (you may laugh at this, but I encountered a med student at the school I used to work at who didn't believe in evolution. I never asked her, but I wonder how she thought that antibiotic resistance arises?)


PrplPplEater
(Legend)
Tue Feb 14 2012 06:12 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Can anyone at all explain why, other than buying the female vote, this is being required of ANYONE?? Forget the church.... why does Caterpillar or IBM or Bob's Tire and Computers have to do this??

Am I the only one that sees that the entire contraception insurance mandate is dumb as hell (and where the heck does the Pres get the authority to mandate this, anyway)?


Divot
(All Pro)
Tue Feb 14 2012 09:10 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

I detailed several reasons why hospitals are public institutions. Do you have any reasons why they aren't?




I didn't claim hospitals are not a public institution. Why don't the same reasons apply to the nursing home? They collect Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and accommodate everyone. What is your perceived difference between the hospital and the nursing home?

Quote:

Cooking bacon in a Jewish nursing home, something that is directly offensive and in the face of patients, is quite different than an employee's personal sex life and/or their personal health problems (as a significant percentage of women need birth control for health problems).




So cooking bacon is offensive to you? Then I frequently offend you. What about bringing in a ham sandwich for lunch, and keeping it in the fridge? Is that OK? The prohibition against pork is just a tenet in Judaism, much like some birth control is to Catholics. I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and had a lay teacher who's wife was on birth control pills for health reasons. It was OK then, and it's OK now.

Again, many if not most of these patients are not Jewish. It is just a Jewish facility. The patients and staff are not allowed to eat a cheeseburger, or drink a glass of milk with that roast beef sandwich, or have cream in their coffee with dinner.

They can buy and consume this stuff outside of the facility with their own money, the same as the Catholic employees can buy birth control with their own money.

Quote:

IMO, there is little place for religion in evidence-based medicine. If a person wants to forego medical treatment on religious grounds, they are welcome to do so. They should not be telling other people how they should utilize medical treatments based on their own beliefs. To me it is extremely ironic that not being allowed to dictate to someone how they treat their own body is somehow infringement upon religious rights. In my wife's case, it is absolutely preposterous b/c the Cleveland Clinic provides 80% of the benefits and the employee pays the other 20%. The Church pays 0%, yet gets to state that the coverage can't include birth control.




This isn't a "we don't offer health insurance" case. The church is providing coverage, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.

The Cleveland Clinic does dictate how people treat their own bodies. Do you have a problem with this or not?

Quote:

Some other examples of where religious belief and medicine don't necessarily mix: I went to high school with a person who was a practicing Jehovah's witness. He didn't believe in blood transfusions. Why don't we have Jehovah's witness hospitals that won't cover blood transfusions for its employees? Or imagine if a religious hospital wouldn't cover antibiotics because they don't believe in evolution (you may laugh at this, but I encountered a med student at the school I used to work at who didn't believe in evolution. I never asked her, but I wonder how she thought that antibiotic resistance arises?)




I don't think the 'no blood transfusion' hospital would be too popular. If you want to open one, knock yourself out.


~TuX~
(Hall of Famer)
Tue Feb 14 2012 01:02 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Can anyone at all explain why, other than buying the female vote, this is being required of ANYONE?? Forget the church.... why does Caterpillar or IBM or Bob's Tire and Computers have to do this??

Am I the only one that sees that the entire contraception insurance mandate is dumb as hell (and where the heck does the Pres get the authority to mandate this, anyway)?




It is just for the women vote. Why else would it be mandated to be free contraception, including sterilization. If a man wanted to get a vascetomy, would he be able to get that free as well?

It gets worse when you hear some of the arguments for it as well.

Quote:

All of this adds up to the fact that, frankly, my reproductive choices are none of my employer's damn business.
Healthcare decisions are made between my doctor and me. My employer has no place in that equation. My life, my body and my health are mine.



source

I've also heard that on the radio as well and multiple occasions.

The problem is that, yes it is not your employer's business, but that does not mean it has to be covered for free under their health plan. Birth control has no bearing on health besides not getting pregnant, unless you are using it to treat an illness which in some cases it is. They are treating pregnancy as if it's an illness. But like I mentioned earlier, if they want to provide contraception for free, I want my maintenance drugs I need to take to live for free as well because after all, I am paying pretty much what the pill would cost a month every month and that is only the co-payments.Why do I not get my medications for free as well when the medication they want for free is optional whereas I HAVE to take mine.


FloridaFan
(Legend)
Tue Feb 14 2012 01:38 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Why do I not get my medications for free as well when the medication they want for free is optional whereas I HAVE to take mine.





Because our government is under the false pretense that by offering free birth control they can control the amount of unwed mothers, and chidren on welfare, like those people are thinking about birth control when they are doing the deed.

Because they can't cut the programs or they lose votes, so they hope they can affect a long term solution by lessening the population in need.


no_logo_required
(Legend)
Tue Feb 14 2012 01:50 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I would like to see a study on % of unwanted teen pregnancies each decade for the last 40 or so years. There has definitely been more education about protection since the HIV-scare in the early 90s. I would like to see if it is really having an effect or not.

YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Tue Feb 14 2012 02:09 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I think that what it has done is really give kids permission to have sex more than anything else.


I remember when I was ... maybe 20ish. I worked with a girl who was 15 years old, and she already had a baby. Man ... that was unheard of in those days. Most people I knew didn't even have kids at 18-19. (although I knew a few, it was not nearly as common as today)

We should be teaching a more complete and well rounded version of sex education if we are going to teach it. It should include that it is OK to wait, and that celibacy is not something to be ashamed of ..... that sex is not a cure all for a bad relationship ..... birth control, and the risks of different methods ...... that you should never allow someone to pressure you in to sex ..... the risks of drinking and drugs as far as pregnancy ....and so on. Instead kids get some idiotic mixed message that teaches them nothing.


clevesteve
(Legend)
Tue Feb 14 2012 02:28 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

I would like to see a study on % of unwanted teen pregnancies each decade for the last 40 or so years. There has definitely been more education about protection since the HIV-scare in the early 90s. I would like to see if it is really having an effect or not.




http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/pregnancy.php

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html

U.S. TEEN PREGNANCY RATE AT LOWEST LEVEL IN NEARLY 40 YEARS

Review finds no evidence to support Abstinence-Only Education


BlottoGraham
(Rookie)
Tue Feb 14 2012 03:16 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:

I would like to see a study on % of unwanted teen pregnancies each decade for the last 40 or so years. There has definitely been more education about protection since the HIV-scare in the early 90s. I would like to see if it is really having an effect or not.




http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/pregnancy.php

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html

U.S. TEEN PREGNANCY RATE AT LOWEST LEVEL IN NEARLY 40 YEARS

Review finds no evidence to support Abstinence-Only Education




Teaching about contraception is leading to the destruction of our society. Kids have no concept of cause and effect. You have sex, you get pregnant. That is the way it has been since Adam ate the apple. Why should we teach our children how to skirt the way our world works? The only way to ensure you don't get pregnant is not to have sex. Condom's don't always work, their failure rate is 15% according to research done by the American Pregnancy.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/malecondom.html

This leaves our children with the reality of growing up way too soon. Abortion may be legal but how many people will honestly get one? How can you live with yourself after knowingly killing your child?

Abstinence until Marriage is the path to the moral high ground and there are no shortcuts when it comes to morality.


PDR
(Legend)
Tue Feb 14 2012 04:16 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Teaching about contraception is leading to the destruction of our society.




That's insane.

That's like saying that since guns are dangerous, gun safety training is a bad idea, and we should instead merely teach that guns are dangerous and should be avoided.

Quote:

Condom's don't always work, their failure rate is 15% according to research done by the American Pregnancy.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/malecondom.html




The source you cite gives a failure rate of 5%. And most research and studies put it at 1-2%.

Your source is citing typical use over proper use (i.e. not knowing how to properly use a condom, the teaching of which you oppose) and is also separating spermicide from the equation, which just about every major condom manufacturer provides.

Condoms aren't perfect, but when used correctly, they're highly effective in preventing pregnancy.

The problems with a condom's effectiveness are directly tied to the knowledge of the person using one. Pregnancy rates among those who use a condom containing spermicide properly is around 1-2%.

Quote:

Abortion may be legal but how many people will honestly get one?




In the U.S., about 1.3 million women per year.


Adam_P
(Hall of Famer)
Tue Feb 14 2012 09:06 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Instead kids get some idiotic mixed message that teaches them nothing.




Until our society stops positively reinforcing and in some cases celebrating things like "Teen Mom" and "Pregnant at 16" and even stuff like "Jon and Kate Plus 8" or "19 Kids and Counting", many people will continue to see having a kid as an accessory and not a responsibility. Rewarding people for getting pregnant in their teens or having a gazillion kids by putting them on television and giving them national notoriety sends the absolute wrong message.


RocketOptimist
(Dawg Talker)
Tue Feb 14 2012 09:07 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Abstinence until Marriage is the path to the moral high ground and there are no shortcuts when it comes to morality.




If you mean Christian moral high ground, yes. You don't have to be a Christian in order to be moral.

What if two people who are committed, exclusive, and love each other? Is it immoral, removing religious morality, for them to be sleeping together?


dawglover05
(Hall of Famer)
Tue Feb 14 2012 11:01 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Am I the only one that sees that the entire contraception insurance mandate is dumb as hell (and where the heck does the Pres get the authority to mandate this, anyway)?




Bingo!

I think we'll hear from the Supreme Court on this one...sadly one could probably just ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks and we'll see if this whole thing stays afloat.


tjs7
(All Pro)
Wed Feb 15 2012 05:51 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

I didn't claim hospitals are not a public institution. Why don't the same reasons apply to the nursing home? They collect Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and accommodate everyone. What is your perceived difference between the hospital and the nursing home?





I put words in your mouth, and that was not fair of me. I just feel they are different institutions with different missions. A hospital specializes in acute care, deals with more life and death decisions, the patient population is more transient, and must treat anyone who comes through the door with an emergency. A nursing home specializes in long term care, has less life and death decisions, the patient population stays longer and is more of a community, and can be selective in who they accept. A nursing home is closer to a private institution IMO.

From a purists perspective, the bacon rule at nursing homes is silly if very few involved with the home are Jewish, and the majority of the money comes from non-Jewish sources. In practice though, who wants to waste time fighting that, even if it is universally unpopular.

In contrast, the majority of people (including a number of nuns) side with the President on this one. It is about personal health and medical care, which IMO is quite a bit more important than bacon.

Quote:

So cooking bacon is offensive to you? Then I frequently offend you. What about bringing in a ham sandwich for lunch, and keeping it in the fridge? Is that OK? The prohibition against pork is just a tenet in Judaism, much like some birth control is to Catholics. I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and had a lay teacher who's wife was on birth control pills for health reasons. It was OK then, and it's OK now.

Again, many if not most of these patients are not Jewish. It is just a Jewish facility. The patients and staff are not allowed to eat a cheeseburger, or drink a glass of milk with that roast beef sandwich, or have cream in their coffee with dinner.

They can buy and consume this stuff outside of the facility with their own money, the same as the Catholic employees can buy birth control with their own money.




First off, I assumed that Jewish nursing home meant that it had a large population of Jewish residents. My mistake. If the institution is dominated by non-Jewish patients, employees, and money, then 1. why is it called "Jewish" and 2. why are rules being set according to what a group with a minority stake wants?

The point here is that all businesses will be required to provide contraception as part of their coverage. Catholics want an exception (and got one, rightly so) for their churches and schools. They also want exceptions to push their will in institutions in which they have a minority stake, which I can't agree with. Why is "religious freedom" perceived as the right to push a religious agenda down other people's throats?

Quote:

This isn't a "we don't offer health insurance" case. The church is providing coverage, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.

The Cleveland Clinic does dictate how people treat their own bodies. Do you have a problem with this or not?




Are you sure that the Church is providing coverage? I know for a fact that the Clinic pays 80% of ours, and we pay 20%. The Church pays 0% and has a very minor stake in the hospital, but gets to tell us we can't have certain coverage, even though someone working at the Clinic main campus and everywhere else gets the coverage. Where is the "religious freedom" argument there?

Second, the Clinic does dictate to a certain extent (mostly by charging more if people don't make an effort to improve their health if they are able. I think that's a good model). But they have evidence-based medical reasons. They aren't dictating from a religious moral high ground that has no medical basis.

Quote:

I don't think the 'no blood transfusion' hospital would be too popular. If you want to open one, knock yourself out.




