Page 20 of 28 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 274

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

  1. #191
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    The religious organziations will be paying the premiums and co-pays, so they are directly paying for the contraception.
    No, they are not. Nothing says anyone has to use them. Instead, the employee will decide what to with their compensaion. The Churches want to control their choice, something we would not allow them to with the money they give them. Both belong to the employee as compensation.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #192
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    Lack of blood flow causes pregnancy? I had no idea. There is a difference in a vast majority of cases. I realize that there are rare medical conditions that require birth control type pills, but those situations are rare. Had Obama indicated that insurance had to cover the rare situations where birth control is medically required, I suspect you would see a lot less blow-back.
    Intentional misreadng?

    Neither viagra or birth control is so limited by insurance companies. They are either covered in whole or not at all. the Church has made so such distinction for viagra. it is just allowed because it can be used for medical purposes. The same reeasonng applies to contraceptions.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #193
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Intentional misreadng?

    Neither viagra or birth control is so limited by insurance companies. They are either covered in whole or not at all. the Church has made so such distinction for viagra. it is just allowed because it can be used for medical purposes. The same reeasonng applies to contraceptions.
    Actually, as someone that works in the insurance industry for 15 years now (and was in claims for a couple of years) you are very wrong. To qualify for a prescription, there has to be a valid medical reason provided by a doctor. You can't just walk in and say I want viagra because i'm going to the playboy mansion. A woman can, though, and get it completely paid for by the religious organziation.

    If no one at the company uses viagra, that will contribute to a positive claims experience and result in lower premium for the company. Conversely, if all of the women start using contraceptions covered through insurance with no co-pays, this will contribute to negative claims experience and a subsequent increase in premiums for the employer. So, yes. The church will be paying for the employee's contraception, something against their religious tennants, directly.

  4. #194
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No, they are not. Nothing says anyone has to use them. Instead, the employee will decide what to with their compensaion. The Churches want to control their choice, something we would not allow them to with the money they give them. Both belong to the employee as compensation.
    Obama is forcing the churches to provide compensation that directly contradicts their beliefs. He is encroaching on their freedom of religion.

    The church is not controlling anyone's choice. The church just doesn't want to (and shouldn't have to) pay for things that contradict their beliefs (just like muslims should not be required to provide pork to their employees). If the employees want contraception, they can get a job outside of a religious organzation or, even better, they can use their wages to pay for it themselves.

    If you claim that the church isn't paying for it, then the employee should have no issue paying for the contraception out of their salary. The fact that you know this will be more expensive for the employee to pay themselves, proves that you realize the church is being required to pay for things against their religious teachings.
    Last edited by buck; 02-22-12 at 02:27 PM.

  5. #195
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    Obama is forcing the churches to provide compensation that directly contradicts their beliefs. He is encroaching on their freedom of religion.

    The church is not controlling anyone's choice. The church just doesn't want to (and shouldn't have to) pay for things that contradict their beliefs (just like muslims should not be required to provide pork to their employees). If the employees want contraception, they can get a job outside of a religious organzation or, even better, they can use their wages to pay for it themselves.

    If you claim that the church isn't paying for it, then the employee should have no issue paying for the contraception out of their salary. The fact that you know this will be more expensive for the employee to pay themselves, proves that you realize the church is being required to pay for things against their religious teachings.
    Again, no. The insurance company provides the coverage. The employee chooses to either use it or not. All insurance is nothing more than compensation. it is up to the employee to determine how to use it. Not the employer. Same as with the money the employer provides as compensation.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #196
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    Actually, as someone that works in the insurance industry for 15 years now (and was in claims for a couple of years) you are very wrong. To qualify for a prescription, there has to be a valid medical reason provided by a doctor. You can't just walk in and say I want viagra because i'm going to the playboy mansion. A woman can, though, and get it completely paid for by the religious organziation.

    If no one at the company uses viagra, that will contribute to a positive claims experience and result in lower premium for the company. Conversely, if all of the women start using contraceptions covered through insurance with no co-pays, this will contribute to negative claims experience and a subsequent increase in premiums for the employer. So, yes. The church will be paying for the employee's contraception, something against their religious tennants, directly.
    I'm not. Sorry. I too have inside knowledge.

    Belief it or not, there's a medical reason for not having an erection. And there are medical reasons for using contraceptions. Both have duel functions.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #197
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Again, no. The insurance company provides the coverage. The employee chooses to either use it or not. All insurance is nothing more than compensation. it is up to the employee to determine how to use it. Not the employer. Same as with the money the employer provides as compensation.
    It is simply put that the government is now requiring religious institutions to provide compensation that directly contradicts their beliefs. This is an infringement. Sorry.

  8. #198
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I'm not. Sorry. I too have inside knowledge.

    Belief it or not, there's a medical reason for not having an erection. And there are medical reasons for using contraceptions. Both have duel functions.
    I don't have any problem with it, as you apparently do.

    But I am well aware there is a medical reason. Religious organizations provide insurance for medical problems. THe insurance companies will only provide viagra if there is a medical reason.

    I am also well aware that there are actual (but rare) medical reasons for using contraceptions. However, the mandate is requiring that contraceptives be provided for both medical and non-medical reasons (its not the same for Viagra - which is only provided to correct a medical problem). So, the two situations are very different.

    Now, if Obama wanted to make a mandate that churches must provide birth control for individuals that have XYZ medical condition, I would be much more comfortable with that.
    Last edited by buck; 02-22-12 at 02:55 PM.

  9. #199
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I don't have any problem with it, as you apparently do.

    But I am well aware there is a medical reason. Religious organizations provide insurance for medical problems. THe insurance companies will only provide viagra if there is a medical reason.

    I am also well aware that there are actual (but rare) medical reasons for using contraceptions. However, the mandate is requiring that contraceptives be provided for both medical and non-medical reasons (its not the same for Viagra - which is only provided to correct a medical problem). So, the two situations are very different.

    Now, if Obama wanted to make a mandate that churches must provide birth control for individuals that have XYZ medical condition, I would be much more comfortable with that.
    lack of er.ection is a medical problem. Shocking. it relates to a blood flow problem. You can get the med for the blood flow problem, which will also help with the erection. Follow. You can get contraceptions for medical reasons. Just like you can viagra. And just like viagra, when taking for those reasons, you get another benefit. You're protected from pregnancy. You see, there is no difference between the two other than the Church will allow one but not the other. The Church does not limit the use of Viagra in any way. No one does. Kind of odd and illogical.

    And Obama has to make no such distinction for males. How can you not see the contradiction. Funny that you can't.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #200
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    It is simply put that the government is now requiring religious institutions to provide compensation that directly contradicts their beliefs. This is an infringement. Sorry.
    No they aren't. No one has to use contrceptions. Only those who don't share the Churches beliefs will. All the Church pays for is the insurance. How it is used is up to the employee, just as an employer may use his other comepnsaion, money, to buy what he or she believes in or wants.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 20 of 28 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •