• 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!

Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

The Mark said:
Lots of options does not mean unlimited options. Sure, there are plenty of choices to choose from - but don't try to say that means we aren't told what we shouldn't buy, for various reasons, many of them good.

If I wanted to choose some car that was dangerous to drive on the roads (as determined by whichever government agency decides that), chances are I would need go jump through a ****ton of hoops to even get it shipped over here, and then only be able to drive it on a track.

I'm not saying these limitations are unreasonable, I'm just pointing out that they exist.
Click to expand...

Unlimited options don't really exist. They are all kinds of things that limit our options. Meeting appropriate standards are the least of things that limit us. So it's really a false argument concerning choices being limited. The companies themselves have been limiting us long before ACA.

I believe in functional over technical. As the world doesn't functionally gave unlimited choices, the question is one of whether we've been unduly limited and denied choice. I believe we have not.
 
Boo Radley said:
Unlimited options don't really exist. They are all kinds of things that limit our options. Meeting appropriate standards are the least of things that limit us. So it's really a false argument concerning choices being limited. The companies themselves have been limiting us long before ACA.

I believe in functional over technical. As the world doesn't functionally gave unlimited choices, the question is one of whether we've been unduly limited and denied choice. I believe we have not.
Click to expand...
Some of the problems I saw with the health care system prior to ACA were because of some of those very limitations you speak of, whether company or government implemented.
 
The Mark said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but they are required to purchase (and provide to their employees) insurance that covers contraception.

If this is correct, how can you possibly say they are not being required to pay for contraception.
Click to expand...

No, that's not correct

As a religious organization, they can be exempted from the requirement of providing contraceptive coverage by filling out a form. Their argument is that filling out the form is a violation of their religious principles because their employees can take a copy of that form to the insurer and buy contraceptive coverage directly from the insurer.
 
sangha said:
The Little Sisters are not required to cover contraception. Please stop lying about that
Click to expand...

strawman fail.

as i said you don't understand their religious beliefs. PS this isn't just for catholics it is for muslims as well.
 
Last edited:
Anthony60 said:
It is just a sad thing for individuals v. government that this is even debatable. Can you imagine telling the founders after they wrote the Constitution that the federal government would be forcing the people to buy health insurance and that they would even be involved in the cost of contraception, let alone that the government was forcing companies to provid free contraception?

They would have thought that you were crazy and that no patriot in their right mind could in any way look at our Constitution and get that much government power out of it. They would say that this is what we fought against and there would be no way it would ever be allowed to happen.
Yet here we are, with a man that has vowed to fundamentally change our country from our individual freedoms, like our fore fathers fundamentally changed our country from the tyranny of England.

Except he wants to go back to tyranny now.
Click to expand...

that is exactly it. The people that fought and died for this country are rolling in their grave because of all the garbage the the government that they built has upended everything they fought for.

What is sad is that there are people out there that actually push for more of it.
 
ludin said:
that is exactly it. The people that fought and died for this country are rolling in their grave because of all the garbage the the government that they built has upended everything they fought for.

What is sad is that there are people out there that actually push for more of it.
Click to expand...

The problem, as I see it, is that if something is "important" that now makes it a federal issue/power. A prime example is eduction - it is clearly not a federal power but, since it is "important", it is now the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal department.
 
sangha said:
The Little Sisters are not required to cover contraception. Please stop lying about that
Click to expand...

PPACA now regulates all private medical care insurance policies and requires that they cover contraception at no additional "out of pocket" cost. Where, exactly, are the Little Sisters, or anyone else for that matter, supposed to find a "non-PPACA compliant" medical care insurance policy to buy? It would appear that one must either buy a PPACA compliant policy or self insure. Saying that one may "get a waiver" to buy something that is not offered for sale is hardly a solution.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
PPACA now regulates all private medical care insurance policies and requires that they cover contraception at no additional "out of pocket" cost. Where, exactly, are the Little Sisters, or anyone else for that matter, supposed to find a "non-PPACA compliant" medical care insurance policy to buy? It would appear that one must either buy a PPACA compliant policy or self insure. Saying that one may "get a waiver" to buy something that is not offered for sale is hardly a solution.
Click to expand...

ACA does not require that all insurance plans cover contraception. They have an insurer who is offering a plan that doesn't cover contraception.
 
Boo Radley said:
Both have to meet government standards and none should allow the employer to dictate use of the compensation.
Click to expand...
Letting an employer compensate her employees with an insurance policy that doesn't cover contraception = dictating use of the compensation? If that was true, anything else that the policy didn't cover (anything at all), would be an example of dictating use of the compensation.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Any they want to that meets the standards. We do this with all kinds if products and services. And it is right to do so in most cases. But there are plenty if choices.
Click to expand...
You're going off on a tangent here. I'm not saying that there should no government mandates regarding vehicle safety and emissions, but to suggest that those mandates increase the consumers' freedom of choice is laughable. You may as well say that prisons are the freest places.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? Show me any medical care insurance plan, currently for sale, that does not cover contraception.

Contraceptive Coverage in the Health Care Law: Frequently Asked Questions | National Women's Law Center
Click to expand...


Christian Brothers Employee Trust (the ones that provide insurance coverage to the Little Sisters of the Poor). They are considered a Church Plan and not required to offer contraception

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Little-Sisters-Injunction-Opp-13A691.pdf


>>>>
 
The Mark said:
Some of the problems I saw with the health care system prior to ACA were because of some of those very limitations you speak of, whether company or government implemented.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I prefer limitations that favor more care than less however.
 
mpg said:
Letting an employer compensate her employees with an insurance policy that doesn't cover contraception = dictating use of the compensation? If that was true, anything else that the policy didn't cover (anything at all), would be an example of dictating use of the compensation.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. It limits base on belief how an employee can use their compensation. While may be technically correct with you last part, decisions based of finances, such as laying you less or more per hour are different that imposing the employers belief system on the employee. How money and insurance are USED are up to the employee once given in compensation.
 
mpg said:
You're going off on a tangent here. I'm not saying that there should no government mandates regarding vehicle safety and emissions, but to suggest that those mandates increase the consumers' freedom of choice is laughable. You may as well say that prisons are the freest places.
Click to expand...

Focus. I never used the word increase. I said they still have plenty of choice and are not being dictated to which to buy. I have plenty if choice.
 
Boo Radley said:
Of course it does. It limits base on belief how an employee can use their compensation. While may be technically correct with you last part, decisions based of finances, such as laying you less or more per hour are different that imposing the employers belief system on the employee. How money and insurance are USED are up to the employee once given in compensation.
Click to expand...
20121026220251!Strawman.jpg
 
Boo Radley said:
Political agenda? Other than the fact everything is political, isn't this the case if whose rights are we talking about? The employer or the employee? This seems like the crux of the issue to me.
Click to expand...
Decreased insurance choices =/= increased protection of rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom