• 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!

Poll: Most say employers should be allowed not to cover contraception

mpg said:
Some employers provide health insurance to their employees. A portion of them provide a policy that doesn't cover BC. This mandate prohibits that. Some employers are morally opposed to paying for BC. If they also want to provide health insurance to their employees, they can't do both, so they're forced to choose. Those are the facts. If I'm wrong, prove it.

IMHO, employers shouldn't be forced to make this choice without a good reason. I haven't seen a reason that satisfies me. Those are opinions, so I can't prove that they're right, but you can't prove that they're wrong.
Click to expand...

the first choice is getting into public business, theres your proof DONE LOL
secondly what the mandate ACTUALLY does is allow the insurance company to provide it in cases where the employee doesnt have to

also your opinion of satisfaction is meaningless against facts, discrimination is a good reason and proves you are wrong if you think religion is solely a good enough reason to not cover BC.
 
Last edited:
Objective-J said:
the first choice is getting into public business, theres your proof DONE LOL
Click to expand...
We're talking about people who are already in business, so getting out of business is a choice that falls under ceasing to provide health insurance.





Objective-J said:
secondly what the mandate ACTUALLY does is allow the insurance company to provide it in cases where the employee doesnt have to
Click to expand...
Please paraphrase.





Objective-J said:
also your opinion of satisfaction is meaningless against facts, discrimination is a good reason and proves you are wrong if you think religion is solely a good enough reason to not cover BC.
Click to expand...
My latter comments were most assuredly opinions, so they can't be factually false. According to a NYT poll, most people agree with me, and the majority is even bigger when religion is involved. I suspect that the majority would be even bigger if people weren't spinning the issue. Some are claiming that the forcees are the forcers.
 
mpg said:
We're talking about people who are already in business, so getting out of business is a choice that falls under ceasing to provide health insurance.
Click to expand...

this is the dishonest im talking about. Are you implying that they didnt know they have to play by public rules and didnt know they cant discriminated? Because there are already things they have to NOT do becuae they are in public buisness that go against religion, am I supposed to believe this is just the straw that broke the camels back?? LOL sorry. Public rules have been around for a long time and them not being able to force thier religion on people as also been a rule for a long time, this is just a loop hole that is being fixed . and or finally caught. Nice try but again reality disagrees.




mpg said:
Please paraphrase.
Click to expand...

please qoute my whole statements and it doesnt get any more clear :shrug






mpg said:
My latter comments were most assuredly opinions, so they can't be factually false. According to a NYT poll, most people agree with me, and the majority is even bigger when religion is involved. I suspect that the majority would be even bigger if people weren't spinning the issue. Some are claiming that the forcees are the forcers.
Click to expand...

since discrimination is illegal you are factually wrong no matter how many people opinion you THINK agree with you. :shrug:
 
Prof. Peabody said:
I really don't care either way, the point of the thread is it really doesn't matter. Obama and the Democrats are just spinning their wheels and making a lot of noise for nothing while the economy burns in the background. It will consume them in November.
Click to expand...

Seems to me it's the right that's making the most noise. Obama compromises, Rush spews and the right follows.
 
This is not about women's healthcare, it is not about cost...it is about first amendment rights. The Ubama administration is trying to get those who believe and live the first amendment...freedom OF Religion, not freedom FROM religion to conform to his views or make them, force them to accept something they do not believe in. I refuse to accept this. It's time for the children of God to speak up and hold their ground. Centuries ago, England was forced into martyrdom to fight for their Lord and God. I never thought I would see this in America. Get ready children of God, this is our fight to win.
 