That wasn't my point. The point is that lots of religious beliefs clash heavily with evidence-based medicine. In a public center for evidence-based medicine (a hospital), they should be practicing evidence-based medicine, not any particular form of faith-based medicine.


no_logo_required
(Legend)
Wed Feb 15 2012 09:51 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

thanks. when i searched, i only found a few sites that seemed pretty flaky. those are better.

to blotto: teaching about 'safe sex' is not teaching cause/effect? that seems silly. it is teaching that having sex can lead to babies and std's so you better protect yourself from them as best you can if you don't want them. that's pretty straight cause/effect teaching to me.


jfanent
(Legend)
Thu Feb 16 2012 01:00 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

j/c All religious implications aside..... I was always under the impression that insurance was to cover unexpected expenses resulting from illness, injury or property damage.....not payment for items in a normal course of events. What next, are we to expect auto insurance to pay for oil changes or homeowners insurance to pay for house painting? Birth control is NOT a medical emergency, nor is it treatment for illness or injury.

PDR
(Legend)
Thu Feb 16 2012 01:43 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I would argue that insurance should (and does, usually) cover preventative measures. One shouldn't incur medical expenses only when ill. It should cover preventative health care as well. It makes logical and long-term fiscal sense as well.

I consider contraception to be preventative.


jfanent
(Legend)
Thu Feb 16 2012 02:16 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

I would argue that insurance should (and does, usually) cover preventative measures.




How so? Are you saying health club memberships, vitamins, oil changes, new tires, furnace filters, etc.? That'll sure keep insurance costs down. I could see insurance companies covering an annual physical, but other than that, health, car and home maintenance should be the responsibility of the individual.


YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Thu Feb 16 2012 03:22 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

A hot little blonde would help keep my blood pressure down ...... can I put one on my insurance?

jfanent
(Legend)
Thu Feb 16 2012 03:40 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

I might have to give Obamacare a second look!

Tulsa
(Hall of Famer)
Thu Feb 16 2012 03:50 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

If you were married that hot little blonde would raise your insurance rates.

Oh wait, we're not talking life insurance in this thread are we?


YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Thu Feb 16 2012 04:27 AM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Thank goodness I'm not married then.

jfanent
(Legend)
Thu Feb 16 2012 06:26 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

j/c Wow. Lot's of respect shown the religious leaders invited to testify. Here's an interesting exerpt from the hearings today:

Examiner

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., told religious leaders testifying in Congress today that they were engaged in "shameful" acts of "political demagoguery" unworthy of their religious offices.

"I believe that today's hearing is a sham," Connolly told a panel of one priest, three pastors, and a Jewish rabbi during a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing today. "Here you are being asked to testify about your rights being trampled on -- an overstatement if there ever was one -- while you're on a panel, and your participation on the panel makes you complicit in of course the trampling of freedom, because we were denied, on this side of the aisle, any witness who might have a differing point of view. And I think that's shameful."

Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., noted at the beginning of the hearing that he had approved one of the two witnesses called by Democrats to testify. The Democrats, Issa explained, chose not to have that witness testify, asking instead that he allow a young woman who attends Georgetown University to testify about the importance of the contraception mandate to her health care.

Continuing his monologue, Connolly made a harsh rebuke of the religious leaders. "I say to you, as a member of this committee who actually shared the concerns you say you have last week, that I think this is a shameful exercise," he said. "And I am very sad you have chosen to participate and be used the way you're being used. Just as you were in the previous questioning, as if people are going to jail over this. Shame! Everybody knows that's not true." The church leaders had agreed, before Connolly spoke, that they would prefer to go to jail rather than violate their consciences by providing contraception and abortifacients to women.

Denouncing Republicans for trying to hurt President Obama politically, Connolly faulted the assembled ministers for "overstating [the religious freedom issues in the mandate] and making charges that are just outlandish and frankly beyond the pale." Such testimony "serves no purpose other than political demagoguery in an election year," he said. "And men and women of the cloth, it seems to me, ought to run not walk away from that line."


DCDAWGFAN
(Legend)
Thu Feb 16 2012 06:42 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

one priest, three pastors, and a Jewish rabbi



walked into a bar...

Way to keep it professional Rep. Connolly. Way to act with class and dignity... and you wonder why Colt McCoy has a higher winning percentage than congress's approval rating.


~TuX~
(Hall of Famer)
Thu Feb 16 2012 11:17 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

the contraception mandate to her health care.




Since when was pregnancy a disease?

I can see prenatal care, post-natal case, but not prevention as a health issue unless it is really dangerous for a woman to get pregnant, but those are few and far between.

Contraception is not healthcare, but a choice.


EveDawg
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 17 2012 12:52 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

j/c Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why would an employer be forced to pay for contraception? Health benefits and other benefits shouldn't be required of any employer, they are "benefits" As in something that makes an employer competitive in the marketplace when it comes to hiring the most talented employees. Why would it be up to a business to be responsible for people's personal lives?

If I am confused, and what this really means is that Insurance Companies have to provide contraception coverage on their health plans, that I can agree with. People pay for coverage, they should receive coverage. The amount of things Health Plans don't cover is obscene considering how much we pay for them in premiums every month.

But I'm really not seeing why an employer should be responsible for the sex lives of it's employees.


YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 17 2012 01:19 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

The President's "Obamacare" program will require employers to provide healthcare for their employees, or else pay a hefty fine per employee. (smaller employers are exempt, for now)

The President has now decided that employers much provide contraception as a free added benefit. Because of the controversy regarding Catholic and other religious employers objecting to something that goes against their beliefs ... so now the President has decided that insurance companies must now include this as a free benefit.

Of course, many Catholic organizations self insure, with benefit administration and a catastrophic umbrella through an insurance company. However, the bottom line is the same, and Catholic organization must still pay for birth control, which goes against their teachings and beliefs.

I disagree strongly with forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control. Insurance should be for preventative care and major coverages. People should be able to decide on what they want covered, and should only have to pay for those items. However, this is about this White House forcing their beliefs on all people, regardless of what the legalities may be, and despite what certain people may believe from a religious and moral standpoint.

This will be yet another thing that will wind up at the Supreme Court.


FloridaFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 17 2012 01:35 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

That's just it, we shifted from Health "Insurance" to Health "Coverage" over the years. Part of the reason I think our costs are so high, it's no longer a method to help with extreme health costs, it's a method to pay for even the minor stuff.

If people had to pay a 70 or 80 dollar doctor office visit versus a 15 or 20 copay, they wouldn't go for every sniffle or sneeze. A side benefit is it wouldn't take 2 months to get an appointment.


EveDawg
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 17 2012 02:21 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

The President's "Obamacare" program will require employers to provide healthcare for their employees, or else pay a hefty fine per employee. (smaller employers are exempt, for now)

The President has now decided that employers much provide contraception as a free added benefit. Because of the controversy regarding Catholic and other religious employers objecting to something that goes against their beliefs ... so now the President has decided that insurance companies must now include this as a free benefit.

Of course, many Catholic organizations self insure, with benefit administration and a catastrophic umbrella through an insurance company. However, the bottom line is the same, and Catholic organization must still pay for birth control, which goes against their teachings and beliefs.

I disagree strongly with forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control. Insurance should be for preventative care and major coverages. People should be able to decide on what they want covered, and should only have to pay for those items. However, this is about this White House forcing their beliefs on all people, regardless of what the legalities may be, and despite what certain people may believe from a religious and moral standpoint.

This will be yet another thing that will wind up at the Supreme Court.




Contraception has more purposes than just birthcontrol though. There are very many women who have terrible hormonal cycles, extremely painful cycles, and bleeding issues. Contraception is commonly used as a treatment for that regardless of whether or not a woman is sexually active. It is more than just preventing babies, it is used to treat health problems. It isn't a choice for very many women, not any more than having diabetes is a choice, or having high blood pressure, or any other illness. It should be covered by health plans just as any other medical treatment is covered by health plans.


TheJoker
(Hall of Famer)
Fri Feb 17 2012 02:31 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:

The President's "Obamacare" program will require employers to provide healthcare for their employees, or else pay a hefty fine per employee. (smaller employers are exempt, for now)

The President has now decided that employers much provide contraception as a free added benefit. Because of the controversy regarding Catholic and other religious employers objecting to something that goes against their beliefs ... so now the President has decided that insurance companies must now include this as a free benefit.

Of course, many Catholic organizations self insure, with benefit administration and a catastrophic umbrella through an insurance company. However, the bottom line is the same, and Catholic organization must still pay for birth control, which goes against their teachings and beliefs.

I disagree strongly with forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control. Insurance should be for preventative care and major coverages. People should be able to decide on what they want covered, and should only have to pay for those items. However, this is about this White House forcing their beliefs on all people, regardless of what the legalities may be, and despite what certain people may believe from a religious and moral standpoint.

This will be yet another thing that will wind up at the Supreme Court.




Contraception has more purposes than just birthcontrol though. There are very many women who have terrible hormonal cycles, extremely painful cycles, and bleeding issues. Contraception provides relief for that. It is more than just preventing babies, it is used to treat health problems. It isn't a choice for very many women, not any more than having diabetes is a choice, or having high blood pressure, or any other illness. It should be covered by health plans just as any other medical treatment is covered by health plans.




I've stayed out of this debate, because it's pointless and no one's minds will be changed, but this is a great point. People who think that the pill is solely used for preventing pregnancy have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

From here.. link

Quote:

The FDA has also stated that there are definite health benefits to taking combined oral contraceptives (COC) pills that
contain both estrogen and progestin. This was based on their analysis of epidemiological studies that largely used oral
contraceptive formulations containing more than 0.035 mg (or 35 micrograms) of ethinyl estradiol (a type of estrogen).
However, recent studies have shown that the benefits related to taking low-dose COCs (those with less than 35 micrograms
of ethinyl estradiol) are probably as good as those attained from a high-dose pill.
So what are these benefits?
Use of the pill for more than two years can decrease the future risk of ovarian cancer by as
much as 70 percent and endometrial cancer by 50 percent. It can also decrease blood loss by 45 percent, decrease cramps by as much as 50
percent, acne, 50 percent, and benign ovarian tumors by 20 percent. Obviously, it can also protect against pregnancy. Finally, higher-dose pills
have been shown to decrease the development of ovarian cysts and fibroids (though low-dose pills may not be as effective).

With regard to your concern about breast cancer, studies have shown that women with a family history of breast cancer are not at an increased
risk of developing the disease with COC use. Moreover, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has stated that the current or past
use of birth control among 35- to 64-year-old women didn't increase their risk of breast cancer. They even checked women who are known to have
a mutation in the genes related to breast and ovarian cancer (called the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes) and found that a low-dose pill still didn't
increase their breast cancer risk. They have found, though, that COC use will decrease the risk of ovarian cancer in these women.
Dr. Reichman¶s Bottom Line: If you like the fact that your periods are regular and easier, and you want some of these noncontraceptive health
benefits, I don't think you need to take a break from the pill. And remember, when it comes to ovarian cancer, combined oral contraceptives are
the only current mode of prevention.




And furthermore, I think it's a pretty simple issue. If you're going to take public taxpayer money from non-Catholics (which the majority of taxpayers are) then you should follow the rules they set forth. If you want to dictate your own healthcare, give up the tax exemptions, regardless of faith.


YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 17 2012 02:34 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:

The President's "Obamacare" program will require employers to provide healthcare for their employees, or else pay a hefty fine per employee. (smaller employers are exempt, for now)

The President has now decided that employers much provide contraception as a free added benefit. Because of the controversy regarding Catholic and other religious employers objecting to something that goes against their beliefs ... so now the President has decided that insurance companies must now include this as a free benefit.

Of course, many Catholic organizations self insure, with benefit administration and a catastrophic umbrella through an insurance company. However, the bottom line is the same, and Catholic organization must still pay for birth control, which goes against their teachings and beliefs.

I disagree strongly with forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control. Insurance should be for preventative care and major coverages. People should be able to decide on what they want covered, and should only have to pay for those items. However, this is about this White House forcing their beliefs on all people, regardless of what the legalities may be, and despite what certain people may believe from a religious and moral standpoint.

This will be yet another thing that will wind up at the Supreme Court.




Contraception has more purposes than just birthcontrol though. There are very many women who have terrible hormonal cycles, extremely painful cycles, and bleeding issues. Contraception is commonly used as a treatment for that regardless of whether or not a woman is sexually active. It is more than just preventing babies, it is used to treat health problems. It isn't a choice for very many women, not any more than having diabetes is a choice, or having high blood pressure, or any other illness. It should be covered by health plans just as any other medical treatment is covered by health plans.




However, it won't be treated as any other prescription drug treatment. It is expected to be paid for 100% by the insurance company or employer ..... not covered as a prescription drug subject to deductible. Why should that be the case? Why should someone get birth control covered at 100%, for example, where another person who needs blood pressure medicine, does not?


EveDawg
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 17 2012 02:42 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate


I never said that insurance companies have to pay 100% of the bill. I said that is was unfair to force employers to pay 100% of the bill because that makes no sense, and that health insurance companies should cover contraception, which they should if they don't.


YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 17 2012 03:05 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

But how should they cover contraception? At what level? Should it be treated as subject to a deductible, or not? Should they cover a guy who wants condoms for the weekend? Should it only be for women? If so, why?

Under Obamacare, employers are going to be responsible for providing healthcare to their employees ...... and under this plan, their insurance will have to cover birth control ...... and nothing is free, so prices for everyone will wind up going up. Is the price increase going to off-set the minimal expense of birth control?

I mean, looking it up online, WalMart covers several birth control drugs, (generics) including some used to treat other conditions, for $9 for a 30 day supply. Is this really out of reach for most women?

http://i.walmartimages.com/i/if/hmp/fusion/customer_list.pdf


EveDawg
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 17 2012 03:09 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

And actually, what I guess I'm really meaning to say is that health care is not the responsibility of businesses. Their responsibility ends at offering health insurance to employees. It's great when businesses go above and beyond that and offer other programs to employess, but they shouldn't be legally required to do so. That puts an undue and unfair burden on businesses, and it's really not their role.

If Obama wants women to have contraception, then he need to work with the health insurance companies on that. Healthcare problems need to be dealt with in the health care industry. Trying to force this on business is like trying to avoid the problem, and everyone knows that healthcare is a big problem.

When you try to make businesses responsible for something like that, it sets a bad precedent for down the road. Employers don't belong in people's personal lives. You are at work to do a job, and they are to pay you for your work. That's it and that's all. Businesses struggle enough as it is, without having extra burdens of paying for people's personal lives heaped on them.


archbolddawg
(Legend)
Fri Feb 17 2012 03:17 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

j/c

The overwhelmingly LARGER issue here - that seems to be overlooked - is: How is our gov't. allowed to dictate and mandate what is and what is not (by consequence) covered?

On a purely "this is a contraception issue, some women need it for health reasons, but not all..........blah blah blah", I'm not interested in it.

If the president can mandate this - what's next? Is it mandated that obese people should get paid for diets from insurance companies?

Should our gov't. be able to mandate that, at no cost to anyone other than the insurance company, this or that treatment is covered?

What's next after that? If gov't.is allowed to mandate things - can, or will they start telling insurance companies what they CAN'T cover?

The contraception thing is just the tip of the iceburg - actually - it is nothing but a speck of ice on the iceburg. There is a much larger concern here, for me, than contraception.


YTownBrownsFan
(Legend)
Fri Feb 17 2012 03:26 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Oh I agree 100%.

However, I think that whole argument that birth control is somehow priced out of reach for ordinary women is not an honest argument to start with.

I just looked at Rite Aid's list of drugs on their program, and they have 25 different drugs/or dosages of generic birth control drugs available with a 28 day supply costing $19,99. I bet that's less than 20% of what some women spend on their nails.

I just don't see that as a prohibitive cost ..... especially when the poorest women with children already get Medicaid in many cases.


DCDAWGFAN
(Legend)
Fri Feb 17 2012 04:47 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Contraception has more purposes than just birthcontrol though. There are very many women who have terrible hormonal cycles, extremely painful cycles, and bleeding issues. Contraception is commonly used as a treatment for that regardless of whether or not a woman is sexually active. It is more than just preventing babies, it is used to treat health problems. It isn't a choice for very many women, not any more than having diabetes is a choice, or having high blood pressure, or any other illness. It should be covered by health plans just as any other medical treatment is covered by health plans.



Then those women can get a prescription and get it from the pharamcist for a co-pay like every other medication prescribed by a doctor... what's the problem? If I want Tylenol I pay for it, if I want heavy duty Tylenol prescribed by a doctor it's covered under my insurance. Why couldn't the pill be handled the same way?


DCDAWGFAN
(Legend)
Fri Feb 17 2012 04:55 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

And actually, what I guess I'm really meaning to say is that health care is not the responsibility of businesses. Their responsibility ends at offering health insurance to employees.



Actually their responsibility should end at giving you a paycheck. If they want to offer you health insurance then they will be able to attract better employees and have happier and more productive employees.. if they want to offer no health care then people should demand higher pay to work there if they have to cover it themselves..

This was one of the biggest problems with Obamacare from the beginning, this is just one of the first "mandates" to come.. they will continue to grow and grow and grow.


EveDawg
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 17 2012 05:07 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:

Contraception has more purposes than just birthcontrol though. There are very many women who have terrible hormonal cycles, extremely painful cycles, and bleeding issues. Contraception is commonly used as a treatment for that regardless of whether or not a woman is sexually active. It is more than just preventing babies, it is used to treat health problems. It isn't a choice for very many women, not any more than having diabetes is a choice, or having high blood pressure, or any other illness. It should be covered by health plans just as any other medical treatment is covered by health plans.



Then those women can get a prescription and get it from the pharamcist for a co-pay like every other medication prescribed by a doctor... what's the problem? If I want Tylenol I pay for it, if I want heavy duty Tylenol prescribed by a doctor it's covered under my insurance. Why couldn't the pill be handled the same way?




I agree with you. My original response was to someone saying that insurance shouldn't cover the pill. I was saying that it's more than just pregnancy prevention, so it needs to be covered by insurance.

I don't like any of this Obama forcing anyone to do anything. I do think the healthcare system needs to be addressed. As a person with chronic illness, and very expensive insurance that pretty much doesn't cover any of my very expensive medications, the healthcare system is broken. But that's really a whole entire different discussion.


DCDAWGFAN
(Legend)
Fri Feb 17 2012 05:18 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

I agree with you. My original response was to someone saying that insurance shouldn't cover the pill. I was saying that it's more than just pregnancy prevention, so it needs to be covered by insurance.



Ok.. gotcha.. I agree that when it is not purely for birth control, that it should be covered..

Quote:

I don't like any of this Obama forcing anyone to do anything. I do think the healthcare system needs to be addressed. As a person with chronic illness, and very expensive insurance that pretty much doesn't cover any of my very expensive medications, the healthcare system is broken. But that's really a whole entire different discussion.



My fear is that in the interest of being "fair", once we start down the road of government mandates, that nothing will be off limits.. diet pills, energy drinks, gym memberships, personal trainers, stop smoking pills, stop drinking pills, massages for anxiety, breast enlargements for self-esteem... when will it end? If people can show that somebody "needs" these things for "medical" reasons, then eventually the government will require that they be covered..


EveDawg
(Dawg Talker)
Fri Feb 17 2012 05:22 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate


I completely and totally agree with you. I'm a libertarian. That should say enough about my opinion on the government lol.


~TuX~
(Hall of Famer)
Sat Feb 18 2012 01:41 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Contraception has more purposes than just birthcontrol though. There are very many women who have terrible hormonal cycles, extremely painful cycles, and bleeding issues. Contraception is commonly used as a treatment for that regardless of whether or not a woman is sexually active. It is more than just preventing babies, it is used to treat health problems. It isn't a choice for very many women, not any more than having diabetes is a choice, or having high blood pressure, or any other illness. It should be covered by health plans just as any other medical treatment is covered by health plans.



Then those women can get a prescription and get it from the pharamcist for a co-pay like every other medication prescribed by a doctor... what's the problem? If I want Tylenol I pay for it, if I want heavy duty Tylenol prescribed by a doctor it's covered under my insurance. Why couldn't the pill be handled the same way?




I agree with you. My original response was to someone saying that insurance shouldn't cover the pill. I was saying that it's more than just pregnancy prevention, so it needs to be covered by insurance.

I don't like any of this Obama forcing anyone to do anything. I do think the healthcare system needs to be addressed. As a person with chronic illness, and very expensive insurance that pretty much doesn't cover any of my very expensive medications, the healthcare system is broken. But that's really a whole entire different discussion.




If Birth Control is being used to treat different issues and not primarily as a contraception, it is a completely different issue and should be covered by insurance at the rates of the co-payment schedule just like any other drug. Why should it have some special free connotation in the system? What makes it so special? There's cheaper drugs out there that still require a co-pay and there's more life-maintaining drugs out there that do as well.


DCDAWGFAN
(Legend)
Sun Feb 19 2012 03:42 PM
Re: Catholic Contraception Debate

Should condoms be covered?


Contact Us dawgtalkers.net

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5