Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Obamacare / Healthcare Reform - News & Discussion

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Obamacare / Healthcare Reform – News & Discussion

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 1,426 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #379227

    myliftkk
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    “Required to serve all people” does not and need not mean required to perform any particular medical procedure. (Except, of course, in Obama’s world, it clearly does.) It means that they cannot choose to treat a Catholic but deny the same treatment to a Jew based on the latter’s religion.

    See above. If the federal government can force people of faith to perform one act that violates their creed, why would abortion be different? After all, in pro-choice lingua franca, an abortion is just another “medical procedure.”

    Except that Obama didn’t propose the rule, the Institute of Medicine (IoM) did. The rule doesn’t cover abortion, as clinically defined at all, is my understanding. It covers birth control.

    Exactly who is violating their conscience here? Religiously affiliated hospital systems (of the kind which I work for), receive huge government payments in the form of Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements, so why should they not be subject to a fairly innocuous rule on providing birth control options (as pointed out, no one need take it) at no cost to their employees? In many cases, they are also protected by numerous state statutes that act as a real hedge against “business” failure. And lastly, if they are threatened with failure, they will almost certainly be bailed out by taxpayers with a special levy (see Miami).

    Here’s the issue w/ the anti-abortion cum birth control crowd. If you want to reduce the demand for abortions, then increased access to birth control is a known variable in reducing that demand (you know, what the IoM said verbatim).

    #379228

    Twixlen
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    Obviously, we’re going to have a difference of opinion as to whether abortion is just another medical procedure. However, since we in the pro-life camp know that abortion advocates call it just another medical procedure, are we wrong to worry that mandatory contraception coverage will morph (even if it hasn’t yet) into mandatory abortion coverage? After all, as you just admitted yourself, there isn’t much of a line there in the eyes of the people advancing these birth control coverage mandates.

    Actually – I don’t see this particular move (the BC coverage) as one that will naturally lead to forcing providers to perform abortions, and have no problem with institutions backed by a certain religious bent refusing to perform one – as long as it doesn’t negatively impact the life of the woman. After all – she is the one with the rights, still.

    I don’t see the issues as quite that linked – even though many, many do.

    The thing is – no one is being forced to take part in the actual birth control itself. The only people I’ve seen fussing are A) male legislators, 2) bishops & priests. I haven’t seen a huge outcry from women that their rights are being violated – although I’m sure someone can turn up some woman saying otherwise. In polls, the majority of women think this is a good thing.

    #379229

    gramarye
    Participant

    Twixlen said:
    Ultimately – and let’s not kid ourselves here by thinking otherwise – this is one more presser in the efforts of the super-right to impinge on women’s rights to own their own medical choices at every level – and to not pay more for medical care than men.

    Oh, yes, that’s all we do all day is sit around and think “man, how can we repress some more women today.”

    At least make an honest effort at engaging fairly with the other side’s beliefs.

    These mandates offend both freedom of religion and free enterprise. It has nothing to do with trying to avoid paying for treatments that would be disproportionately used by women. After all, thanks to the gift to the insurance companies of ObamaCare, people will be forced to pay higher prices for their insurance–the insurance companies can pass on the increased costs of any mandated treatments. In addition, while the treatments might be predominantly used by women, do you really think the use is objectionable to so many men outside of strong religious faiths (which are declining in America)? Do you think there are tons of men out there so eager to have massive amounts of children? In practice, birth control is “used” by both partners.

    Then we get into the logical stuff on how much money is actually *saved* when women are on the birth control that works for them – not only in unintended pregnancies, but in ovarian cancer, and a whole host of other medical problems that would have men in bed for weeks.

    Since your premise is incorrect (this isn’t about financial savings, it’s about fundamental values), this concern is irrelevant.

    #379230

    SusanB
    Participant

    The majority of Catholics think that it is a good thing too.

    #379231

    gramarye
    Participant

    SusanB said:
    Actually, according to Jewish law the life of the mother is always put before the life of the fetus. So by refusing to perform an life saving abortion on a Jewish woman the health care facility violates her religious beliefs.

    But remains true to its own.

    #379232
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    This board could use some more religio-nutties.

    #379233

    gramarye
    Participant

    Cookie said:
    Ooh, the slippery slope argument! Fun! And then, would we be wrong to worry that mandatory contraception coverage will morph into mass toddler slaughter?

    Slippery slope arguments can be quite well justified. The notion that all slippery slope arguments are baseless per se is a popular misunderstanding of logic.

    Moreover, the real principles at stake are fundamental freedoms of conscience and action, and those are violated by the existing rule. It doesn’t matter that they might be more egregiously violated by the next rule that seems likely to follow close on this one’s heels (assuming that it’s not already hidden in there somewhere as things stand, or in text vague enough for some clever lawyer to get a judge to buy into later).

    #379234
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    gramarye said:

    These mandates offend both freedom of religion and free enterprise. It has nothing to do with trying to avoid paying for treatments that would be disproportionately used by women.

    Thank you.

    #379235

    Twixlen
    Participant

    rus said:
    I’d also like to see one of these[/url] in every women’s restroom and street corner.

    Agreed – I think that’s an awesome move.

    Indirectly related – there’s a fresh study out there on women and sexual assault/rape – one in four/five women report being the victims of sextual assualt and/or rape. Let that soak in for a second. And that’s probably not even accurate, as many women still won’t call assault or rape what it is, because of the shame that is placed on the woman when those words are used. Women who deal with these things shouldn’t then have to fight society for appropriate medical care.

    Fuck.

    #379236

    Cookie
    Member

    gramarye said:
    Slippery slope arguments can be quite well justified. The notion that all slippery slope arguments are baseless …

    I never said that they were. I was mocking yours because it was.

    #379237

    gramarye
    Participant

    myliftkk said:
    Exactly who is violating their conscience here?

    By definition, anyone who is forced by the government, for any reason (however pragmatic such a reason might sound to those outside the individual’s faith), to violate a precept of his or her genuinely held religious faith. That is the fundamental guarantee of the First Amendment. It trumps practical concerns. Hell, it even trumps national security (see: conscientious objector exemption from the draft). I have to shake my head at the fact that we would allow someone to refuse to defend the homeland based on his religious belief, but we won’t allow him to refuse to prescribe contraceptives.

    Religiously affiliated hospital systems (of the kind which I work for), receive huge government payments in the form of Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements, so why should they not be subject to a fairly innocuous rule on providing birth control options (as pointed out, no one need take it) at no cost to their employees?

    The government is constitutionally forbidden from conditioning generally available benefits on surrender or waiver of First Amendment rights.

    Here’s the issue w/ the anti-abortion cum birth control crowd. If you want to reduce the demand for abortions, then increased access to birth control is a known variable in reducing that demand (you know, what the IoM said verbatim).

    I’m aware! This falls under those “practical concerns” I mentioned above that yield to issues of fundamental constitutional and moral principle in our system (or at least, have until this administration) when it comes to freedom of conscience.

    #379238

    gramarye
    Participant

    Cookie said:
    I never said that they were. I was mocking yours because it was.

    And with your typically civil and well-reasoned presentation of evidence, too.

    #379239
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Twixlen said:
    Agreed – I think that’s an awesome move.

    Indirectly related – there’s a fresh study out there on women and sexual assault/rape – one in four/five women report being the victims of sextual assualt and/or rape. Let that soak in for a second. And that’s probably not even accurate, as many women still won’t call assault or rape what it is, because of the shame that is placed on the woman when those words are used. Women who deal with these things shouldn’t then have to fight society for appropriate medical care.

    Fuck.

    Even if your numbers are correct, that still doesn’t mean it’s right force people to pay for things that violate their core beliefs.

    #379240

    Cookie
    Member

    gramarye said:
    And with your typically civil and well-reasoned presentation of evidence, too.

    And how do you suggest that I present evidence that nobody is calling for mandating abortion coverage here?

    #379241

    Twixlen
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    Oh, yes, that’s all we do all day is sit around and think “man, how can we repress some more women today.”

    At least make an honest effort at engaging fairly with the other side’s beliefs.

    The thing is, and I know it’s hard to see from where you are, but the “other side’s beliefs” are about oppressing women.

    These mandates offend both freedom of religion and free enterprise. It has nothing to do with trying to avoid paying for treatments that would be disproportionately used by women. After all, thanks to the gift to the insurance companies of ObamaCare, people will be forced to pay higher prices for their insurance–the insurance companies can pass on the increased costs of any mandated treatments. In addition, while the treatments might be predominantly used by women, do you really think the use is objectionable to so many men outside of strong religious faiths (which are declining in America)? Do you think there are tons of men out there so eager to have massive amounts of children? In practice, birth control is “used” by both partners.

    I love it when people complain that more folks will have access to health care. Being without affordable healthcare is strangling the economy on so many levels. And women have had to pay more for medical care *always*, even when insured – I do see this as lessening that dispartity. No, it isn’t equal to what healthcare men partake in, but you’d better believe if there was a “pill” for men, it would be free, as it darn well should be.

    The fact is, while it does take two to have kids, women do 80% of the raising – they should have 80% of the control of how it happens.

    Also – you keep ignoring that there are legitimate reasons for women to need horomone treatment/bc that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. It is medicine. A lot of women fall into this category as well – considering that 99% of all women will use birth control and NOT 99% of all women will have kids.

    Since your premise is incorrect (this isn’t about financial savings, it’s about fundamental values), this concern is irrelevant.

    Fundamental is right. As in, early previous century. And, the concern is relevant, as it’s valid. It’s hugely cost saving… and more, birth control keeps women from needing abortions too – something that should make the anti-choicers thrilled.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 1,426 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

KEEP LOCAL JOURNALISM HEALTHY.

Local journalism is more important than ever. Please take a moment to read a bit about our mission and consider financially supporting our cause.

CLICK HERE