Rapunzel52 said:
This is not about women's healthcare, it is not about cost...it is about first amendment rights. The Ubama administration is trying to get those who believe and live the first amendment...freedom OF Religion, not freedom FROM religion to conform to his views or make them, force them to accept something they do not believe in. I refuse to accept this. It's time for the children of God to speak up and hold their ground. Centuries ago, England was forced into martyrdom to fight for their Lord and God. I never thought I would see this in America. Get ready children of God, this is our fight to win.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with religion. These are not churches or clergy. Sorry.
 
xpiher said:
Normally I wouldn't wish Ill of people, but wouldn't it be ironic if your bone didn't set right and you lost mobility because of it?
Click to expand...
You wouldn't have mentioned it if what you said was true at the beginning of the sentence. With that being said, that's why I paid for an X-Ray. I have eyes and can see for myself and use research to figure out what's in my best interest. I have complete confidence in myself and my own health care decisions. Don't forget, 50% of all Doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class. If Obama Care goes forward, the top 50% will specialize and the bottom of the barrel will be relegated to primary care....your primary care. 18 years ago, I was involved in a serious vehicle wreck on the job. The company paid for cheesy health clinic doctors that didn't know the difference between a bacterial infection in my blood and the flu. It was only through the heroic efforts of some really good specialists, I'm typing here today (try not to be too disappointed). For those who think Obama Care is so great, all I can say is good luck, your going to need it.
xpiher said:
Edit: the main problem with insurance us that we expect employers to pay for it directly instead of giving us the money to get it ourselves. Damn you Nixon and your HMOs Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
Dickieboy said:
With regard to 'a bucket of fried fast food' I fail to see the MORAL connection. Can you please clarify? thx
Click to expand...

It's so obvious, it doesn't need any clarification.

An employer can easily morally object to obese people abusing food resources by consuming so much more of what they need as sustenance, and refuse coverage for those people.

The claim of a religious objection is as subjective as any claim one could imagine. Unfortunately churches are already exempt from covering items they say they find "immoral", but now if their affiliated profit-making enterprises -- none of them pay their doctors basic wage or have their admins as volunteers, do they? -- are also covered under the subjective umbrella of "moral objection", then anyone can raise any objection and call it moral too and there won't be any reason to reject their claim either.

Not to mention none of the conservative trash PR on this issue ever dares to mention similar coverage for men and whether or not it should be blocked like they want for women.

The system of associating health care with employment is major problem in the first place, but if it is implemented, then it should be fair, and claiming moral objections at will is not fair for anyone, even if it's the Catholic Church and their well known position against contraception.

When a church employs people, they are entering into a social contract with their employees, an agreement that is dictated by general and objective parameters, like paying them for compensation, expecting them to work for their paycheck, etc. Claiming a moral objection to avoid other aspects of those social parameters is preferential treatment and unfair by definition.

If a church, any church had any capacity of moral authority as they mean it, they wouldn't need employees in the first place. Their god should be able to fulfill their worldly needs... but even their god doesn't, so why should we give them any special treatment?
 
FreedomOf said:
Anyway, if the Catholic church is back to disallowing birth control for Catholics then it is reasonably new, because for years it was being allowed.
Click to expand...
No it did not and it never has.[/quote]

The question then is, does the catholic church allow freedom of religion for others? If they agree in freedom of religion then they cannot disallow providing health care coverage that provides birth control to non-catholics
Click to expand...
Freedom of religion is not forcing a person religiously opposed to birth control to have to pay for it.

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
Declaration on religious freedom - Dignitatis humanae
Click to expand...
Not paying for someone else's birth control is hardly forcing someone to act contrary to their beliefs. The above quote supports my position however, since it is against the beliefs of the Catholic church to support birth control, and therefore it is an abrogation of religious freedom to require any Catholic to pay for it.
 
Paralogic said:
If a church, any church had any capacity of moral authority as they mean it, they wouldn't need employees in the first place. Their god should be able to fulfill their worldly needs...
Click to expand...

You have a poor understanding of humanity and what really makes up a church.
 
Rapunzel52 said:
This is not about women's healthcare, it is not about cost...it is about first amendment rights. The Ubama administration is trying to get those who believe and live the first amendment...freedom OF Religion, not freedom FROM religion to conform to his views or make them, force them to accept something they do not believe in. I refuse to accept this. It's time for the children of God to speak up and hold their ground. Centuries ago, England was forced into martyrdom to fight for their Lord and God. I never thought I would see this in America. Get ready children of God, this is our fight to win.
Click to expand...

you have this 100% backwards :shrug:
he isnt forcing them to accept anything LOL
 
Objective-J said:
this is the dishonest im talking about. Are you implying that they didnt know they have to play by public rules and didnt know they cant discriminated? Because there are already things they have to NOT do becuae they are in public buisness that go against religion, am I supposed to believe this is just the straw that broke the camels back?? LOL sorry. Public rules have been around for a long time and them not being able to force thier religion on people as also been a rule for a long time, this is just a loop hole that is being fixed . and or finally caught. Nice try but again reality disagrees.






please qoute my whole statements and it doesnt get any more clear :shrug








since discrimination is illegal you are factually wrong no matter how many people opinion you THINK agree with you. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I guess I'm not making myself clear. Let me try again. I'm not disputing that people should obey the law. I'm discussing what the law should and shouldn't say. I'm discussing whether or not this mandate is a good idea.

As a libertarian, my 'default setting' is for something to be legal. I'm not stating that as fact; it's just my opinion. When you look at things this way, the burden of proof is on the people who want to make something illegal. Of course liberty isn't my only core value; that's why I think things like rape and murder should be illegal, because protecting the liberty of innocent people is another one of my core values. I believe that gay marriage should be legal because I haven't seen an argument against it that satisfies me. I never thought that the burden of proof was on the proponents of gay marriage. In the absence of a sufficient argument against gay marriage, the fact that gay people want to get married is good enough for me. As a matter of fact, even if there were no gay couples wanting to get married, I would still want it to be legal. I feel the same way about marijuana. Proponents of legalization don't have to prove anything to me. Opponents have shown that it causes physical harm, but IMHO, that isn't enough to make it illegal. That's merely a reason not to smoke it. Making it illegal requires a stronger argument. These are not facts. Nobody has to agree with them if they don't want to, but nobody can prove that I'm wrong.

I feel the same way about this mandate. Some people want to make it illegal for an insurance company to sell health insurance that doesn't cover BC. So far, the debate is focused on the objections to the mandate, but IMO, the debate should be focused on the benefits of the mandate. Will this reduce the # of unwanted pregnancies? Does anyone have any data to support that? Are there currently any people who don't have access to BC? How many? How will this mandate affect that? Are there any other reasons for this mandate? What are they? If you add up all the benefits of the mandate, are they big enough to say 'health insurance that doesn't cover BC should be illegal'?
 
mpg said:
I guess I'm not making myself clear. Let me try again. I'm not disputing that people should obey the law. I'm discussing what the law should and shouldn't say. I'm discussing whether or not this mandate is a good idea.

As a libertarian, my 'default setting' is for something to be legal. I'm not stating that as fact; it's just my opinion. When you look at things this way, the burden of proof is on the people who want to make something illegal. Of course liberty isn't my only core value; that's why I think things like rape and murder should be illegal, because protecting the liberty of innocent people is another one of my core values. I believe that gay marriage should be legal because I haven't seen an argument against it that satisfies me. I never thought that the burden of proof was on the proponents of gay marriage. In the absence of a sufficient argument against gay marriage, the fact that gay people want to get married is good enough for me. As a matter of fact, even if there were no gay couples wanting to get married, I would still want it to be legal. I feel the same way about marijuana. Proponents of legalization don't have to prove anything to me. Opponents have shown that it causes physical harm, but IMHO, that isn't enough to make it illegal. That's merely a reason not to smoke it. Making it illegal requires a stronger argument. These are not facts. Nobody has to agree with them if they don't want to, but nobody can prove that I'm wrong.

I feel the same way about this mandate. Some people want to make it illegal for an insurance company to sell health insurance that doesn't cover BC. So far, the debate is focused on the objections to the mandate, but IMO, the debate should be focused on the benefits of the mandate. Will this reduce the # of unwanted pregnancies? Does anyone have any data to support that? Are there currently any people who don't have access to BC? How many? How will this mandate affect that? Are there any other reasons for this mandate? What are they? If you add up all the benefits of the mandate, are they big enough to say 'health insurance that doesn't cover BC should be illegal'?
Click to expand...


Well thanks for your opinion. But what you just said above is clearly different from what you and this thread have been discussing. Maybe theres a thread where this will mean something.
 
Objective-J said:
Well thanks for your opinion. But what you just said above is clearly different from what you and this thread have been discussing. Maybe theres a thread where this will mean something.
Click to expand...
This thread is specifically about the NYT poll where the majority said that people should be able to opt out of this mandate, especially if they have religious objections. In the broader sense, this thread is about the mandate. Even you've been discussing the mandate, so if my reply is out of place, so are yours.
 
mpg said:
This thread is specifically about the NYT poll where the majority said that people should be able to opt out of this mandate, especially if they have religious objections. In the broader sense, this thread is about the mandate. Even you've been discussing the mandate, so if my reply is out of place, so are yours.
Click to expand...

if you say so but sorry, NOTHING I said is like what you just said above. NOTHING. :shrug: :D
 
Objective-J said:
if you say so but sorry, NOTHING I said is like what you just said above. NOTHING. :shrug: :D
Click to expand...
I put my previous posts into context by expressing the core values that they arose from. Sorry if that offends you. Is this another example of my dishonesty?
 
apdst said:
I think employers, who pay for birth control, ...
Click to expand...

Employer's provide health insurance to employees, as a benefit. The health insurance company then provides birth control, with or without co-pay according to the terms agreed upon.

The complicated discussion of the merits of having 100% coverage of birth control on health insurance plans can't be started until you can at least grasp the concept that when a person goes to the doctor and hands over their insurance card, the doctor's office is not calling your employer and asking for money, they are calling your health insurance company, which most people who have insurance provided to them through their employer.

Medical bills do not get sent to employers, and no one is asking for all employers to have boxes of condoms and BC pills loaded up to hand out to all employee's.
 
mpg said:
I put my previous posts into context by expressing the core values that they arose from. Sorry if that offends you. Is this another example of my dishonesty?
Click to expand...

who said it offended me? I was just pointing out the fact that it was off topic.

It reminds me of when people are talking about gay rights and the right to gay marriage and the thread goes on and on about the right to gay marriage and then someone says "government shouldnt even be involved in marriage" LOL thats nice and its sort of "related" kind of but its pretty of topic in reality. Thats all.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Employer's provide health insurance to employees, as a benefit. The health insurance company then provides birth control, with or without co-pay according to the terms agreed upon.

The complicated discussion of the merits of having 100% coverage of birth control on health insurance plans can't be started until you can at least grasp the concept that when a person goes to the doctor and hands over their insurance card, the doctor's office is not calling your employer and asking for money, they are calling your health insurance company, which most people who have insurance provided to them through their employer.

Medical bills do not get sent to employers, and no one is asking for all employers to have boxes of condoms and BC pills loaded up to hand out to all employee's.
Click to expand...


This is true, however many businesses work with insurance companies to taylor their plans in order to control rates...Or better yet there are some that in part self insure, or in whole self insure therefore making the decisions on covered procedures through a board in which someone from the company in question does indeed have a say. These are among the worst of insurance coverages in my opinion.

What people do indeed fail to understand is that health insurance is a benefit. Something that employers started to offer in the 60s to employees to entice, and attract the best employees and build a loyalty to the company in which they were employed. Companies also used to offer actual pensions until the cost of maintaining them became a drag to business. Now we have 401K systems in most employment situations.

Insurance in the health care arena was probably the single worst thing for pricing to ever happen to in so far in that when there was no insurance, you saw a much more free market approach to health care.


j-mac
 
Objective-J said:
who said it offended me? I was just pointing out the fact that it was off topic.

It reminds me of when people are talking about gay rights and the right to gay marriage and the thread goes on and on about the right to gay marriage and then someone says "government shouldnt even be involved in marriage" LOL thats nice and its sort of "related" kind of but its pretty of topic in reality. Thats all.
Click to expand...
You were interpreting my previous posts in ways that I couldn't have possibly foreseen when I wrote them. I thought you might understand me better if I put them in context. I was also trying to shift the debate toward arguments in favor of this mandate. So far, the only comments in favor of the mandate, are opposition to the opposition of the mandate, rather than directly supporting the mandate. You claimed that my comments were off topic, but they explained why that half of the debate matters.
 
mpg said:
You were interpreting my previous posts in ways that I couldn't have possibly foreseen when I wrote them. I thought you might understand me better if I put them in context. I was also trying to shift the debate toward arguments in favor of this mandate. So far, the only comments in favor of the mandate, are opposition to the opposition of the mandate, rather than directly supporting the mandate. You claimed that my comments were off topic, but they explained why that half of the debate matters.
Click to expand...

Hey if you belive so thats cool, you are welcome to that opinion :shrug:
 
Prof. Peabody said:
I really don't care either way, the point of the thread is it really doesn't matter. Obama and the Democrats are just spinning their wheels and making a lot of noise for nothing while the economy burns in the background. It will consume them in November.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if you look at the 1929 crash, the stock market didn't make it back to the level before the crash until the 1950's. A shock this size to the economy isn't going to go away in just 4 years. Yes, the economy is improving, but there are 2 caveats here:

1) It is going to take a long time for the economy to heal. You just can't snap your fingers and make it happen, but that is exactly what Republicans are claiming. They are lying.

2) The improvement in the economy is not due to Obama, nor is it due to Republicans. There was a massive correction in the stock market that brought it down into the 7,000 range. The correction is over, and stocks are rising again. You can't blame Obama for the crash, which happened before he took office, and you cannot give Obama credit for what the market is pretty much mostly doing on it's own. As far as the blame goes, you can lay that on Bill Clinton (a democrat), and a Republican dominated Congress, along with Democrats in that same Congress. It was they who gutted the Glass-Steagal Act so that a crash in one sector of the economy was able to affect all other sectors. This is because banks were once again able to act as brokers, insurance companies could act as financiers, and brokers could buy and sell speculations in housing. Glass-Steagal had previously walled off those sectors from each other, so that one sector could not affect others. But there was a final straw that broke the Camel's back, and that was greed. Put it all together and you have the Great Recession of 2008, which was caused by Democrats, Republicans, and pigs.
 
Last edited:
Doctor to female patient: Ma'am, after a thorough examination, I have finally found the problem. Your uterus is infected by Republicans. :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
Honestly, if you look at the 1929 crash, the stock market didn't make it back to the level before the crash until the 1950's. A shock this size to the economy isn't going to go away in just 4 years. Yes, the economy is improving, but there are 2 caveats here:

1) It is going to take a long time for the economy to heal. You just can't snap your fingers and make it happen, but that is exactly what Republicans are claiming. They are lying.

2) The improvement in the economy is not due to Obama, nor is it due to Republicans. There was a massive correction in the stock market that brought it down into the 7,000 range. The correction is over, and stocks are rising again. You can't blame Obama for the crash, which happened before he took office, and you cannot give Obama credit for what the market is pretty much mostly doing on it's own. As far as the blame goes, you can lay that on Bill Clinton (a democrat), and a Republican dominated Congress, along with Democrats in that same Congress. It was they who gutted the Glass-Steagal Act so that a crash in one sector of the economy was able to affect all other sectors. This is because banks were once again able to act as brokers, insurance companies could act as financiers, and brokers could buy and sell speculations in housing. Glass-Steagal had previously walled off those sectors from each other, so that one sector could not affect others. But there was a final straw that broke the Camel's back, and that was greed. Put it all together and you have the Great Recession of 2008, which was caused by Democrats, Republicans, and pigs.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think it's wrong to say that Obama has had nothing to do with the recovery. Without the stimulus, and the auto bailouts, and the extended payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits, the recession would have at minimum dragged on longer and may have turned into an outright depression. If he had gone the other way and cut spending to reduce the deficit, it almost certainly would have sent the economy into depression.

You're right to blame the Clinton WH and 90s Congress for the destruction of Glass-Steagal, but Clinton had virtually no opportunity to review the effect of the repeal and respond to it. Bush and the Republican Congress that followed had six years to respond and they didn't lift a finger. In fact they only fueled the fire by instituting large tax cuts. And to be fair, no one on the Democratic side was beating the drum to bring back the regulations, either.
 
danarhea said:
Doctor to female patient: Ma'am, after a thorough examination, I have finally found the problem. Your uterus is infected by Republicans. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I heard a better version of the punch line: "You've got Republicans in your vagina." :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom