• 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

Jetboogieman said:
No matter how much you say it, it does not make it true.

I have lived in 2 UHC countries (Britain and Canada) and never have I been told by anyone what treatment I can and couldn't have, but just like HMO's there's certain things that they won't pay for.

A boob job is a good example :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The trouble is that Universal Health Care is, in practice, Unavailable Health Care. Britain and Canada are prime examples. A couple of years ago there was a couple in Calgary who were taking fertility treatments. She came down with a case of quadruplets. Multiples are premature, and preemies need incubators. Calgary (pop. 1,000,000) doesn't have four incubators, so the government sent the couple to Great Falls, MT (pop. 50,000) to have the babies. When the US adopts the Canadian health system, they'll have to go to India or Thailand.
 
j-mac said:
Again, more BS...Of course you did, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to continue your attempts.



Oh, so you think that your pseudo intellectual blather is anything but foolishness? LOL...Funny, funny guy....



No, you wrote your opinion, part of which I might add includes you thinking you know more than the top Catholic clergymen of the US in terms of what the Church's path is, stunning hubris on your part.



Flush it down with a healthy dose of Rid-X so that it doesn't clog the septic system.


j-mac
Click to expand...

You make a lot of excuses j not to address the issue. I understand that may be all that is left. You're attacked a few lately, but that is neither here nor there. The issue is clear. It is about insurance. Not religious freedom. I've taken pains to explain why. You?
 
Diogenes said:
The trouble is that Universal Health Care is, in practice, Unavailable Health Care. Britain and Canada are prime examples. A couple of years ago there was a couple in Calgary who were taking fertility treatments. She came down with a case of quadruplets. Multiples are premature, and preemies need incubators. Calgary (pop. 1,000,000) doesn't have four incubators, so the government sent the couple to Great Falls, MT (pop. 50,000) to have the babies. When the US adopts the Canadian health system, they'll have to go to India or Thailand.
Click to expand...

That's not really true. They any many forms of UHC, and among the most diverse is the single payer system which allows for people to buy not only their own care, but more insurance. Under this type of system, there is at least two teirs, and assures everyone adequate care and the option to buy more. If we stop demonizing and seek solutions, we can do better than we are presently.
 
Boo Radley said:
You make a lot of excuses j not to address the issue. I understand that may be all that is left. You're attacked a few lately, but that is neither here nor there. The issue is clear. It is about insurance. Not religious freedom. I've taken pains to explain why. You?
Click to expand...


And I have taken the time to show you that the Church feels it is a conscience issue for them, and one that has to do the tenants of the Chruch at the heart of their doctrine. You dismiss that, and when shown what the Cardinal says, you say that you know more than he does.

So you tell me, how does one debate with such jack assery?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
And I have taken the time to show you that the Church feels it is a conscience issue for them, and one that has to do the tenants of the Chruch at the heart of their doctrine. You dismiss that, and when shown what the Cardinal says, you say that you know more than he does.

So you tell me, how does one debate with such jack assery?


j-mac
Click to expand...

That just it j, FEELS is not equal to logically and fact. And when you say church, you're really taking only about a those in the heirarcy, and a relatively few of the overall church. But, it is just their feeling and not anything that holds logically. Once the Church stepped outside the church and into business, they can't call their business a church. I'm sorry, but there are actual definitions to these things.
 
Last edited:
Many in this thread are arguing IMHO, that insurance should cover their BC up to, and including abortion pills like RU486, and that the Church should make this available in their policy, which in many cases they underwrite themselves, leading to a real pickle in terms of religious freedom, due to the heavy handed nature of the Obama administration.

So I decided to look up what "insurance" is...Here is one definition:

"Insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for payment."

Insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now the question I have, is a simple one. What loss is there if not paid for through insurance policies?

Are contraceptives not available OTC, for inexpensive pricing?

Will someone die as a result of not being able to have their condom paid for, instead of out of pocket?

What is the 'loss' being 'hedged' against here?


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
That just it j, FEELS is not equal to logically and fact. And when you say church, you're really taking only about a those in the heirarcy, and a relatively few of the overall church. But, it is just their feeling and not anything that holds logically. Once the Church stepped outside the church and into business, they can't call their business a church. I'm sorry, but there are actual definitions to these things.
Click to expand...


Is a Catholic school a public, or private entity?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Many in this thread are arguing IMHO, that insurance should cover their BC up to, and including abortion pills like RU486, and that the Church should make this available in their policy, which in many cases they underwrite themselves, leading to a real pickle in terms of religious freedom, due to the heavy handed nature of the Obama administration.

So I decided to look up what "insurance" is...Here is one definition:

"Insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for payment."

Insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now the question I have, is a simple one. What loss is there if not paid for through insurance policies?

Are contraceptives not available OTC, for inexpensive pricing?

Will someone die as a result of not being able to have their condom paid for, instead of out of pocket?

What is the 'loss' being 'hedged' against here?
Click to expand...
I guess part of that answer depends on which side of the abortion issue you stand.

Another part is the consideration that many contraceptives are used for other medical conditions - not just as birth control.


Also, condoms are relativity cheap - and much less effective - compared to some female implants.
The Contraceptive Choice Project
 
j-mac said:
Is a Catholic school a public, or private entity?

j-mac
Click to expand...

That's another question. But private is subject to the same laws a public. Both have to pay minimum wage. You are not exempt from all laws just because you're private.
 
To Mo....

You seem to talk a lot about the 70's as it relates to a practice known as "patient dumping".... In 1986 the EMTASA provision was passed, does that mean that patient dumping ceased?


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
That's another question. But private is subject to the same laws a public. Both have to pay minimum wage. You are not exempt from all laws just because you're private.
Click to expand...


Ah, but mandated BC coverage is not a law, minimum wage is.


j-mac
 
Diogenes said:
And according to Obama, it might just be cheaper to give you a pain pill. It seems to be the goal of Obamacare to make sure there is no other insurance for you to buy (at least in the US), so your suggestion of being rich is probably the best answer.
Click to expand...
I don't really give a crap since that's not what I'd like to see, either. The insurance PACs and corrupt politicians made this abomination but, sadly, it's the closest thing they seemed to be able to agree. I wanted a UHC - as did many others - but that's not what we got.

Diogenes said:
Where the government is in charge of providing care, the care isn't there and the IHS is a prime example. See link. It infuriates me that this could happen to any child in my country.
Click to expand...
MoSurveyor said:
A provider would be a clinic, hospital, or doctor's office. I'm not talking about that. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Click to expand...
You just can't seem to get it or just don't want to get it, which is the more likely case. Playing stupid in this area and showing us sad pictures isn't making your point because I've never argued for that position. For the record one more time:

I am not now nor have I ever considered the idea of the government replacing my local doctor's office, or the local hospital, or any other health care provider.


You and people like you would take us back to the days of barbarism when people died in ER parking lots because the ER doctors were told not to treat them. We may as well have saved money and left them in the ditch next to their wrecked car - or just left them pinned in the car to bleed out.
 
j-mac said:
To Mo....

You seem to talk a lot about the 70's as it relates to a practice known as "patient dumping".... In 1986 the EMTASA provision was passed, does that mean that patient dumping ceased?
Click to expand...
Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) | Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act


I've never heard that term used. I know of people that were denied emergency treatment because they didn't have insurance or, in one case, didn't have the right insurance. So if that's what you're talking about then, yes, that's what I meant. I don't know of anyone that's ever been turned away from ER treatment since that time - do you?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) | Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act


I've never heard that term used. I know of people that were denied emergency treatment because they didn't have insurance or, in one case, didn't have the right insurance. So if that's what you're talking about then, yes, that's what I meant. I don't know of anyone that's ever been turned away from ER treatment since that time - do you?
Click to expand...


Actually there are documented cases....

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I'll have to settle for a Klondike bar...Work night....heh, heh.....
Click to expand...
I'm only a little sorry ... ;) ... but what makes you think it's an alcoholic drink? I don't drink much of that nowadays.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I'm only a little sorry ... ;) ... but what makes you think it's an alcoholic drink? I don't drink much of that nowadays.
Click to expand...


Oh, Coke?


There's bound to be lots of documentation, I just wasn't willing to look it up.
Click to expand...

I was actually kind of surprised to find out that with all the increased ER traffic espically in the West, and SW that ER's are starting to dump patients more and more.

Heck, even some speculation that Michelle Obama's hospital was accused of that under her time there.


j-mac
 
nota bene said:
You don't seem to understand that nuns are already married. Really, you should watch that old Audrey Hepburn movie The Nun's Story.
Click to expand...

My sister was a nun. My aunt was a nun. I was raised staunch Catholic. I attended Catholic School. I am quite certain I understand what a nun is.
 
j-mac said:
Is anyone forcing you to be a Catholic? I don't think they are.
Click to expand...

Who said I was Catholic? I am a recovering Catholic. I left the Church when I was 13. What an absolute joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom