• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

Yeah, I do think the worker can do with his or her compensaion as he or she sees fit. Period. If no one is required to be of a religion, not a pastor, in fact, maybe not even a believer at all, there is no place for anyone to tell them waht they can do within the law with their compensation.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that the church has to cover what it doesn't agree with and pay the majority of its cost for what others wish to have or use.

The Church is not forced on anything really. They merely give compensaion for the work done. No one is required to use contraceptions.

Read my comment above. Everything points to them being forced into an action.

And I assume anyone who believes as the Church does simply won't use them, making it all moot. The problem arises when the Church can't tell someone who disagrees what to do.

As I said it has nothing to do with if people will use it or not use it. It has to do with the right to provide and in extension pay for what you desire.
 
I can't speak to anyone's willingness to accept flawed logic. But that that still doesn't give it legs. No , neither myself or Stewart is confused. We just know it doesn't hold up.

The almighty boo has called it flawed logic. It must be so. Give me a break and get over yourself.
 
That isn't the issue. The issue is that the church has to cover what it doesn't agree with and pay the majority of its cost for what others wish to have or use.

The compensation is the insurance. The user is the employee and not the employer. What the Church agrees to is no more relavant than if the church agrees with how the employee spends his or her money.


Read my comment above. Everything points to them being forced into an action.

But it doesn't. They are nto forced to make the employee buy porn, even though it is available and thier money can be spent that way. Both leave the employer once given to the employee.


As I said it has nothing to do with if people will use it or not use it. It has to do with the right to provide and in extension pay for what you desire.

It is no different than they pay check. In fact, employees are often told this is compensaion, equal to their pay check. I agree. First heard that at a Catholic school. ;)
 
The almighty boo has called it flawed logic. It must be so. Give me a break and get over yourself.

Yes, I know, whenever something is explain to you, and soem select others, the real smart reply is to go silly. No, the logic has been explained. I know no other way. You distinction has no difference. Medicine does not limit itself to only what some call abnormal. In many other areas, which the church pays for, it is about prevention or improvement, but not fixing a something broken or wrong.
 
Medicine does not limit itself to only what some call abnormal. In many other areas, which the church pays for, it is about prevention or improvement, but not fixing a something broken or wrong.

Yes, I get it, you like to use flawed logic. It's ok, boo. But, please... tell me what the church and insurance is covering that is preventing the normal phyical functiong of the human body.
 
The compensation is the insurance. The user is the employee and not the employer. What the Church agrees to is no more relavant than if the church agrees with how the employee spends his or her money.

The church provides the insurance and in case you missed it pays the majority of the cost of the insurance. You are wrong on both counts. Furthermore, just because you pay for a service does not mean you have control over the service as you are NOT providing the service.

But it doesn't. They are nto forced to make the employee buy porn, even though it is available and thier money can be spent that way. Both leave the employer once given to the employee.

What does porn have to do with anything? Anyway, I covered your argument above.

It is no different than they pay check. In fact, employees are often told this is compensaion, equal to their pay check. I agree. First heard that at a Catholic school. ;)

Why in the world do you think I actually believe it is not compensation? Any sort of payment, or other gains through employment are the decision of the employer and calls for their action. You are doing nothing but saying you have a right to the compensation you desire and have yet to provide why you can force another party to follow your wishes.
 
What does porn have to do with anything? Anyway, I covered your argument above.

I suspect he thinks that Obama should start mandating that insurance cover free porn for all.
 
The church provides the insurance and in case you missed it pays the majority of the cost of the insurance. You are wrong on both counts. Furthermore, just because you pay for a service does not mean you have control over the service as you are NOT providing the service.

Not all the cost in all cases, no. But even where they do, they also give all the money in the pay check. Both are compesation given to the employee. how it is used is up to the employee and nto the employer.


What does porn have to do with anything? Anyway, I covered your argument above.

Something the churches compensation is used on. They disagree, but can't tell the employee they can't spend their pay check on it. They still ahve to pay the employee, mandated if you will, even though they can buy that.



Why in the world do you think I actually believe it is not compensation? Any sort of payment, or other gains through employment are the decision of the employer and calls for their action. You are doing nothing but saying you have a right to the compensation you desire and have yet to provide why you can force another party to follow your wishes.

Because you don't seem to be getting the connection I'm making. What is done with compensation is up to the employee and not the employer. Once you understand that, and how it is like a paycheck, as they themselves argue, then you will see how they are the ones not looking at this properly.
 
I suspect he thinks that Obama should start mandating that insurance cover free porn for all.

As long as my pay check is mandatroy, he already has. ;) Church money has been used on porn.
 
Not all the cost in all cases, no. But even where they do, they also give all the money in the pay check. Both are compesation given to the employee. how it is used is up to the employee and nto the employer.

Never said they can't use their compensation how they see fit.

Something the churches compensation is used on. They disagree, but can't tell the employee they can't spend their pay check on it. They still ahve to pay the employee, mandated if you will, even though they can buy that.

Again faced it in the above.


Because you don't seem to be getting the connection I'm making. What is done with compensation is up to the employee and not the employer. Once you understand that, and how it is like a paycheck, as they themselves argue, then you will see how they are the ones not looking at this properly.

There is no connection. What you get paid and what a service covers are not comparable to how a paycheck is used. Maybe if you understood how a service is provided you would see there is no connection.
 
Last edited:
As long as my pay check is mandatroy, he already has. ;) Church money has been used on porn.

How you spend your paycheck and what the business (through insurance) is required to provide to you are entirely different. I know... Flawed logic, right? :roll:

BTW, what happened with the list showing what the church and insurance is covering to prevent the normal phyical functioning of the human body.
 
Last edited:
Yep. That fixes all problems. Means an employer can do anything, and the worker very little. Like I said, you're loyalites are clear.

What is that supposed to mean?

Look, people largely like working for places, but that doesn't mean the employer can't be wrong about something.

That might be a debatable point when talking about some employer like many out there in many fields. But we are talking about the Catholic Church here, not some wharehousing operation. I would certainly think one would know what they were getting into.

Or that they can't stand up and speak back to the company.

So, you're saying that the church should only hire Catholics to work for them?

Leaving jobs are easier for some and at some times than others. However, that too doesn't mean anything should go for the employer.

I have a news flash for you Joe, just because you agree to work for someone, and they agree to hire you does not mean that you 'own' that job.

j-mac
 
What is that supposed to mean?

I didn't think it was that difficult. In a time when jobs are harder to fine, saying just quit isn't really the ideal option. There has to be balance between the worker and the employer.


That might be a debatable point when talking about some employer like many out there in many fields. But we are talking about the Catholic Church here, not some wharehousing operation. I would certainly think one would know what they were getting into.

The Church has ventured into other fields. This means we are not talking about the church or clergy. We're talking about schools and other such business. As such, they are no different than those institutions. See the last SC ruling on the matter. Has to be Church or clergy, and not other type employees.


So, you're saying that the church should only hire Catholics to work for them?

No. I'm saying that what any employee does with their compensation is up tot hat employee and not the employer.

I have a news flash for you Joe, just because you agree to work for someone, and they agree to hire you does not mean that you 'own' that job.

j-mac

Strawman alert.

never said anything of the kind j. I said that employers have rules and responsibilites as well.
 
How you spend your paycheck and what the business (through insurance) is required to provide to you are entirely different. I know... Flawed logic, right? :roll:

BTW, what happened with the list showing what the church and insurance is covering to prevent the normal phyical functioning of the human body.

Not sure exactly what you're speaking of, but prevention is covered under most plans. These include normal functions.

And I repeat, insurance is compensation, no different than your pay check.
 
Never said they can't use their compensation how they see fit.

Insurance is their compensation.


Again faced it in the above.




There is no connection. What you get paid and what a service covers are not comparable to how a paycheck is used. Maybe if you understood how a service is provided you would see there is no connection.

I understand both. And when we negotiate, we're told insurance is compensation, like out pay check. They can't have it both ways to suit their wish to control use of the compensation.

So, I don't think you're effectively addressed the issue.
 
Not sure exactly what you're speaking of, but prevention is covered under most plans. These include normal functions.

So, what are these normal human states that are being prevented and paid for by insurance? Other then female contraception, of course.

And I repeat, insurance is compensation, no different than your pay check.

No one has claimed that insurance isn't compensation. You seem to be very confused on the whole topic.

In one case the religious org is being forced to directly pay for something that is against their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
So, what are these normal human functions that are being prevented and paid for by insurance? Other then female contraception, of course.

Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act | HealthCare.gov


No one has claimed that insurance isn't compensation. You seem to be very confused on the whole topic.

In one case the religious org is being forced to directly pay for something that is against their beliefs.

No. They only pay their portion of the insurance. There is nothing that says anyone will use the service. Nothing. So, they are nto going to the doctor, asking for contraceptions, and paying for them. They merely provide insurance. Only the employee determines what insurance compensations are spent on.

Again, this not the Church, not the clergy, but a business that the Church has decided to branch out into. You will find the courts will see this difference.
 

I assume you haven't looked at the list or I missed exactly what you wanted me to see, but all of the items on that list appear to be to prevent abnormal human states. Prevention of HPB, cancers, STI's, Obesity etc. Unless you are claiming that those are normal human states - I have news for you, they aren't.

No. They only pay their portion of the insurance. There is nothing that says anyone will use the service. Nothing. So, they are nto going to the doctor, asking for contraceptions, and paying for them. They merely provide insurance. Only the employee determines what insurance compensations are spent on.

They are being required to pay for the service. Wether someone uses it or not is irrelevant. The fact that there is a chance that someone will use that coverage means that the coverage has to be available and someone has to pay for that coverage - the employer (religious org in this case).

Again, this not the Church, not the clergy, but a business that the Church has decided to branch out into. You will find the courts will see this difference.

Courts have found for religious organzations many times, in regards to employment issues. Easiest if you just ignore that, though.
 
I assume you haven't looked at the list or I missed exactly what you wanted me to see, but all of the items on that list appear to be to prevent abnormal human states. Prevention of HPB, cancers, STI's, Obesity etc. Unless you are claiming that those are normal human states - I have news for you, they aren't.

No. Prevention isn't treatment of. Nor is depression abnormal, for example.

They are being required to pay for the service. Wether someone uses it or not is irrelevant. The fact that there is a chance that someone will use that coverage means that the coverage has to be available and someone has to pay for that coverage - the employer (religious org in this case).

Actually it is quite relevant. It is the point. A service not used is not a service paid for. There is a chance the money they give as compensation will be spend on drugs, sex, even abortion. how the compensation is used is completely in the domain of the employee.



Courts have found for religious organzations many times, in regards to employment issues. Easiest if you just ignore that, though.

Can't speak to many times, as each would have to be looked at individually. But the last ruling made a distinction between the church and clergy and other employees. If this train of thought is the precedent, the church will lose.
 
No. Prevention isn't treatment of. Nor is depression abnormal, for example.

You have got to be kidding... Depression is absolutely an abnormal human condition due to seretonin not making it across the synapse - for example. This mental abnormality can be cured through medication. You really are grasping, arent you?

Actually it is quite relevant. It is the point. A service not used is not a service paid for. There is a chance the money they give as compensation will be spend on drugs, sex, even abortion. how the compensation is used is completely in the domain of the employee.

Not really, but you're kind of like a brick wall. If you think giving someone a salary to spend on porn and forcing a religious organization to directly pay for porn for an employee is the same thing - more power to you.
 
Last edited:
You have got to be kidding... Depression is absolutely an abnormal human condition due to seretonin not making it across the synapse - for example. This mental abnormality can be cured through medication. You really are grasping, arent you?

Are you saying people don't normally get depressed? Seriously?

prevention is prevention. It is not treatment of an existing condition.


Not really, but you're kind of like a brick wall. If you think giving someone a salary to spend on porn and forcing a religious organization to directly pay for porn for an employee is the same thing - more power to you.

The word direct. Think about the word. It means they go to the doctor, ask for contraceptions, and pay for it. In direct: the provide the means and the employee goes to the provider and uses his compensation to pay for it. With both the money and the insurance, only the employee directly uses the services and pays for it with the compensation provided by the employer.
 
Are you saying people don't normally get depressed? Seriously?

I am saying depression is not a natural/normal state for humans. It is not part of a healthy individual. Depression is an illness in an individual's brain. Pregnancy, on the other hand, is not an illness. It is part of the natural state of humans. Insurance is to cover the cost of non-healthy and non-natural disease or illness processes. I realize you are really struggling with the defintion of normal and natural. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Pregnancy = normal human function. Depression does not = normal human function, it is an illness.

The word direct. Think about the word. It means they go to the doctor, ask for contraceptions, and pay for it. In direct: the provide the means and the employee goes to the provider and uses his compensation to pay for it. With both the money and the insurance, only the employee directly uses the services and pays for it with the compensation provided by the employer.

Nope. The insurance company (or in the case of self-insured) the employee is not paying for anything when it comes to female contraceptives. The female contraceptives are being paid for directly by the insurance company - or business is self-insured. The religious org is being forced to provide a benefit that goes against their biblical teachings. There is a difference between a religious org being forced to pay for porn for their employees and an individual recieving a paycheck and purchasing their own porn.
 
I am saying depression is not a natural/normal state for humans. It is not part of a healthy individual. Depression is an illness in an individual's brain. Pregnancy, on the other hand, is not an illness. It is part of the natural state of humans. Insurance is to cover the cost of non-healthy and non-natural disease or illness processes. I realize you are really struggling with the defintion of normal and natural. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Pregnancy = normal human function. Depression does not = normal human function, it is an illness.

But it is. Depression is quite natural. In fact, if you never have any depression, you might want to see a doctor. Are you changing from normal to illness? Depression isn't always an illness either. In fact, to be an illness, it has to go far beyond what is normal. Still, we do help with normal depression.



Nope. The insurance company (or in the case of self-insured) the employee is not paying for anything when it comes to female contraceptives. The female contraceptives are being paid for directly by the insurance company - or business is self-insured. The religious org is being forced to provide a benefit that goes against their biblical teachings. There is a difference between a religious org being forced to pay for porn for their employees and an individual recieving a paycheck and purchasing their own porn.

Two things. 1. In some cases the employee does pay something. But even when they don't, the compensation is to the employee and not the insurance company. Not to the employer either. It is compensation to the employee, period.
 
But it is. Depression is quite natural. In fact, if you never have any depression, you might want to see a doctor. Are you changing from normal to illness? Depression isn't always an illness either. In fact, to be an illness, it has to go far beyond what is normal. Still, we do help with normal depression.

Depression is not normal. It is a sickness that can be treated. Small bouts of sadness are not depression. Doctors are not prescribing zoloft or prosac for someone that is sad for an hour - unless they are committing insurance fraud.

An illness that involves the body, mood, and thoughts, that affects the way a person eats and sleeps, the way one feels about oneself, and the way one thinks about things. A depressive disorder is not the same as a passing blue mood.

Two things. 1. In some cases the employee does pay something. But even when they don't, the compensation is to the employee and not the insurance company. Not to the employer either. It is compensation to the employee, period.

1. Obama has ordered that employees not pay anything - incuding co-pays - for female contraceptions. So you are talking nonsense. 2)The place of religious employment is being required to provide compensation for items outside of their religious beliefs. If they were not being required to provide that compensation, it would be cheaper for the religious org. Consequently, there is certainly a cost associated and the religious org is directly paying the insurance company for the item. The employee can choose to use it or not, but the expense is being paid directly from the company to the insurance company for the coverage wether the employee chooses to use or not.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom