War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

With all due respect, lektrode, (and I am sincere) - if the price of performing good deeds is complicity in mass murder then the Church must forego the good deeds.

From the very beginning the world has been at war with the Church because she refused to compromise the truth. (Refusing to worship the Roman "gods" embodied in Caesar sent one to the lions.)

To so compromise is to deny Him who is Truth.

I agree completely.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

With all due respect, lektrode, (and I am sincere) - if the price of performing good deeds is complicity in mass murder then the Church must forego the good deeds.

From the very beginning the world has been at war with the Church because she refused to compromise the truth. (Refusing to worship the Roman "gods" embodied in Caesar sent one to the lions.)

To so compromise is to deny Him who is Truth.

I know you are a pretty devout person, Raz, from your posts over the years, and I think this comment of yours is a pretty good one. In any transaction, it's always fair for either party to say "no thank you, no sale", and leave the room.

In this debate, neither wants the other compelling them to act against their interest. I happen to fall on the other side from you on this one, but would be the first to support the Church's privilege to disengage completely if we legally define a minimum health insurance plan that includes hormonal birth control, same rule for everybody.

As a practical matter, I would think the Catholic hospitals could find a work-around wherein they don't offer medical insurance to employees and still run their hospitals, to their benefit and ours. Respectfully, I endorse that position.

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Even if you're only talking about a ruling effecting organized religions you're talking about a hell of a lot of people being effected in a broad manner. There are religions that don't believe people should get organ transplants, blood transfusions, etc. even in life threatening situations. Either which way you look at it this a decision will not be truly narrow in scope.

Again, while there may be far reaching consequences of a SCOTUS decision on this issue, there as easily may not be.

I don't see any information which informs toward either result, thus I think it is far too premature to start kicking up a fuss.

I think you're reading that part wrong or something, I wasn't suggesting and don't believe there is one.

Fair enough. The principle that employers are fully entitled to decide what they will or will not pay for is then the issue.

You seem to be arguing that employers may not have this decision. If for example dangerous labor practices, labor abuse, or some actual crime was involved, I can understand why certain decisions might be taken out of employer's hands - for example sexual/racial discrimination.

I do not, however, see how payment for contraceptives constitutes discrimination. The Catholic employer is not forcing their (Catholic or non-Catholic) employees to not engage in contraception, they merely require said users of contraception to do so with their own money. The rationale is irrelevant. It is no different than saying the Catholic institutions won't pay for braces, or eyeglasses, or plastic surgery.

Bad metaphor to say the least. The legal, social, and health aspects of birth control and crack or methadone are very very different to put it very very mildly. By allowing their healthcare plans to compensate for contraceptives they would simply be meeting their employees and society's general expectations of what a healthcare plan should and normally does cover.

The problem with your disagreement is that you are invoking legal, social, and health aspects. The issue at hand is moral in the context of religion.

There are no legal requirements to support contraception.

There are no social requirements to support contraception.

There are no health aspects requiring the support of contraception.

As for society's expectations, I would actually argue that American society has zero expectations for health care - insurance or otherwise. How else do you explain tens of millions of Americans with no health insurance and equally minimal health care?

I believe you are inferring your own expectations for health care insurance coverage onto someone else with completely different views.

I actually believe the Americans should have some minimal expectation for health care, but until we get national health care this is not going to be fulfilled.

Of course its moral from their perspective, I didn't say it wasn't, but why are only the employer's morals to be considered here and not the employee's as well?

Because it is the employer paying for it. He who pays, decides.

A good employer will gauge whether the extra expense is worthwhile, but in this case there are religious and moral considerations which override any amount of extra employee satisfaction.

As I noted above, until we get to the point where we have national health care, it is pointless to expend energy trying to force private payers to any form of standard.

[Kadriana]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

"The labels for the after-the-fact pills say that they may sometimes work after fertilization. Asking Catholic institutions to pay for something that they believe sometimes results in homicide is a grave threat to religious liberty."

The Orthodox Church maintains the concilliar and cannonical consensus of the Early Church in this matter and is in agreement with the Roman Magisterium: a procured abortion is the most evil act imaginable since the more helpless and innocent the victim, the more heinous the crime. It is the closest thing to Deicide - the murder of Christ Himself. And there is no difference between a mechanically induced abortion and a chemically induced abortion. Period.

The Roman Catholic church should absolutely refuse to obey the U.S. government should the position of the Obama Administration be upheld in the courts.
They should close or sell every Catholic hospital and shut down Catholic Charities if necessary. I would hope the Orthodox would do the same.

Where is the Orthodox Church's stance on bc for medical reasons? From my understanding, the Catholic Church allows it.

[Raz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I know you are a pretty devout person, Raz, from your posts over the years, and I think this comment of yours is a pretty good one. In any transaction, it's always fair for either party to say "no thank you, no sale", and leave the room.

In this debate, neither wants the other compelling them to act against their interest. I happen to fall on the other side from you on this one, but would be the first to support the Church's privilege to disengage completely if we legally define a minimum health insurance plan that includes hormonal birth control, same rule for everybody.

As a practical matter, I would think the Catholic hospitals could find a work-around wherein they don't offer medical insurance to employees and still run their hospitals, to their benefit and ours. Respectfully, I endorse that position.

Thank you, thrifty, for your kind remarks and reasonable position. Let's hope this is how it plays out should the Federal Courts decide that the First Amendment no longer applies to traditonal, apostolic Christianity.

Personally, I do NOT believe the Obama Administration will grant a waiver to the Roman church allowing them to opt-out completely from providing employee medical coverage.
They have an agenda that is anti-christian, unless you happen to be part of the mainline apostacy that passes for "christianity" today. I hope I'm wrong; we shall see.

Should my fears prove valid I suppose I'll be treated to a tiny taste of what black Americans felt for almost two-hundred years.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Because the employer is the one paying the bill!

Just because you pay someone doesn't mean you should be able to intrude on their life or livelihood with your beliefs in any way shape or form. Respect for beliefs should go both ways, instead the employers seem to hold all the cards and the employees can just get screwed.

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Just because you pay someone doesn't mean you should be able to intrude on their life or livelihood with your beliefs in any way shape or form. Respect for beliefs should go both ways, instead the employers seem to hold all the cards and the employees can just get screwed.

They can pay for their own items. And yes the payer holds all the cards as long as there are enough people willing to work. That is the way the world works, but I assume not the way you want it to work.

[Kadriana]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Because it is the employer paying for it. He who pays, decides.

A good employer will gauge whether the extra expense is worthwhile, but in this case there are religious and moral considerations which override any amount of extra employee satisfaction.

As I noted above, until we get to the point where we have national health care, it is pointless to expend energy trying to force private payers to any form of standard.

Both the employer and the employee pay. Most people have a certain amount deducted from their paycheck every two weeks for health care and also have deductibles.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Again, while there may be far reaching consequences of a SCOTUS decision on this issue, there as easily may not be.

Given the SCOTUS power and position on the courts I'm not convinced any sort of truly narrow or minor result will come of any ruling, its just not the nature of that particular beast.

I do not, however, see how payment for contraceptives constitutes discrimination.

I would disagree with you there, and I'd be surprised if most women wouldn't disagree with you either. Sure the decision not to pay for contraceptives applies to men and women, but its women who will usually pay the cost of the end result of that decision.

The problem with your disagreement is that you are invoking legal, social, and health aspects. The issue at hand is moral in the context of religion.
,,,,,
Because it is the employer paying for it. He who pays, decides.

Its moral in the context of a specific religion of which many are not a part of.

What if I was an atheist and decided to reduce the pay of all Catholics in my organization by 10% if they tithe to the church since I don't believe in organized religion? You could say that atheism isn't a religion, but this is quibbling, its a belief too right? If you don't like that example I'm pretty sure I can find all sorts of other ones, there are many religions out there after all with very different views of morality built into them after all. I'm sure people in general would be taking a very different view of this whole matter if it was a case where a muslim had decided to apply certain aspects of Sharia Law on his employees instead of this being about Catholics and birth control which are issues many sympathize with for different reasons out side of religion.

And you can take the view of, "well they can go elsewhere" but that view seems to show a lack of empathy to say the least. After all, we all know the current state of the economy and what it means to be unemployed right now and how long it can take to find another job too.

There are no legal requirements to support contraception. There are no social requirements to support contraception. There are no health aspects requiring the support of contraception.

Legally there aren't any requirements to ban it either, socially most expect to have it and its usage is nearly ubiquitous these days, and health wise there are indeed issues that require the use of contraceptives in special circumstances where the patient may have a idiopathic or allergic response to the normally used treatments.

As for society's expectations, I would actually argue that American society has zero expectations for health care - insurance or otherwise.

You didn't happen to notice those poll charts posted earlier with regard to Medicare for All or single payer healthcare did you?

How else do you explain tens of millions of Americans with no health insurance and equally minimal health care?

Because they can't afford it? But really now this seems strange to me for you to say this, after all its not like people haven't been complaining for years now that something needs to be done to reduce the cost of healthcare is it? Or are you going to say you haven't heard of Obamacare and the complaints about that either?

I actually believe the Americans should have some minimal expectation for health care, but until we get national health care this is not going to be fulfilled.

You're probably right but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it either.

[lektrode]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

mr mesyn... thanks for the info/comeback.

this stuff is of particularly intense interest to me (and i suspect quite a few others here)
because my premium/dues, whatevah, for kaiser-permanente has jumped 15% just since last year and has kranked up 86% since '04 (from 249 to 462 this year for their individual/self-empl'd plan), while the max ann'l supplemental charges, copays, etc have gone up even faster, while the benefit levels have all been cut (while they continue to knuckle under to ever increasing state-mandated - and PolitcallyCorrekt benefits - that address scant/sliver minorities of the subscriber base and furthermore, get overloaded by state/county employees they are covering with cadillac plans that we individual subscribers end up subsidizing!... there, i feel better now ;)

...the state of Texas cut malpractice suites in half AND lowered costs by 30% at the same time but health care costs in that state went up even higher than some other states.

Even if you want to ignore the first point the second one shoots giant gaping holes in the idea that legal costs are having any significant impact on health care costs. To help add to the discussion and perhaps even change your mind I'll give you another article on the subject. Note this one cites another newer study done in 2007 by a private actuarial firm, it also does a better job of explaining the why of the whole situation too.

quite frankly, i'm not ignoring anything you post as you are one of the more informed/opionionated people here (not that i agree with everything you write, but appreciate those who HAVE opionions and feel strongly enough aboout them to post em...

that said - lets pose the question of: what is the total load on the medical care delivery system for malpractice insurance, judgements, out of court settlements and the biggie: CYA proceedures, paperwork, staffing that are being done/billed in an effort to keep med practioners from getting sued?

never mind what the burden of the new electronic record systems will end up costing and if anybody thinks thats being done for OUR benefit? (with the system already using every word you ever tell them against you when it comes to paying for coverage)

i understand WHY the med industry does what it does, but HOW MUCH is it costing us?

not for a second do i believe its "only 1-2%"
which, quite frankly, sounds like propaganda eminating from the tort lobby and the insurance industry.

Q. You said the number of claims is relatively small. Is there a way to demonstrate that?
A. We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.

well of course theres been a declining rate of lawsuits!
the med industry would have to be complicit with the tort industry if there wasnt a decline and they'd be paying even MORE to the insurance industry than they already are (and we know the docs aint stupid) - the question becomes:

decrease in lawsuits = how much increase in CYA activities?, which are then simply tacked onto OUR insurance bills

and to add insult to injury, the GD med insurers make even fatter profits when it is!

1or2% ?
and obamacare will make these costs go down?
(and fugetabout 'free' birth control, thats just a campaign tactic to get the conservatives lookin bad to the center = win for the dems)

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

that said - lets pose the question of: what is the total load on the medical care delivery system for malpractice insurance, judgements, out of court settlements and the biggie: CYA proceedures, paperwork, staffing that are being done/billed in an effort to keep med practioners from getting sued?

I don't understand, the article already mentioned that according to the study it was $30.4 billion in 2007. That number includes "defensive medicine" (CYA costs) costs too. If you want more recent numbers than that I'm not aware of any, but note that the person answering the questions mentions that malpractice cases have essentially remained steady since the 80's while the healthcare industry has grown considerably.

Now you've already refused to consider the CBO study as valid for what I guess could be called personal reasons, are you also refusing to consider a 2nd study done by a non-government private actuarial organization done 7 years later? Which apparently has arrived at pretty much the same conclusions as the first study?

If you still hold your personal anecdotes as superior to the information I've given you, then well fair enough, but there isn't any point in continuing the conversation since I'll never be able to prove anything to you. Nor will likely anyone else either BTW, unless of course they have anecdotes that are close to yours...but then that is a form of self selecting bias.

which, quite frankly, sounds like propaganda eminating from the tort lobby and the insurance industry.

You have it the other way around. The tort lobby and insurance companies are some of the main proponents to the "malpractice is driving healthcare costs" meme. The "reform" they want to do would nearly eliminate or totally eliminate your ability to sue a doctor, hospital, or insurance company for almost anything, which BTW is already somewhat limited believe it or not. Remember, they're working for the I in FIRE, these people aren't your friends or allies. Unfortunately they're effective at spreading their propaganda, most people have heard it so much without informed dissent (surprise surprise right?) they've bought into it, your reaction of disbelief is the norm.

edit: Didn't notice you edited this question into your post until much later:

and obamacare will make these costs go down?

Nope its a terrible bill that does nothing to fix the healthcare industry or drop costs. It does limit the amount that costs can be raised each year IIRC but that amount is still higher than the rate of inflation. What led you to believe in my previous post that I supported Obamacare? I'd already said before earlier in the thread that I thought Obamacare was terrible.

[Raz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Where is the Orthodox Church's stance on bc for medical reasons? From my understanding, the Catholic Church allows it.

I'm only a layman so all I can give is my understanding from the limited number of letters and encyclicals by Orthodox Bishops from various jurisdictions (Antiochian, Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.).

The Church clearly teaches that a marriage which seeks to avoid the procreation of children is no marriage at all, sacremental or otherwise. But in variance to Rome it is not taught that every sexual encounter between the married must be open to conception. Before God told the first man and the first woman to "Be fruitfull and multiply" He said that "It is not good for the man to be alone".

I suppose there are extremely rare cases where the bearing of a child could pose serious risk to the life of the mother and this is what you are referring to. I'm not aware of any Orthodox Synod addressing this particular issue, but in such rare case it is likely that an Orthodox Bishop would advise abstinence but would not disallow contraception that isn't used as an abortificient.

The problem comes in with methods of regulating/spacing conception and birth that can cause abortion.

Sperm cells do not replicate themselves. Ovum do not replicate themselves. But after the two are united all the pairs of chromasomes are present, cell replication begins and a *new and unique human being* has been procreated. Some methods of contraception can dislodge this newly formed human zygote and in such cases they are in fact acting as abortificients. The "Morning After Pill" is a clear example and is therefore condemned by the Orthodox.

Both the Roman church and the Orthodox allow whatever medical treatments are required to save the life of a pregnant woman - as long as the preborn child is not attacked.
A pregnancy where cancer is discovered in the mother's body may be treated with chemotherapy, for example, and should the little one perish there is no bloodguilt.
But under no circumstances is it ever permissible to attack the child's body.

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Both the employer and the employee pay. Most people have a certain amount deducted from their paycheck every two weeks for health care and also have deductibles.

The vast majority of health insurance payments for employees in those companies that do provide health insurance is paid for by the employer.

We also do not know in this cases whether the employees of these Catholic institutions directly contribute or not.

As for employee contributions - theoretically the cost of contraception coverage in a health insurance plan is an additional one, thus the employees would have this increment available to pay for some part of contraception themselves.

Given the SCOTUS power and position on the courts I'm not convinced any sort of truly narrow or minor result will come of any ruling, its just not the nature of that particular beast.

You are welcome to your belief, but until you can show some evidence of the scope or effect of a SCOTUS ruling via a factual report, I remain unconvinced as to the slippery slope you believe in.

I would disagree with you there, and I'd be surprised if most women wouldn't disagree with you either. Sure the decision not to pay for contraceptives applies to men and women, but its women who will usually pay the cost of the end result of that decision.

I don't know about 'most women'; I do agree the contraceptive issue has more impact on women than men.

But again, where is it written that everything must be 100% fair? Nowhere is it written that everyone in the US gets everything equally in anything except perhaps free speech.

Its moral in the context of a specific religion of which many are not a part of.

You might not be, but the employers are. And that is the question. If the employer chooses not to pay for contraception due to the employer's religious belief, I fail to see what is hypocritical or inconsistent.

What if I was an atheist and decided to reduce the pay of all Catholics in my organization by 10% if they tithe to the church since I don't believe in organized religion? You could say that atheism isn't a religion, but this is quibbling, its a belief too right? If you don't like that example I'm pretty sure I can find all sorts of other ones, there are many religions out there after all with very different views of morality built into them after all. I'm sure people in general would be taking a very different view of this whole matter if it was a case where a muslim had decided to apply certain aspects of Sharia Law on his employees instead of this being about Catholics and birth control which are issues many sympathize with for different reasons out side of religion.

Your example is wrong because discrimination, particularly in pay, due to religion is specifically prohibited. A wronged employee in this example could sue you and would probably win.

Secondly your punitive attack on Catholic's pay in your example is not an exercise of your own religion, it is an attack on the Catholic religion.

There is a difference between not recognizing religion and specifically attacking it.

Equally your invocation of Sharia law is also flawed. The Catholic institutions are not controlling their employee's behavior, they simply are not collusively assisting it. Employees are perfectly welcome to employ contraception, which is in no way similar to enforcing Sharia law on employees.

Please at least try to be clear on what is going on.

And you can take the view of, "well they can go elsewhere" but that view seems to show a lack of empathy to say the least. After all, we all know the current state of the economy and what it means to be unemployed right now and how long it can take to find another job too.

Given that I've said no such thing, you are letting your emotions overcome your ability to read.

Read again carefully what I wrote.

Legally there aren't any requirements to ban it either, socially most expect to have it and its usage is nearly ubiquitous these days, and health wise there are indeed issues that require the use of contraceptives in special circumstances where the patient may have a idiopathic or allergic response to the normally used treatments.

If indeed there is a valid medical issue requiring contraception, then someone can bring a lawsuit over that.

In the meantime, your attempt to invoke consensus and/or societal norms into this discussion is a waste of time. A moral decision by definition is individual, even ignoring the fact that your statement is wrong. Millions of Catholics believe that contraception is evil and should not be tolerated.

You didn't happen to notice those poll charts posted earlier with regard to Medicare for All or single payer healthcare did you?

The charts show what some people say to a pollster.

The reality we live in shows what US society actually is, just as the reality of health care in other nations shows the difference.

Because they can't afford it? But really now this seems strange to me for you to say this, after all its not like people haven't been complaining for years now that something needs to be done to reduce the cost of healthcare is it? Or are you going to say you haven't heard of Obamacare and the complaints about that either?

My views on health care are quite clear.

My point, which you still apparently refuse to comprehend, is that we as an American society find that millions of uninsured are perfectly acceptable, that health care is not a public good, and that unaffordable health care is tolerable.

Obamacare is only in the very weakest of lights a change to the situation.

Health care is still not a public good under Obamacare - health insurance policies for certain segments of the American poor are.

Equally affordable health care is not a priority under Obamacare.

These are very important differences.

You're probably right but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it either.

My point is that picking on Catholic institution's choice to not support contraception is a poor way to express your dissatisfaction with the American health care situation.

There are far greater abuses out there such as the employment of 'independent contractors' in many industries (like package delivery companies), Walmart employees, McDonald's employees, etc etc.

The above institutions not only are not providing contraception support in health insurance, they by and large don't offer any health insurance whatsoever, and don't have a moral rationale for doing so.

[Kadriana]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I'm only a layman so all I can give is my understanding from the limited number of letters and encyclicals by Orthodox Bishops from various jurisdictions (Antiochian, Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.).

The Church clearly teaches that a marriage which seeks to avoid the procreation of children is no marriage at all, sacremental or otherwise. But in variance to Rome it is not taught that every sexual encounter between the married must be open to conception. Before God told the first man and the first woman to "Be fruitfull and multiply" He said that "It is not good for the man to be alone".

I suppose there are extremely rare cases where the bearing of a child could pose serious risk to the life of the mother and this is what you are referring to. I'm not aware of any Orthodox Synod addressing this particular issue, but in such rare case it is likely that an Orthodox Bishop would advise abstinence but would not disallow contraception that isn't used as an abortificient.

The problem comes in with methods of regulating/spacing conception and birth that can cause abortion.

Sperm cells do not replicate themselves. Ovum do not replicate themselves. But after the two are united all the pairs of chromasomes are present, cell replication begins and a *new and unique human being* has been procreated. Some methods of contraception can dislodge this newly formed human zygote and in such cases they are in fact acting as abortificients. The "Morning After Pill" is a clear example and is therefore condemned by the Orthodox.

Both the Roman church and the Orthodox allow whatever medical treatments are required to save the life of a pregnant woman - as long as the preborn child is not attacked.
A pregnancy where cancer is discovered in the mother's body may be treated with chemotherapy, for example, and should the little one perish there is no bloodguilt.
But under no circumstances is it ever permissible to attack the child's body.

There are a lot of medical conditions where you will be prescribed birth control pills. PCOS, heavy periods that cause anemia, severe cramping, severe PMS, endometriosis, hormone imbalances, etc. Some women are put on bc pills if they have irregular periods to try and help regulate them before they try and conceive. Basically, if you have any sort of health issue at all involving your overies or uterus, the doctor will put you on birth control pills. The second thing done is to remove your uterus or overies. You would be surprised with how many women I know that have had a hysterectomy before 40.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

But again, where is it written that everything must be 100% fair?

Its impossible for every thing to be 100% fair but that is the ideal which we should strive for correct? This does not seem to be a situation where it'd be all that hard to get much closer to that ideal 100% either.

You might not be, but the employers are. And that is the question. If the employer chooses not to pay for contraception due to the employer's religious belief, I fail to see what is hypocritical or inconsistent.

Its hypocritical because it supports one groups beliefs (employers) over an others (employees). Also you have to consider that healthcare is a form of compensation.

Your example is wrong because discrimination....it is an attack on the Catholic religion.

The employer could simply say, "Can't be discrimination if it goes against my beliefs, I dock the pay of any worker who gives money to their church accordingly. Deal with it.". They could still certainly be sued, but you can sue anyone for most anything, that doesn't mean you'll win.

The Catholic institutions are not controlling their employee's behavior, they simply are not collusively assisting it.

Yes that is called a chilling effect. By not allowing their health plans to pay for contraceptives they're discouraging its use.

Given that I've said no such thing, you are letting your emotions overcome your ability to read.

Nope, other way around. I didn't say you said that, I used "you can say" and not "you do say" to preface that statement for a reason. Note: that same exact statement has been used to justify the Church's stance on this issue several times in this very thread. Several politicians have also used it as well, its the most common meme used to support the Church's position. I was trying to anticipate what you might say next. If you don't support that meme for the reason I mentioned then kudos to you.

In the meantime, your attempt to invoke consensus and/or societal norms into this discussion is a waste of time. A moral decision by definition is individual, even ignoring the fact that your statement is wrong. Millions of Catholics believe that contraception is evil and should not be tolerated.

How can you say that societal norms don't matter and that this is an individual issue but then invoke the beliefs of millions of Catholics to support an argument? If this is an individual basis issue only then who cares what millions of Catholics believe? Food for thought though: this is a study done from 2006-2008. It found that not only did 99% of women use contraceptives 98% of Catholic women use them too.

The charts show what some people say to a pollster. The reality we live in shows what US society actually is, just as the reality of health care in other nations shows the difference.[/quote

So polls don't matter to you and reality is an accurate reflection of US society? Just exactly what color is the sky of the world you live on? Mine is blue FWIW.

My point, which you still apparently refuse to comprehend, is that we as an American society find that millions of uninsured are perfectly acceptable, that health care is not a public good, and that unaffordable health care is tolerable.

Given the polls on the subject plus the vast voter dissatisfaction with congress and the president I would say there is strong evidence to the contrary. But then you don't accept polls as evidence, so bravo I guess on laying a ground work to reject information that doesn't support your position.

Obamacare is only in the very weakest of lights a change to the situation.

It should be noted that Obama won his election in 2008 on the premise that he would bring large and sweeping change for the better on many subjects, including healthcare. That he turned around and screwed over the voters the instant he got office shouldn't have been too big a surprise for anyone paying attention at the time but you can't seriously argue that what we got out of the deal (ie. Obamacare) was genuinely what the people wanted. Unless of course you're going to next argue that people really want is to be screwed over and lied to by their government...

My point is that picking on Catholic institution's choice to not support contraception is a poor way to express your dissatisfaction with the American health care situation.

There are far greater abuses out there such as the employment of 'independent contractors' in many industries (like package delivery companies), Walmart employees, McDonald's employees, etc etc.

The above institutions not only are not providing contraception support in health insurance, they by and large don't offer any health insurance whatsoever, and don't have a moral rationale for doing so.

Healthcare is one of those issues where I don't like to see anyone doing anything to screw over anyone else anywhere. So you might be right that this is a poor way to express my opinions to say the least, but this --literally-- is people's health and lives we're talking about. Usually when that is said its used in a hyperbolic fashion, there is no exaggeration here at all. Especially in the case of contraceptives; being able to control when and with who you decide to have a child isn't a minor issue.