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

Boo Radley · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
Oy. Stewart is claiming that the Catholic Church says a[n erection] is a need, but not getting pregnant is more of a want. That's not at all what the catholic church is saying.

Do you think he realizes they aren't saying that and is just trying to fool his viewers, or do you think he really believes that is what they are saying and he is just clueless?

Since you seem so confused either Jon purposely fooled you or Jon really doesn't have any idea and accidentally fooled you. I'm still not certain.

They are simply stating that viagra is to correct something that is medically wrong with an individual. Pregnancy is not a medical problem.

He showed an old clip and said exactly what you claim.

However, contraceptions, like viagra, have other medical uses as well. The Church oddly decides to ignore those, but not ignore the medical uses of Viagra. So what you mean is that you did not understand what Stewart was saying, leap off on your own misunderstanding, and wrong suggested his viewers were doing what you were doing? Is that it?

buck · Feb 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
It doesn't matter if it is or isn't only Catholics.

You are correct in a way. But you keep singling out catholics. You need to broaden it to many different relgions.

And what it has to with it is that insurance is compensation. Insurance is part of the salary package. Both is the employers money being given to the employee for services rendered. There is no difference between the two. Don't believe me? Go negotiate your pay some time.

There is a difference between providing an employee with money to spend as they see fit and forcing a church related organziation to directly give things that are against their beliefs to their employees.

Would you force a muslim related organization to provide free pork to their employees? I wouldn't. However, if someone that works at the muslim organization wants to buy pork with his salary? fine.

buck · Feb 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
He showed an old clip and said exactly what you claim.

However, contraceptions, like viagra, have other medical uses as well. The Church oddly decides to ignore those, but not ignore the medical uses of Viagra. So what you mean is that you did not understand what Stewart was saying, leap off on your own misunderstanding, and wrong suggested his viewers were doing what you were doing? Is that it?

Obama didn't come out with a mandate that religious organizations have to provide free viagra to all of their employees. The only people that will have viagra provided by their insurance companies are those with an actual medical need. The same can not be said about contraceptives and morning after pills.

Boo Radley · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
Obama didn't come out with a mandate that religious organizations have to provide free viagra to all of their employees. The only people that will have viagra provided by their insurance companies are those with an actual medical need. The same can not be said about contraceptives and morning after pills.

Not the point. The point is, for males and viagra, they skipped concern over the objectionable part. For women and contraception, they skipped concern for the medical uses. This is the point.

And no, viagra, once allowed as part of the plan, can be used however the patient sees fit. There is no functional difference between the two

Boo Radley · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
You are correct in a way. But you keep singling out catholics. You need to broaden it to many different relgions.

As I am a Catholic, I feel quite free to keep singling them out.

There is a difference between providing an employee with money to spend as they see fit and forcing a church related organziation to directly give things that are against their beliefs to their employees.

Would you force a muslim related organization to provide free pork to their employees? I wouldn't. However, if someone that works at the muslim organization wants to buy pork with his salary? fine.

There is no difference. Because with the insurance, they are not choosing to have contraceptions. The employee is. You don't just get them handed to you. You have to go and get them, using your individual choice, with your compensation, just as you do with the money in pay check. No difference.

buck · Feb 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
And no, viagra, once allowed as part of the plan, can be used however the patient sees fit. There is no functional difference between the two

Of course it can be used as the patient sees fit. However, to qulify for the pills under the plan, there has to be an actual medical problem. That is not the case with contraceptives under Obama's mandate. That is what the religious groups are saying and what Stewart left out.

buck · Feb 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
As I am a Catholic, I feel quite free to keep singling them out.

There is no difference. Because with the insurance, they are not choosing to have contraceptions. The employee is. You don't just get them handed to you. You have to go and get them, using your individual choice, with your compensation, just as you do with the money in pay check. No difference.

I am not catholic, so you should be more inclusive and include the many religions against the infringement on freedom of religion. Obma/HHS are forcing religious organizations to directly pay for things directly against their religion. So there clearly is a difference. I realize you don't see it, but you are just wrong.

Boo Radley · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
I am not catholic, so you should be more inclusive and include the many religions against the infringement on freedom of religion. Obma/HHS are forcing religious organizations to directly pay for things directly against their religion. So there clearly is a difference. I realize you don't see it, but you are just wrong.

No. They provide the insurance. This is indirect. To get the contraceptions, the employee, who may or may not agree with the church, must exercise their choice. The insurance, like pay, is merely compensation. How it is used is up to the employee.

Boo Radley · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
Of course it can be used as the patient sees fit. However, to qulify for the pills under the plan, there has to be an actual medical problem. That is not the case with contraceptives under Obama's mandate. That is what the religious groups are saying and what Stewart left out.

Yeah, lack of blood flow making the errection not possible.

Same with contraceptions. There is no difference.

buck · Feb 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
No. They provide the insurance. This is indirect. To get the contraceptions, the employee, who may or may not agree with the church, must exercise their choice. The insurance, like pay, is merely compensation. How it is used is up to the employee.

The religious organziations will be paying the premiums and co-pays, so they are directly paying for the contraception.

buck · Feb 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Same with contraceptions. There is no difference.

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.

kenvin · Feb 22, 2012

Why doesn't the Church contract a third party to provide insurance like every other employer or are they just using this to exert religious control over people?

buck · Feb 22, 2012

kenvin said:
Why doesn't the Church contract a third party to provide insurance like every other employer or are they just using this to exert religious control over people?

Employees that don't like the religious organization's insurance coverage are free to get any number of jobs outside of a religious organization. They will then be guaranteed free contraceptives under Obama's mandate.

kenvin · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
Employees that don't like the religious organization's insurance coverage are free to get any number of jobs outside of a religious organization. They will then be guaranteed free contraceptives under Obama's mandate.

They won't be free the insurance they pay for will provide it. Also, constiution is about protecting over reach of large religions. That is why the pilgrims fled remember. So The Catholics should either be a religion or be an insurance company. Follow the rules or don't be in the insurance business.

I think we can all agree that the Pope shouldnt be deciding U.S. insurance laws.

buck · Feb 22, 2012

kenvin said:
They won't be free the insurance they pay for will provide it. Also, constiution is about protecting over reach of large religions. That is why the pilgrims fled remember. So The Catholics should either be a religion or be an insurance company. Follow the rules or don't be in the insurance business.

I think we can all agree that the Pope shouldnt be deciding U.S. insurance laws.

Not all religious organizations are self-insured. Wether they are or not, the religious organizations (and all employers really) are paying a vast majority of the premium for their emplyoees. So, even when the religious organization uses an outside insurance company, the religious organization will be paying for contraceptives and morning after pills. The religion should be free of the government requiring them to provide things that are in direct conflict of their beliefs.

If the employee needs free contraceptives, etc, they should look for a job outside of a religious organziation. They can then have all the pill induced abortions they want.

Boo Radley · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
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.

Boo Radley · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
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? :coffeepap

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.

buck · Feb 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Intentional misreadng? :coffeepap

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.

buck · Feb 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
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.

Boo Radley · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
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.

Boo Radley · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
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.

buck · Feb 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
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.

buck · Feb 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
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.

Boo Radley · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
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.

Boo Radley · Feb 22, 2012

buck said:
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.