• 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!

Catholics sue Obama over birth control mandate

Boo Radley said:
I'm not changing anything. I use the word compensatin most often. That incudes pay and benefits. Both pay and benefits are comepnsation, and both are for the work rendered and no other reason. And yes, you have choices, but you are not exempt from any thing mandatory. Nor are hospitals, which are not churches. Doctors are not cleregy. Nor are nurses or mantiance nor housekeeping. The compensation is the employees. They are the ones who choose how to use that compensation.

You should try to learn more. I'll give you the best lectures I have, but eventually, you should do some reading. ;)
Click to expand...




pay =/= benefits the latter is offered at the pleasure of the business, you yourself said they don't have to, they do, they don't want to include bc. that as a church is thier business according to the 1st amendment of the USC.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I said no such thing. I said, their employees do eat pork, and a business own by such people do serve pork. The business is not a church and is not covered by any exemption.
Click to expand...



The catholic church has a hospital, they as a benefit, at thier pleasure offer health ins. it is no business of the FEDGOV to dictate what elective products or any products for that matter, they include in this.

Why is this concept so difficult for you?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The catholic church has a hospital, they as a benefit, at thier pleasure offer health ins. it is no business of the FEDGOV to dictate what elective products or any products for that matter, they include in this.

Why is this concept so difficult for you?
Click to expand...

Yes, to offer it. As it is with how much they will pay. But they cannot pay less than minimum wage (outside of the rules for minimum wage) and they can't decide to be different from anyone else concerning insurance. Whether it is the business or the government, be it minimum wage or health insurance, that is not the question here. The question is whether the hospital is a church and doctors are clergy. This is what is protected. Otherwise, they are like everyone else.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, to offer it. As it is with how much they will pay. But they cannot pay less than minimum wage (outside of the rules for minimum wage) and they can't decide to be different from anyone else concerning insurance. Whether it is the business or the government, be it minimum wage or health insurance, that is not the question here. The question is whether the hospital is a church and doctors are clergy. This is what is protected. Otherwise, they are like everyone else.
Click to expand...



It's a church, they offer, as you claimed, at thier pleasure, this benefit, why would they not get to choose what they cover? If you don't like that they don't cover your condoms, get another job...


Furthermore, it's a church, thier teachings are against BC, however wacky that is, the USC mandates a restriction on the FEDGOV of intefering with thier religious beliefs.
 
What I don't get is why it's more important to mandate complete coverage of birth control but not maintenance meds that are pretty much necessary?
 
digsbe said:
What I don't get is why it's more important to mandate complete coverage of birth control but not maintenance meds that are pretty much necessary?
Click to expand...




Because it has nothing to do with birth control, just control.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
It's a church, they offer, as you claimed, at thier pleasure, this benefit, why would they not get to choose what they cover? If you don't like that they don't cover your condoms, get another job...


Furthermore, it's a church, thier teachings are against BC, however wacky that is, the USC mandates a restriction on the FEDGOV of intefering with thier religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

It's not a church. A hospital is a hospital. A school is a school. Neither is a church. And just as they can't ignore minimum wage, they can't ignore the insurance mandate. I'm sorry, but you're ignoring the point.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not a church. A hospital is a hospital. A school is a school. Neither is a church. And just as they can't ignore minimum wage, they can't ignore the insurance mandate. I'm sorry, but you're ignoring the point.
Click to expand...



So catholic schools should not teach creationism, and be forced to teach evolution? No one is ignoring your point, it is being dismissed as the statist bile it is. :shrug:
 
Boo Radley said:
Control of white males over women? You may right that this is what the church wants. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

That's just ignorant. It's about their moral convictions that birth control is wrong. Like I said though, from a health perspective it's completely absurd to mandate coverage of birth control while maintenance meds aren't covered. Why pay for some woman's Nuva ring or Trinessa when someone else has to pay $50 for heart medication?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So catholic schools should not teach creationism, and be forced to teach evolution? No one is ignoring your point, it is being dismissed as the statist bile it is. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not in science class, as it isn't science. But, this is a different area. You step outside the bounds of what the issue and go too far afield. The government has very few rules on education, which many actually complain about. but if they had such a rule, the schools would not be exempt.
 
Boo Radley said:
Control of white males over women? You may right that this is what the church wants. :coffeepap
Click to expand...




so the church is a bunch of misogynistic white racists who wants to control women? maybe you should just round them all up and gass em.... I mean if were going to post stupid ****, MIRITE? :pimpdaddy:
 
digsbe said:
That's just ignorant. It's about their moral convictions that birth control is wrong. Like I said though, from a health perspective it's completely absurd to mandate coverage of birth control while maintenance meds aren't covered. Why pay for some woman's Nuva ring or Trinessa when someone else has to pay $50 for heart medication?
Click to expand...

Then they shouldn't use it. Stick with viagra. ;)
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
so the church is a bunch of misogynistic white racists who wants to control women? maybe you should just round them all up and gass em.... I mean if were going to post stupid ****, MIRITE? :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

I think the small percentage who are making this issue are to some degree. Yes. Not all, of course. But they are inconcsistent on this and are much too concerned with women issues.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not in science class, as it isn't science. But, this is a different area. You step outside the bounds of what the issue and go too far afield. The government has very few rules on education, which many actually complain about. but if they had such a rule, the schools would not be exempt.
Click to expand...


ahh yes, so you wish to impose your beliefs, morals and views upon the catholic church and other religions. Now your argument as a statist authoritarian makes much sense. We can simply agree to disagree, as I am not a statist, and do not support oppressive government regiemes and control. You do. :shrug:
 
Erod said:
End all healthcare? LOL, that's rich.

No, I don't expect the people who deny any and all healthcare to pay for mine. But I'm not a leechy liberal.

You people don't want a president. You want a dictator.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between you government acting like a dictator as opposed to health insurance companies doing the same?
 
Boo Radley said:
I think the small percentage who are making this issue are to some degree. Yes. Not all, of course. But they are inconcsistent on this and are much too concerned with women issues.
Click to expand...

I think its concern is moral issues, not "women's issues."
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
ahh yes, so you wish to impose your beliefs, morals and views upon the catholic church and other religions. Now your argument as a statist authoritarian makes much sense. We can simply agree to disagree, as I am not a statist, and do not support oppressive government regiemes and control. You do. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I am Catholic. And I impose nothing. Not Catholic has to use contracptions or viagra or anything else.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think the small percentage who are making this issue are to some degree. Yes. Not all, of course. But they are inconcsistent on this and are much too concerned with women issues.
Click to expand...



You live a sad existence of hypocritical bigotry and prejudice. So, that's the only reason to you that one can be against the government interfering with the church's choice of what thier health care will provide. That we are all white male racists misogynists.....

really? I just want to make sure you are being serious before I respond.
 
digsbe said:
That's just ignorant. It's about their moral convictions that birth control is wrong. Like I said though, from a health perspective it's completely absurd to mandate coverage of birth control while maintenance meds aren't covered. Why pay for some woman's Nuva ring or Trinessa when someone else has to pay $50 for heart medication?
Click to expand...

We can, and should, do both. Birth control is cheaper than babies, and heart medication is cheaper than heart transplants/heart attacks.
 
Boo Radley said:
I am Catholic. And I impose nothing. Not Catholic has to use contracptions or viagra or anything else.
Click to expand...


And yet you support abortion and go against the teachings of your church. Maybe you aren't as "catholic" as you think. :shrug: It's your church not the FEDGOV you need to change. but as a statist, you have no issue with the federal government trampling on the USC when it suits your agenda...

One that's rather anti-catholic at the current moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom