• 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!

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

Boo Radley said:
All the Church pays for is the insurance.
Click to expand...

And the insurance will be more expensive since the insurance companies are no longer opting out of contraception and morning after pills and there will not be any co-pays for the insured. So yes, the government is requiring that the church provide compensation that goes directly against their beliefs - violating the church's first ammendment rights.
 
buck said:
And the insurance will be more expensive since the insurance companies are no longer opting out of contraception and morning after pills and there will not be any co-pays for the insured. So yes, the government is requiring that the church provide compensation that goes directly against their beliefs - violating the church's first ammendment rights.
Click to expand...

No, insurance will not be more expensive, if this is the only issue. This is a common and accepted norm in insurance.

Again, no, it is an employee compensaion, like their pay check, and they choose what they use it for and not the any employer.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

The difference is that insurance only covers viagra that is necessary for a medical condition. Obama is ordering that insurance companies provide free contraception and morning after pills even in the vast majority of cases where there is clearly not a medical condition. So, there is a huge difference between the two. Your repeating of the fact that there are a few instances where contraceptives are used for medical conditions doesn't negate the remaining 99% of cases where it is used strictly as birth control - against the church's teachings and you are forcing them to go against their religion.

The Church does not limit the use of Viagra in any way. No one does. Kind of odd and illogical.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies only cover viagra when there is a medical condition that has to be corrected. Birth control will now be covered for the vast majority of cases not involving a medical condition and will only be used for reasons specifically against the beliefs of the church.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, insurance will not be more expensive, if this is the only issue. This is a common and accepted norm in insurance.

Again, no, it is an employee compensaion, like their pay check, and they choose what they use it for and not the any employer.
Click to expand...

Earlier in this thread, I provided a study that showed that a majority of insurance companies themselves indicated that they will be charging more in premium due to contraception rules. So, I realize you have a feeling about it, but your feeling is wrong.

Many insurance companies do not cover birth control without a co pay and the catholic church and religious organizations were opting out of that coverage (resulting in savings). They will not be able to opt out anymore, causing an increase in premium. The insurance companies have already indicated this is a fact and they do not expect the savings from unwanted pregnancies to ouweigh the increased costs from birth control.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
Earlier in this thread, I provided a study that showed that a majority of insurance companies themselves indicated that they will be charging more in premium due to contraception rules. So, I realize you have a feeling about it, but your feeling is wrong.

Many insurance companies do not cover birth control without a co pay and the catholic church and religious organizations were opting out of that coverage (resulting in savings). They will not be able to opt out anymore, causing an increase in premium. The insurance companies have already indicated this is a fact and they do not expect the savings from unwanted pregnancies to ouweigh the increased costs from birth control.
Click to expand...

So is your argument cost, or what they object to?
 
buck said:
The difference is that insurance only covers viagra that is necessary for a medical condition. Obama is ordering that insurance companies provide free contraception and morning after pills even in the vast majority of cases where there is clearly not a medical condition. So, there is a huge difference between the two. Your repeating of the fact that there are a few instances where contraceptives are used for medical conditions doesn't negate the remaining 99% of cases where it is used strictly as birth control - against the church's teachings and you are forcing them to go against their religion.



Insurance companies only cover viagra when there is a medical condition that has to be corrected. Birth control will now be covered for the vast majority of cases not involving a medical condition and will only be used for reasons specifically against the beliefs of the church.
Click to expand...

Do you read what I write? I mean at all. Lack of erection is a medical condition. So what exactly would they refuse to pay for?

And nowhere does any Church even question the morality of caring about an erection.
 
Boo Radley said:
Really, so when they pay you, they decide what you can buy. After all, it is their money they are giving to you. Salary is really no different than insurance. Both are you pay, your conmpesation for the work or service provided.
Click to expand...

No, they are different. Sorry you can't see that.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I'm not. Your benefit package is as much compensation for your labor as you salary. Both are equal.
Click to expand...

No, they are not. And the benefit package is typically an agreement between employer and employee. Here, the government is trying to force the terms of the package on the employer.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, insurance will not be more expensive, if this is the only issue. This is a common and accepted norm in insurance.

Again, no, it is an employee compensaion, like their pay check, and they choose what they use it for and not the any employer.
Click to expand...

Then why not give the cost of the policy directly to the employee so they can purchase their own insurance with the coverage they like?
 
Boo Radley said:
Do you read what I write? I mean at all. Lack of erection is a medical condition. So what exactly would they refuse to pay for?

And nowhere does any Church even question the morality of caring about an erection.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with birth control?
 
Boo Radley said:
Do you read what I write? I mean at all. Lack of erection is a medical condition. So what exactly would they refuse to pay for?
Click to expand...

Of course I read what you write. I just think you don't understand the entire issue. For example, you apparently didn't realize that insurance prices would be going up and churchs were opting out of contracepticve care - resulting in savings to their premiums.

Anyway, you do realize that there are very healthy men that will use viagra for various reasons, don't you, or are you just that sheltered? They don't actually have a medical condition or any problem with erections. That type of use is not for a medical condition and would be denied by insurance.

And nowhere does any Church even question the morality of caring about an erection.
Click to expand...

Why would the church concern themselves with correcting a medical condition that is preventing normal and functional physical behaviour? That is not what contraceptives are about, in a vast majority of cases. Contraceptions are about preventing normal and functional physical behaviour and not about a medical condition and go strictly against the church's beliefs and teachings.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
So is your argument cost, or what they object to?
Click to expand...

I object to the government requiring the church to pay for something that is completly against their teachings and faith. The church shouldnot be required by the government to violate their teachings. And in this case, the government is forcing them to pay for things they are against.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
I object to the government requiring the church to pay for something that is completly against their teachings and faith. The church shouldnot be required by the government to violate their teachings. And in this case, the government is forcing them to pay for things they are against.
Click to expand...


Insurance?

That's what they are paying for. I repeat, no one is forced to use any of the services. That is up to the employee, who may not be a believer. And as with viagra, the Church is more than willing to let insurance pay for a lot of things that are against their teachings.

Insurance is compensation, like you pay check. There is no difference. How it is used, much like how money is spent, is up to the employee.
 
buck said:
Of course I read what you write. I just think you don't understand the entire issue. For example, you apparently didn't realize that insurance prices would be going up and churchs were opting out of contracepticve care - resulting in savings to their premiums.

Anyway, you do realize that there are very healthy men that will use viagra for various reasons, don't you, or are you just that sheltered? They don't actually have a medical condition or any problem with erections. That type of use is not for a medical condition and would be denied by insurance.
Click to expand...

There is no reason for them to go up. Our cover it and have not gone up. So, either your information is wrong, or the industry is taking advantage of the situation.

And while healthy men may use it, as anyone may use anything, when you go to a doctor, invoking your insurance, it is always despensed for a medical reason. This is no different for women. The difference is women are denied across the board.

And yes, for an erection is a medical condition. And it would not be denied by insurance.

Why would the church concern themselves with correcting a medical condition that is preventing normal and functional physical behaviour? That is not what contraceptives are about, in a vast majority of cases. Contraceptions are about preventing normal and functional physical behaviour and not about a medical condition and go strictly against the church's beliefs and teachings.
Click to expand...

For single men? Think about their teachings. And normal is one of those words that are often misused. But we'll shelf that. There are medical conditions that these things can be used for. So while single men can be promiscuous, women can't decide if they want to prevent a pregnancy or not. Do you seriously not see the contradiction?
 
Boo Radley said:
Insurance?

That's what they are paying for. I repeat, no one is forced to use any of the services. That is up to the employee, who may not be a believer. And as with viagra, the Church is more than willing to let insurance pay for a lot of things that are against their teachings.
Click to expand...

The church is being forced to pay for it. So, wether an emplyoee is being forced to use it or not is not relevant. Viagra is not against the teachings of the church. Being able to have an errection is normal physical behavior. Not being able to have one is not normal.

Insurance is compensation, like you pay check. There is no difference. How it is used, much like how money is spent, is up to the employee.
Click to expand...

And the compensation is an agreement between employer and employee. Except in this case, the government has gotte involved and told the church that they must provide compensation thate directly contradicts their beliefs and teachings.
 
Boo Radley said:
There is no reason for them to go up. Our cover it and have not gone up. So, either your information is wrong, or the industry is taking advantage of the situation.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that's a fairly typical response for you. "I don't believe it, so the people that actually deal with the situation are just wrong or making it up. It's all just a conspiracy."

Look, if a business or church does not offer contraceptives as part of their insurance they will have chepaer premiums. If all of a sudden the business or church starts offering contraceptives at zero co-pay, what do you think will happen? In a democrats mind, it won't cost anything. The blue fairy will pay for it. However, in the real world, the increased costs will result in a higher premium for that business or church.

And while healthy men may use it, as anyone may use anything, when you go to a doctor, invoking your insurance, it is always despensed for a medical reason. This is no different for women. The difference is women are denied across the board.
Click to expand...

I used to work in the claims area of a major insurance company. So, you are just wrong. There are many items that if determiend not to be for a medical problem, can be and are denied or they will go back to the doctor for additional, clarifying information.

For single men? Think about their teachings. And normal is one of those words that are often misused. But we'll shelf that. There are medical conditions that these things can be used for. So while single men can be promiscuous, women can't decide if they want to prevent a pregnancy or not. Do you seriously not see the contradiction?
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a physical problem in one case and no physicaly problem in the other. Insurance is used to correct physical problems. It has nothing to do with promiscuity. Instead it is about an abnormal physical condition that has to be corrected. If you want to think it's a normal state for a man not to be able to erect or its abnormal for a women to possibly get pregnant after the act, that's on you. Who am I to argue with your definitions of normal.

Women can decide if they want to use it to prevent pregnancy. Women should not expect a church who's teachings speak against using contraceptives and morning after pills to pay for them to use it. The women can take their compensation they recieved in the form of salary and buy all of the contraceptives and pill induced abortions they want. When they expect the church to directly pay for it, there is clearly a infringement upon their constituionally guaranteed rights.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
I've noticed that's a fairly typical response for you. "I don't believe it, so the people that actually deal with the situation are just wrong or making it up. It's all just a conspiracy."

Look, if a business or church does not offer contraceptives as part of their insurance they will have chepaer premiums. If all of a sudden the business or church starts offering contraceptives at zero co-pay, what do you think will happen? In a democrats mind, it won't cost anything. The blue fairy will pay for it. However, in the real world, the increased costs will result in a higher premium for that business or church.
Click to expand...

Not exactly what I said. I gave two possible explanations. As it doesn't affect our premiums at all, I cannot see any reason why it would effect theirs. It's that simple. insurance is usually structure in a bulk way, having standardized packages. It makes no logical sense that this would be a cost issue.

But then cost isn't your issue, as I understand you. Remember I asked.



I used to work in the claims area of a major insurance company. So, you are just wrong. There are many items that if determiend not to be for a medical problem, can be and are denied or they will go back to the doctor for additional, clarifying information.
Click to expand...

If a man is having trouble with erection, and he goes to the doctor, are you telling me he has no medical condition?


Yes, there is a physical problem in one case and no physicaly problem in the other. Insurance is used to correct physical problems. It has nothing to do with promiscuity. Instead it is about an abnormal physical condition that has to be corrected. If you want to think it's a normal state for a man not to be able to erect or its abnormal for a women to possibly get pregnant after the act, that's on you. Who am I to argue with your definitions of normal.

Women can decide if they want to use it to prevent pregnancy. Women should not expect a church who's teachings speak against using contraceptives and morning after pills to pay for them to use it. The women can take their compensation they recieved in the form of salary and buy all of the contraceptives and pill induced abortions they want. When they expect the church to directly pay for it, there is clearly a infringement upon their constituionally guaranteed rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he physically can't get an erection. What is the Churches stance on single men fooling around? You know, premarital sex?

And females can have a medical condition that would require them to use contraceptions. They are denied as well.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Not exactly what I said. I gave two possible explanations. As it doesn't affect our premiums at all, I cannot see any reason why it would effect theirs. It's that simple. insurance is usually structure in a bulk way, having standardized packages. It makes no logical sense that this would be a cost issue.
Click to expand...

First, not all insurance companies offer coverage for contraception. Second, yes. With some insurance companies it is currently possible to opt out of coverage for certain things - such as contraceptions. If that wasn't the case, then there would be zero reason for obama to issue the mandate in the first place (since in your view all insurance companies cover BC)- common sense. But, ignore. They're out to get you and trick you. All of them! Be ware.

But then cost isn't your issue, as I understand you. Remember I asked.
Click to expand...

Yes, as I already indicated. Forcing the church to provide and pay for coverage specifically for items against their beliefs is what I object to. It's a violation of their rights.

If a man is having trouble with erection, and he goes to the doctor, are you telling me he has no medical condition?
Click to expand...

I am telling you that some people take viagra even though they are not having medical problems - you're older then me, surely you are aware of this... That woudl not be covered by insruance. If someone truly can not perform, then that is a physical problem outside of the norm and can be corrected via medicine.

Yeah, he physically can't get an erection. What is the Churches stance on single men fooling around? You know, premarital sex?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. It's correcting an abnormality. Female contraception, in 99% of cases, is not corecting an abnormality. It's the exact reason that insurance companies do not cover other forms of BC. Try putting through an insurance claim for condoms. Good luck.

And females can have a medical condition that would require them to use contraceptions. They are denied as well.
Click to expand...

I've already indicated that if Obama's mandate said that if a woman has XYZ condition that can only be fixed by BC they must recieve BC as part of their insurance, I and most people, would not have an issue with them covering BC in those rare instances. However, that is not what he said.

Edit: and just to be clear. I think birth control should be covered. It used to not be covered at my wife's work policy, but now it is. I like that. However, the church, against their teachings, should not be forced to cover it by the government.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
First, not all insurance companies offer coverage for contraception. Second, yes. With some insurance companies it is currently possible to opt out of coverage for certain things - such as contraceptions. If that wasn't the case, then there would be zero reason for obama to issue the mandate in the first place (since in your view all insurance companies cover BC)- common sense. But, ignore. They're out to get you and trick you. All of them! Be ware.
Click to expand...

I never said someone couldn't opt out. Or that there weren't different packages, with different deductibles and such. I said, it should not raise cost.

And while I don't fully understand you last comment, insurance companies do not always raise rates logically.

Yes, as I already indicated. Forcing the church to provide and pay for coverage specifically for items against their beliefs is what I object to. It's a violation of their rights.
Click to expand...

It isn't. It's whining. It's hyperbolic drama. Nothing more


I am telling you that some people take viagra even though they are not having medical problems - you're older then me, surely you are aware of this... That woudl not be covered by insruance. If someone truly can not perform, then that is a physical problem outside of the norm and can be corrected via medicine.
Click to expand...

Not from their doctor or insurance they don't. Not getting an erection is a medical condition. So is being pregnant. And so or other medical conditions that contraceptions are used for.



Doesn't matter. It's correcting an abnormality. Female contraception, in 99% of cases, is not corecting an abnormality. It's the exact reason that insurance companies do not cover other forms of BC. Try putting through an insurance claim for condoms. Good luck.
Click to expand...

I would love to see where you get your number, but a medical condition does not have to be abnormal. Many conditions we treat are normal.

And it does matter. If they object, it is against their teachings, they are paying for that just as much as what they are refusing to pay for. it is the flaw in their logic. They pay for all kinds of things that is against their teachings, but in the compensation they give in insurance and with the pay check they give out.



I've already indicated that if Obama's mandate said that if a woman has XYZ condition that can only be fixed by BC they must recieve BC as part of their insurance, I and most people, would not have an issue with them covering BC in those rare instances. However, that is not what he said.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference as you are not making the same objection for males. And you can.
 
Boo Radley said:
I never said someone couldn't opt out. Or that there weren't different packages, with different deductibles and such. I said, it should not raise cost.
Click to expand...

I truly just can't believe that you actually think that providing new coverage will not increase costs to the insurance company that will be passed on to the premium paying organizaation... Can you? I mean.. Really?!?

It isn't. It's whining. It's hyperbolic drama. Nothing more
Click to expand...

In your opinion the government forcing a church to provide birth control (which is specifically against their beliefs and teachings) is not a violation the sepearate of church and state? Well, good luck with that one.

Not from their doctor or insurance they don't. Not getting an erection is a medical condition. So is being pregnant. And so or other medical conditions that contraceptions are used for.
Click to expand...

In other words, insurance is only covering viagra when it is to correct a medical and physical problem (which is what i've been saying) and they are not covering viagra when it's not correcting a medical problem. Just like it should be for female BC. You just believe that female BC should be one of the only items covered by insurance when it is not correcting a medical and physical problem. That is your double standard that you've been grasping for.

It makes no difference as you are not making the same objection for males. And you can.
Click to expand...

Of course I am. Viagra should and is only covered by insurance when it is correcting a medical problem. Viagra should not be covered for males when it is not correcting a medical problem. I made the exact same argument for both female BC and viagra.
 
It's nice to know that things are so good for women in America that all they have to bitch about is incidentally not being in some random comity.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
It's nice to know that things are so good for women in America that all they have to bitch about is incidentally not being in some random comity.
Click to expand...

Is that really how you see it? A little condescending maybe?
 
buck said:
I truly just can't believe that you actually think that providing new coverage will not increase costs to the insurance company that will be passed on to the premium paying organizaation... Can you? I mean.. Really?!?
Click to expand...

How expensive can it really be. Both those people who use can't be that expensive. It's not like a major change, like form a $1000 deductible to no deductible.


In your opinion the government forcing a church to provide birth control (which is specifically against their beliefs and teachings) is not a violation the sepearate of church and state? Well, good luck with that one.
Click to expand...

they are not. they are providing insurance. This is an important distinction. They are no more providing birth control with their insurance dollar than their pay check is them providing drug use, or prostitution, or alcohol consumption.


In other words, insurance is only covering viagra when it is to correct a medical and physical problem (which is what i've been saying) and they are not covering viagra when it's not correcting a medical problem. Just like it should be for female BC. You just believe that female BC should be one of the only items covered by insurance when it is not correcting a medical and physical problem. That is your double standard that you've been grasping for.
Click to expand...

And birth control is a medical condition. You see a doctor. As are the other conditions.



Of course I am. Viagra should and is only covered by insurance when it is correcting a medical problem. Viagra should not be covered for males when it is not correcting a medical problem. I made the exact same argument for both female BC and viagra.
Click to expand...

That medical condition, an erection, can be just as objectionable to a religious belief.
 
taxigirl said:
Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?' - CNN.com

"What I want to know is: Where are the women?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, said as she began her remarks at the top of hearing titled "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"

Directing her question at Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Maloney was referring to the fact that the first panel of five witnesses at the hearing did not include a woman, even though the discussion touched on the recent controversy over an Obama administration regulation requiring health insurance coverage for contraception.

:2mad:What are we only talking about condoms and vasectomies?:2mad:
Click to expand...

401492_3359234469778_1536528721_32974828_612426901_n.jpg
 
Boo Radley said:
How expensive can it really be. Both those people who use can't be that expensive. It's not like a major change, like form a $1000 deductible to no deductible.
Click to expand...

That's really besides the point. Whatever the extra price is, a religion that believes and teaches that morning after pills and birth control is not bibilical, should not be required to provide it free of charge - agaisnt their religious beliefs However, I know that prior to my wife's insurance covering it, it was $50.00/month. So, $600.00 per year times however many female employees.

they are not. they are providing insurance. This is an important distinction. They are no more providing birth control with their insurance dollar than their pay check is them providing drug use, or prostitution, or alcohol consumption.
Click to expand...

I love word games. But forgetting the games you want to play... why is Obama requiring that they pay for it, if they aren't providing it to people that want it free of charge?

And birth control is a medical condition. You see a doctor. As are the other conditions.
Click to expand...

I trust you really knew what I was saying, and chose to be purposely obtuse.

That medical condition, an erection, can be just as objectionable to a religious belief.
Click to expand...

If there is a church out there that believes that no man should ever have an erection, I would be just as against Obama requiring that they provide free viagra to people that recieve insurance from them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom