War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Yea and I don't think you ever will either. Either I'm not explaining things properly or we've got a fundamental disagreement about what free speech and such are supposed to be, or a bit of column A and a bit of column B.

I'd say its likely the latter, but them I'm biased.

I will say its a damn shame that while we agree on other issues we can't agree on this and that you think I've been arguing dishonestly to some extent here too.

We have fundamentally different views: I've expressed several times that you seem to believe that an employer's payment of a benefit is in some way a fundamental right. What that benefit is, is irrelevant.

I, on the other hand, understand why a Catholic institution feels it cannot support the commission of a mortal sin.

Your view is that contraception is a fundamental right of women, not just the right to employ it but the right to have it be paid for by the employer.

I agree with the first part of the above sentence but I don't agree with the rest of it.

There are but size and duration of existence aren't one of them. There are, believe it or not Atheist Churches which have apparently attained 501c3 status, so they're recognized legally as a religion and not taxed either.

I've never said Atheist Churches cannot exist.

What I've said is that the ploy you note is a gross misrepresentation, and is furthermore much more of an attack on another religion rather than the expression of a personal belief.

Simply stating that Atheists, formally recognized church or otherwise, exist does not equate with said individuals/institutions actively discriminating against Catholic employees. And if they did, there would be a mighty lawsuit.

This actually isn't ridiculous at all to me and I wouldn't consider it a character attack per se. I would say its a gross misrepresentation of myself but many people have very strong beliefs about these issues so if you contradict those beliefs you come across as a communist baby killer to them. You can't discuss any thing with someone who hold their beliefs so high as that, so I just shrug and move on. Well, most of the time anyways.

As I've said your statements were viewed as an attack, does this then change your view?

Your "debunking" is pretty much what I already said. If you think that debunks it then really isn't anything to talk about there. Though I'd note other studies done earlier had found the number to be closer to 80-70% depending on the study you looked at. To say contraceptive usage isn't ubiquitous is just silly with numbers like that.

The reality is that the 98% is a gross exaggeration.

And as I've said before, while I do believe many American Catholics do employ contraception, at the same time this reality still does not invalidate the beliefs and actions of the ones who do not ignore Catholic doctrine.

You're trying to say that since everyone is doing it, the Catholic institutions might as well do so also. And as I've said, the prevalence of adherence to a religious belief is irrelevant to individual practice.

I know Catholics who have undergone hysterectomies in order to not violate the ban on contraception after their 4th child. Yes, this is probably a violation as well, though no doubt couched in health terms (the person in question was 34 at the time).

I still consider your ongoing cavalier dismissal of Catholic's faith to be misguided and inappropriate.

Its not about forcing Catholics to do anything per se, its about making sure everyone's rights and beliefs are respected and that everyone gets adequate healthcare.

You've so far not in any way attempted to observe or respect the Catholic ban on contraception, thus far it is difficult for me to understand how you can say "everyone's rights and beliefs are respected".

When the religion seeks to restrict or deny them important healthcare or control over their own bodies it sure does.

You're still conflating health insurance coverage with denial.

You've still not answered the question on why these Catholic institutions are so bad in your view, but all the company's which don't offer health insurance at all are perfectly fine.

The net result of a judicial edict as what you want would be the institutions dropping all health care coverage.

How then does this meet your moral criteria?

Rational voters, even those who seriously try at least to be rational, basically don't exist.

I actually don't agree with this. From my view, most people - as in the vast majority - are rational.

The problem is most people don't spend a lot of time looking at the issues.

My view is that ultimately as bad as everything is, it isn't bad enough for people to focus enough attention to really resolve the problems. Or perhaps the economy is so bad that many people are far more focused on survival than theoretical changes due to politicians, much less the arcane actual FIRE machinations of government today.

[LazyBoy]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

The Catholic Church is the repository of Truth including moral Truth (how to live and what one ought and ought not do), but it is the responsibility of the individual to form their conscience well in light of church teaching and live their lives accordingly (i.e., according to their well-informed conscience).

I, on the other hand, understand why a Catholic institution feels it cannot support the commission of a mortal sin.

OK. But there is a lot of immoral, mortal sinning going on. Why this issue?

Why don't we see the Church throw it's weight around on paying taxes that go to support unjust wars, or any wars? Thou shalt not kill, right? How about paying taxes to a government that executes people? How can upstanding supporters of the Church continue to finance any person or organization that lies, covets, steals or works on the sabbath?

Getting back to the economic aspects of the forum, let's get the Church to take on these:

• Cheating –A cheater defrauds his victim of their property. It is morally of grave matter unless the damage to the victim is unusually light (CCC 2413).
• Defrauding a worker of his wages—This is one of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. Defrauding a worker of his wages withholds and impedes his ability to sustain basic needs for himself and his family. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867).
• Unfair wagers—Unfair wagers in games of chance are of grave matter if they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others (CCC 2413).
• Taking advantage of the poor—The economic or social exploitation of the poor for profit harms the dignity and natural rights of the victim. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867).
• False witness and perjury—False witness is a public statement in court contrary to the truth. Perjury is false witness under oath. Both acts are gravely sinful when they condemn the innocent, exonerate the guilty or increase punishment of the accused. They are of grave matter because they contradict justice (CCC 2476).
• Lying—Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. It is gravely sinful when it significantly degrades the truth. The gravity of this sin is measured by the truth it perverts, the circumstances, intentions of the liar and harm done to the victims (CCC 2484). Lying is a sin that originates from the devil, Satan, who is "the father of all lies" (John 8:44).
• Avarice—Avarice is greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit. It is a passion for riches and luxury. Those who seek temporal happiness at the expense of spiritual duties, risk the grave sin of avarice. Avarice is one of the deadly vices (CCC 2536).

(From http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html )

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Your view is that contraception is a fundamental right of women, not just the right to employ it but the right to have it be paid for by the employer.

Actually I'd rather have a UHS or Medicare for All do it than the employer. Employer paid healthcare is a part of today's compensation and the issue at hand so I was arguing from that perspective.

I've never said Atheist Churches cannot exist.

True but you certainly did seem to be suggesting age and size of a religion has an effect on its legal existence.

What I've said is that the ploy you note is a gross misrepresentation, and is furthermore much more of an attack on another religion rather than the expression of a personal belief.

From my POV it isn't. I've explained why to the best of my ability which as noted before either isn't enough and/or we can't agree on the fundamentals of the issue.

As I've said your statements were viewed as an attack, does this then change your view?

No. Most people if you say something that contradicts their core beliefs often take personal offense but that doesn't mean offense was intended.

The reality is that the 98% is a gross exaggeration....You're trying to say that since everyone is doing it, the Catholic institutions might as well do so also....You've so far not in any way attempted to observe or respect the Catholic ban on contraception, thus far it is difficult for me to understand how you can say "everyone's rights and beliefs are respected".

Even if it is other numbers still show usage to be ubiquitous which was the originial point anyways. The latter point I wasn't aiming for. The point I was shooting for was since the usage is ubiquitous the laws should reflect society's expectations of having the contraceptives covered. Whether the Catholics liked it or not was their problem, after all Catholic law should only effect and apply to Catholics, which it still could since a change in their beliefs wasn't required.

I know Catholics who have undergone hysterectomies in order to not violate the ban on contraception after their 4th child. Yes, this is probably a violation as well, though no doubt couched in health terms (the person in question was 34 at the time).

People with extreme religious views such as this exist but are fairly rare in the US, most will take the contraceptives.

You've still not answered the question on why these Catholic institutions are so bad in your view, but all the company's which don't offer health insurance at all are perfectly fine.

Whether a company should offer health insurance at all is a different matter. I'd like them all to offer it of course but would rather prefer a UHS/Medicare for All/etc.

The net result of a judicial edict as what you want would be the institutions dropping all health care coverage. How then does this meet your moral criteria?

Depends on how they handled it. If they dropped health care coverage but raised wages appropriately to compensate for the difference I'd be fine with that.

If they dropped health care coverage but kept wages the same then yea I'd have a problem with that since they'd be screwing over their employees big time.

Nearly everyone wouldn't be able to afford health care coverage at all without the employer paying for it in part or fully. Morally I'd consider the employer to be the antagonist there since they'd decided to act like immature man children with their "all or nothing" stance and would hope employees would protest and vote in UHS/Medicare for All. Much more realistically I'd understand if and expect people to protest vote the mandate since they don't know or are misinformed about a UHS/Medicare for All. Most don't understand how broken our health care system is until they get sick and those that are already sick couldn't afford to go without coverage for long so that would be my "more realistic moral" choice under that scenario.

I actually don't agree with this. From my view, most people - as in the vast majority - are rational. The problem is most people don't spend a lot of time looking at the issues.

Yea that is just explaining why they aren't rational. They don't take the time to really examine the issues as you note, which to be fair does require LOTS of time since there is so much BS to wade through on top of complex issues, and come election time usually end up making decisions based on their "gut". Which of course is easily effected by emotions and marketing. Which is why you see the politicians almost exclusively focusing on the "optics" these days and routinely and shamelessly contradict themselves. They don't really care too much what they say anymore, almost no one calls them on their BS and when they do you have just as many pundits claiming the opposite, and anyways its more important how they look while saying it.

Or perhaps the economy is so bad that many people are far more focused on survival than theoretical changes due to politicians, much less the arcane actual FIRE machinations of government today.

There is real reason to believe that Americans today are much more self centered and narcissistic than they were in the past unfortunately. I won't bother to defend that study too much if you disagree with it since that is difficult subject matter to study in a less than biased matter, but it does reflect what I've seen personally change in the past 10 years or so.

[Raz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

OK. But there is a lot of immoral, mortal sinning going on. Why this issue?

Why don't we see the Church throw it's weight around on paying taxes that go to support unjust wars, or any wars? Thou shalt not kill, right? How about paying taxes to a government that executes people? How can upstanding supporters of the Church continue to finance any person or organization that lies, covets, steals or works on the sabbath?

Getting back to the economic aspects of the forum, let's get the Church to take on these:

• Cheating –A cheater defrauds his victim of their property. It is morally of grave matter unless the damage to the victim is unusually light (CCC 2413).
• Defrauding a worker of his wages—This is one of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. Defrauding a worker of his wages withholds and impedes his ability to sustain basic needs for himself and his family. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867).
• Unfair wagers—Unfair wagers in games of chance are of grave matter if they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others (CCC 2413).
• Taking advantage of the poor—The economic or social exploitation of the poor for profit harms the dignity and natural rights of the victim. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867).
• False witness and perjury—False witness is a public statement in court contrary to the truth. Perjury is false witness under oath. Both acts are gravely sinful when they condemn the innocent, exonerate the guilty or increase punishment of the accused. They are of grave matter because they contradict justice (CCC 2476).
• Lying—Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. It is gravely sinful when it significantly degrades the truth. The gravity of this sin is measured by the truth it perverts, the circumstances, intentions of the liar and harm done to the victims (CCC 2484). Lying is a sin that originates from the devil, Satan, who is "the father of all lies" (John 8:44).
• Avarice—Avarice is greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit. It is a passion for riches and luxury. Those who seek temporal happiness at the expense of spiritual duties, risk the grave sin of avarice. Avarice is one of the deadly vices (CCC 2536).

(From http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html )

Why this issue?

Because it is the issue in question.

The Roman church is not being told that it must use its financial resources to subsidize lying. Or to cheat people out of their property. Or paying someone to lie under oath.
IIRC the American bishops and the Vatican opposed "Dubya's" Messinpotamia during 2003 as an unjust war. And they have spoken out numerous times against what they perceive to be
an unfair distribution of wealth in American society.

Perhaps you should do a little more investigation before you attempt to shift the argument.

And a "little knowledge of theology" is as dangerous as a "little knowledge of medicine ". "Thou shalt not kill" in context has always been understood as "Though shalt do no murder".
ALL killing is not murder just as all sex is not rape. Even secular law recognizes justifiable homicide in cases of self-defence.

The Sacred Scriptures clearly contain the concept of "blloodguilt". Read Deuteronomy.

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Why this issue?

Because it is the issue in question.

The Roman church is not being told that it must use its financial resources to subsidize lying. Or to cheat people out of their property. Or paying someone to lie under oath.
IIRC the American bishops and the Vatican opposed "Dubya's" Messinpotamia during 2003 as an unjust war. And they have spoken out numerous times against what they perceive to be
an unfair distribution of wealth in American society.

Perhaps you should do a little more investigation before you attempt to shift the argument.

And a "little knowledge of theology" is as dangerous as a "little knowledge of medicine ". "Thou shalt not kill" in context has always been understood as "Though shalt do no murder".
ALL killing is not murder just as all sex is not rape. Even secular law recognizes justifiable homicide in cases of self-defence.

The Sacred Scriptures clearly contain the concept of "blloodguilt". Read Deuteronomy.

Exactly!

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Why don't we see the Church throw it's weight around on paying taxes that go to support unjust wars, or any wars? Thou shalt not kill, right?

There are so many problems with this statement that it would take a long time to list them all.

A few quick ones:

1) The Catholic church doesn't pay income taxes. They're non-profits in the US. They certainly pay some other taxes like property taxes and sales taxes, but I think even you won't try and argue that these play into war and what not.

2) As part of their tax exempt status, they are prohibited from trying to influence legislation. It is unclear to me how strongly this prohibition is enforced given what I see in the environmental arena, but nonetheless.

3) Even were the Catholic church required to pay income taxes or any other tax directly related to general government expenditures, which in turn feed into war and what not, Catholics and other Christians are bound to 'render unto Caesar'.

4) The Catholic church thinks war in general is bad today, but hasn't always been this way. A quick glance at the history books shows this to be true. There is no Catholic dogma against war, unlike contraception and onanism - which are similar violations.

Other points, Raz has noted, but there are plenty more beyond that.

Actually I'd rather have a UHS or Medicare for All do it than the employer. Employer paid healthcare is a part of today's compensation and the issue at hand so I was arguing from that perspective.

So if I understand you correctly, your stand is that since employer paid health insurance (not health care) is part of today's compensation (different than when in the past 60 years?), that an employer choosing not to pay for health insurance coverage for contraception due to religious reasons is discrimination against women.

Yet if the employer chooses not to offer health insurance for financial reasons, then there is no discrimination?

What about if the employer chooses not to offer health insurance which covers contraception for financial reasons, is this also discrimination?

I agree that some form of national health care providing should be created as a public good in the US, but I don't see how beating up on Catholic organizations as employers in any way furthers this goal.

True but you certainly did seem to be suggesting age and size of a religion has an effect on its legal existence.

You're again inferring something which is wrong. I specifically wrote that there are requirements for a legally recognized religion, and pointed toward the IRS as a concrete example.

From my POV it isn't. I've explained why to the best of my ability which as noted before either isn't enough and/or we can't agree on the fundamentals of the issue.

Your opinion is quite clear.

However, your opinion is in direct contradiction to US law as well as the Golden Rule.

No. Most people if you say something that contradicts their core beliefs often take personal offense but that doesn't mean offense was intended.

Nice attempt to reorient. You still refuse to admit that
a) You attempted to put words in my mouth
b) The beliefs you attempted to assign to me was wrong
c) The combination of the above was offensive

Very well, clearly you can say whatever you feel like and find justification for it.

Even if it is other numbers still show usage to be ubiquitous which was the originial point anyways. The latter point I wasn't aiming for. The point I was shooting for was since the usage is ubiquitous the laws should reflect society's expectations of having the contraceptives covered. Whether the Catholics liked it or not was their problem, after all Catholic law should only effect and apply to Catholics, which it still could since a change in their beliefs wasn't required.

Again you attempt to invoke consensus.

And again, I completely, categorically disagree. According to you, we should all conform legally to societal consensus.

By this belief, the Union had no right to provoke the Civil War over slavery. The consensus in the South was quite clear, to the point where that region attempted secession in order to be able to continue its societal consensus.

Equally so can a multitude of other examples be found where the consensus is wrong, yet actions were undertaken under this false umbrella.

You also are still refusing to address the point that religious belief and practices are specifically protected under US law and the Constitution, in contrast which health insurance payments for contraception are not.

People with extreme religious views such as this exist but are fairly rare in the US, most will take the contraceptives.

Rare or not, they exist. I don't personally think they are as rare as you seem to believe, but frankly neither of our opinions on this matter. The practices of the devout are protected under US law and the Constitution.

You're again attempting to invoke consensus to justify getting your own way, with the assumption that your way is representing the consensus.

Whether a company should offer health insurance at all is a different matter. I'd like them all to offer it of course but would rather prefer a UHS/Medicare for All/etc.

So you've answered the question. If the Catholic organizations just stop offering health insurance at all, then no problem.

I'm sure their employees will all appreciate that.

Depends on how they handled it. If they dropped health care coverage but raised wages appropriately to compensate for the difference I'd be fine with that.

If they dropped health care coverage but kept wages the same then yea I'd have a problem with that since they'd be screwing over their employees big time.

And what exactly is illegal about that?

Employees do get screwed, all the time, over all sorts of things. You may have a problem with that, but ultimately it is the employer's prerogative, just as the employees have the prerogative to walk away.

Employers get screwed too. Employees may show up drunk, may quit with no notice to go somewhere else, may steal, may be lazy, etc etc.

To say all employers are always wrong is itself wrong.

Nearly everyone wouldn't be able to afford health care coverage at all without the employer paying for it in part or fully. Morally I'd consider the employer to be the antagonist there since they'd decided to act like immature man children with their "all or nothing" stance and would hope employees would protest and vote in UHS/Medicare for All. Much more realistically I'd understand if and expect people to protest vote the mandate since they don't know or are misinformed about a UHS/Medicare for All. Most don't understand how broken our health care system is until they get sick and those that are already sick couldn't afford to go without coverage for long so that would be my "more realistic moral" choice under that scenario.

No, morally the antagonist here is you.

The employer is seeking to offer a benefit excluding only a specific portion which said employer finds objectionable. Health care is a large expense as well as a bureaucratic headache.

You are seeking not only to take what the employer is offering on good faith, but to force additional concessions.

As an employer in such a situation, the temptation to just fix the problem exactly through the most expedient solution (dropping health insurance coverage) would be tremendous. I'd then point out to all the employees just who created this situation, and let 'consensus' work itself out.

There is real reason to believe that Americans today are much more self centered and narcissistic than they were in the past unfortunately. I won't bother to defend that study too much if you disagree with it since that is difficult subject matter to study in a less than biased matter, but it does reflect what I've seen personally change in the past 10 years or so.

As someone who is interested in the past, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Americans of the 'Manifest Destiny' era, of the 'Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick' era, of 'Over There', and so forth were so much more noble.

I guess you prefer blatant nationalism to lotus eating.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Yet if the employer chooses not to offer health insurance for financial reasons, then there is no discrimination? What about if the employer chooses not to offer health insurance which covers contraception for financial reasons, is this also discrimination?

If they're going to offer health care coverage they should offer the whole deal unless there is some sort of financial issue there. But this isn't a financial issue at all.

You're again inferring something which is wrong. I specifically wrote that there are requirements for a legally recognized religion, and pointed toward the IRS as a concrete example.

No before that you said this: "Catholicism is a long standing religion accepted all over the world" as if that meant anything vs my "bogus religion" in my example using an atheist employer pushing his beliefs on others.

However, your opinion is in direct contradiction to US law as well as the Golden Rule.

Perhaps. We'll see what the SCOTUS says and later on what happens with the voters and if they decide to have a say on this issue.

Very well, clearly you can say whatever you feel like and find justification for it.

No, that is your claim, I already told you that wasn't my intent. If you want to read intent despite my explanation that is your problem.

And again, I completely, categorically disagree. According to you, we should all conform legally to societal consensus. By this belief, the Union had no right to provoke the Civil War over slavery. Equally so can a multitude of other examples be found where the consensus is wrong, yet actions were undertaken under this false umbrella.

Society often isn't right, slavery would be a better example than the South's secession IMO, but for better or worse society changes the laws to reflect its beliefs as a whole. If a majority of society wants something for long enough they'll probably get it, you don't have to like it or even agree with it, I sure don't much of the time but I will continue to invoke it. Prop 8 in CA for instance is a pretty terrible law IMO, but it passed...and eventually got shot down by the courts.

You also are still refusing to address the point that religious belief and practices are specifically protected under US law and the Constitution, in contrast which health insurance payments for contraception are not.

I've already addressed this by saying its inherently a form of discrimination against women and projecting their beliefs on to others when Catholic organizations decide not to pay for contraceptives, which you've disagreed with for reasons that have already been hashed over, there isn't anything more to talk about there since I think its pretty clear by now we're not going to agree.

with the assumption that your way is representing the consensus.

Except I've pointed out polls and studies, which you refuse to accept, in particular the former so I haven't posted one but have noted them, which strongly suggest a consensus. You can certainly disagree with me or even entirely reject any proof I present but its not really correct to say I'm trying to argue from assumption.

So you've answered the question. If the Catholic organizations just stop offering health insurance at all, then no problem.

If there was a UHS/Medicare for All or they paid more to compensate for the lack of health care coverage then sure.

And what exactly is illegal about that?

Its not illegal but definitely immoral if done for solely religious beliefs or to improve profits when the company is already making money. Employees and employers do get screwed over all the time for lots of things but in that latter situation I was referring to the employer would clearly be in the wrong. I don't know where you're getting, "To say all employers are always wrong is itself wrong." from. You're uh, reading my posts in a very odd way I think.

As an employer in such a situation, the temptation to just fix the problem exactly through the most expedient solution (dropping health insurance coverage) would be tremendous. I'd then point out to all the employees just who created this situation, and let 'consensus' work itself out.

"He is the bad guy, blame him not me!" probably wouldn't go over as well as you'd think it might since everyone would know you'd canned the health care coverage just because you couldn't deal with a perceived slight upon your beliefs.

As someone who is interested in the past, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Americans of the 'Manifest Destiny' era, of the 'Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick' era, of 'Over There', and so forth were so much more noble.

Well I mentioned, "seen personally change in the past 10 years or so" for a good reason so I'm not sure why you're going back that far. I wasn't alive back then to see how things personally were you know.

[LazyBoy]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Well, my shots at The Church came late in the evening and I don't really stand by them. And you're right that I have a (very!) "little knowledge of theology". I don't really care to get any more.

But c1ue's earlier thoughts on "not paying != denial of rights" already had me (mostly) on the side of the Good Christians in this one. So I wasn't really shifting the argument as much as asking a related question.

Why does it seem like the Christian Right is always more eager to do battle over issues like contraception and gay marriage than other (mortal) sins? OK. So some Bishops and the Vatican opposed an unjust war, once. Did they rile up their flocks? I don't remember hearing about it. Did they tell their followers to take to the streets? To write their congress critters? To not fund it through taxes? (Oh yeah, there's an excuse for that one, the render unto Caesar thing.) Why wasn't Fox News spreading the word that it was unjust?


And yes, c1ue, even I know churches don't pay taxes. It was sloppy writing. Thanks for the laser focus on that.

[lektrode]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

If the amount of litigation and other legal issues truly haven't grown since the 80's, then it'd make sense for it not to. Outside of legal expenses what do you believe is driving healthcare costs?

assuming thats true - besides CYA?
the insurers getting as far out in front of the coming wave of utilization/claims as possible?
gouging for anything/everything they can get away with?
getting over-run by large group claimants which they offer lowball rates to, and then cover costs on by overcharging everybody else/individuals? (that dont have 'group buying power')

what galls me is how little i utilize the plan thats now costing me nearly 6grand/year and being declined for a cheaper/less-covered/catastrophic plan - as if to suggest to me that they dont want to let people in otherwise good health/low utilization off the hook - but i bet they will once they get swamped - too bad (for me) that will be after i've been drained dry for something that i seldom use and when i do need something, the copays are prohibitively expensive (like 1500 'copay' for a ct scan?) so i gamble and do without em (x fingers, so far)

and THEN, if you do go in every time you have some issue, that is then used against you, far as premium rates ?
(which has already been done: 'sorry, you came in to the clinic 5times last year, so you dont qualify for that plan')

this is 'no way to run an airline' in my observation, in that if the treatment suggested req's something as commonplace as a ct scan is these daze - how does it help me or them by nailing me with a 1500copay - on top of the nearly 6grand i'm already paying? on top of the 4000max supplemental chgs, or 10grand out of pocket 1st time anything major happens - so i dont get the ct scan and then my condition dramatically worsens? (which thankfully didnt happen) - how does that help either party?

and then theres all the mandated politically correkt coverages, prev mentioned

and how about the biggie: BECAUSE THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, as there simply is no mechanism to enable any form of competition (pricing comparison)

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Why does it seem like the Christian Right is always more eager to do battle over issues like contraception and gay marriage than other (mortal) sins? OK. So some Bishops and the Vatican opposed an unjust war, once. Did they rile up their flocks? I don't remember hearing about it. Did they tell their followers to take to the streets? To write their congress critters? To not fund it through taxes? (Oh yeah, there's an excuse for that one, the render unto Caesar thing.) Why wasn't Fox News spreading the word that it was unjust?

Lazyboy, this paragraph seems strange based on your signature :Labeling something as left/right/-ism/-ist means you don't have to think critically!

[Raz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Well, my shots at The Church came late in the evening and I don't really stand by them. And you're right that I have a (very!) "little knowledge of theology". I don't really care to get any more.

But c1ue's earlier thoughts on "not paying != denial of rights" already had me (mostly) on the side of the Good Christians in this one. So I wasn't really shifting the argument as much as asking a related question.

Why does it seem like the Christian Right is always more eager to do battle over issues like contraception and gay marriage than other (mortal) sins? OK. So some Bishops and the Vatican opposed an unjust war, once. Did they rile up their flocks? I don't remember hearing about it. Did they tell their followers to take to the streets? To write their congress critters? To not fund it through taxes? (Oh yeah, there's an excuse for that one, the render unto Caesar thing.) Why wasn't Fox News spreading the word that it was unjust?


And yes, c1ue, even I know churches don't pay taxes. It was sloppy writing. Thanks for the laser focus on that.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your question as "shifting".

Society at large is not claiming that greed is okay, or that cheating people out of their wages is perfectly acceptable. But fornication has practically become a national badge of "enlightenment" and huge sections of American society have apparently lost all sense of shame. So the church is defending those parts of traditional christian morality that are under direct attack by almost everyone from psychiatrists to journalists to special interest groups like the homosexualist lobby.

Fox News? They're owned, operated and empowered by the NeoCons, so what should we expect? These idiots have traded our republic for an empire and now have such arrogance and vested interest that they WILL not see the part it plays in ruining the United States.

A large part of the Christian Right is made up of non-denominational christians who are far removed from the full Orthodox and catholic Faith and are somewhat selective in their focus. But I deem that far less offensive than the mainstream Protestant apostates who actually sanction the mass murder of the preborn through procured abortion.

Christ had much to say about the poor and we ignore them at our peril.

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your question as "shifting".

Society at large is not claiming that greed is okay, or that cheating people out of their wages is perfectly acceptable. But fornication has practically become a national badge of "enlightenment" and huge sections of American society have apparently lost all sense of shame. So the church is defending those parts of traditional christian morality that are under direct attack by almost everyone from psychiatrists to journalists to special interest groups like the homosexualist lobby.

Fox News? They're owned, operated and empowered by the NeoCons, so what should we expect? These idiots have traded our republic for an empire and now have such arrogance and vested interest that they WILL not see the part it plays in ruining the United States.

A large part of the Christian Right is made up of non-denominational christians who are far removed from the full Orthodox and catholic Faith and are somewhat selective in their focus. But I deem that far less offensive than the mainstream Protestant apostates who actually sanction the mass murder of the preborn through procured abortion.

Christ had much to say about the poor and we ignore them at our peril.

Raz, thanks again for your post. We appear to think so much alike you would think I was Orthodox. Actually I am Missouri Synod Lutheran, about as close to Roman Catholic you can get without being one.

[shiny!]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

assuming thats true - besides CYA?
the insurers getting as far out in front of the coming wave of utilization/claims as possible?
gouging for anything/everything they can get away with?
getting over-run by large group claimants which they offer lowball rates to, and then cover costs on by overcharging everybody else/individuals? (that dont have 'group buying power')

what galls me is how little i utilize the plan thats now costing me nearly 6grand/year and being declined for a cheaper/less-covered/catastrophic plan - as if to suggest to me that they dont want to let people in otherwise good health/low utilization off the hook - but i bet they will once they get swamped - too bad (for me) that will be after i've been drained dry for something that i seldom use and when i do need something, the copays are prohibitively expensive (like 1500 'copay' for a ct scan?) so i gamble and do without em (x fingers, so far)

and THEN, if you do go in every time you have some issue, that is then used against you, far as premium rates ?
(which has already been done: 'sorry, you came in to the clinic 5times last year, so you dont qualify for that plan')

this is 'no way to run an airline' in my observation, in that if the treatment suggested req's something as commonplace as a ct scan is these daze - how does it help me or them by nailing me with a 1500copay - on top of the nearly 6grand i'm already paying? on top of the 4000max supplemental chgs, or 10grand out of pocket 1st time anything major happens - so i dont get the ct scan and then my condition dramatically worsens? (which thankfully didnt happen) - how does that help either party?

and then theres all the mandated politically correkt coverages, prev mentioned

and how about the biggie: BECAUSE THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, as there simply is no mechanism to enable any form of competition (pricing comparison)

I'm in the same leaky boat you are. $344/month for COBRA. I still have to pay the first $1250 out of pocket 100%, even doctor office visits and lab tests. Need a test or a procedure? Where's my up-front pricing before I schedule it?

Last year I called the insurance company before having a thyroid biopsy to learn all the charges beforehand: hospital, pathology, doctor fees... The representative "read the procedure code wrong" and failed to tell me about the huge charges from "Radiology". I found out about it months later when I got the bill.

If I have a problem now I'm likely to let it get real bad in the hope it gets better on its own.

[Raz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Raz, thanks again for your post. We appear to think so much alike you would think I was Orthodox. Actually I am Missouri Synod Lutheran, about as close to Roman Catholic you can get without being one.

Actually, jiim, if you're Lutheran (and I don't confuse the LCMS with your heretical "brethren" in ELCA) you're far closer theologically to Orthodoxy than Rome!

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/lutheran_colloquium

Although Luther himself never had the chance, Martin Chemnitz, Phillip Melanchthon and some others made contact with the Eastern Church and found much agreement. Sadly they weren't able to agree on some points and the communications ended.

http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/lutheran.htm

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Actually, jiim, if you're Lutheran (and I don't confuse the LCMS with your heretical "brethren" in ELCA) you're far closer theologically to Orthodoxy than Rome!

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/lutheran_colloquium

Although Luther himself never had the chance, Martin Chemnitz, Phillip Melanchthon and some others made contact with the Eastern Church and found much agreement. Sadly they weren't able to agree on some points and the communications ended.

http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/lutheran.htm

Raz, thanks for the information. I did know that Melanchton had made contact with the Eastern Church, but that was all I knew. And yes it is realy sad what has happened to the ELCA over the past 20 years or so.