[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So the church does not want its employees to get insurance on their own, outside of work?[/quote]
What…
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
If you want to look through the language of the bill, YOU are obliged to… [/quote]
I’m not the one claiming there’s an exemption for religious institutions…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So the church does not want its employees to get insurance on their own, outside of work?[/quote]
What…
[/quote]
I read about this a few weeks ago but if I recall correctly the compromise was that church employees could get insurance for contraceptives on their own, outside of work. Meaning that particular insurance was between the insurance company and the individual, not the church.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So the church does not want its employees to get insurance on their own, outside of work?[/quote]
What…
[/quote]
I read about this a few weeks ago but if I recall correctly the compromise was that church employees could get insurance for contraceptives on their own, outside of work. Meaning that particular insurance was between the insurance company and the individual, not the church.[/quote]
The church can not acquire a contract that even makes it an option, do you understand that? It is non-negotiable. You might as well dictate that Jewish/Kosher delis have to serve pork chops. It is that non-negotiable. Now, this has NOTHING to do with what employees do completely outside of the institution. If they go outside of the institutions’ arrangements, and purchase insurance themselves, then they do. It has zero to do with this. This is about maintaining the status quo ability of Catholic institutions to act as a consumer, guided by their religious conscience, contracting plans with NO intersection with contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, etc. This is s novel controversy that only came into existence because of an idiot in the WH. There IS no exemption. NOBODY even claims there are in the mainstream media. After the fact, this ‘accommodation’ (not an exemption) was offered. It was reviewed. And it’s an accounting trick that completely missed the doctrinal position of the Catholic Church. It has been flat rejected.
Yes I understand that. Was the “accommodation” that people insured under a plan that did not offer contraception mean the following. The person could request contraceptive insurance from their insurance provider, free of cost?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Yes I understand that. Was the “accommodation” that people insured under a plan that did not offer contraception mean the following. The person could request contraceptive insurance from their insurance provider, free of cost?[/quote]
Yep, an accounting trick. The institutions must still pay for the plan, with the option. The option can’t even be part of the plan. THAT would be an exemption. An exemption would maintain the status quo. Which is why it was rejected. The ‘accommodation’ was an accounting gimmick for dummies, and completely missed the point.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Here’s what I don’t get with this whole blunt amendment thingy.
Your employer can now deny you certain types of medical coverage based on their moral objections correct?
Why is it that the religious opinions of the owners of the corporations trumps the opinions of the employees? Aren’t their religious freedoms being encroached upon?[/quote]
Untouched.
So am I wrong here errrrr… is my understanding of the amendment incorrect?
I know the church would be against these for other reasons, but would any of these avoid the issue of the government forcing the church to violate its beliefs?
A. Government provides free contraceptives to all citizens who request it, no insurance companies involved
B. Insurance companies must offer free contraceptive insurance to anyone regardless of their employment status or main insurance provider.
C. The “accommodation” is done but the government pays the cost difference to free the church from indirectly paying through an accounting trick.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
C. The “accommodation” is done but the government pays the cost difference to free the church from indirectly paying through an accounting trick.[/quote]
Where does the government get its money?[/quote]
What’s funny is that we should stay out of the bedroom, but the bedroom shouldn’t stay out of our wallets, out of our religious institutions, etc.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Here’s what I don’t get with this whole blunt amendment thingy.
Your employer can now deny you certain types of medical coverage based on their moral objections correct?
Why is it that the religious opinions of the owners of the corporations trumps the opinions of the employees? Aren’t their religious freedoms being encroached upon?[/quote]
Untouched.
So am I wrong here errrrr… is my understanding of the amendment incorrect?[/quote]
Well, if you’re arguing that NOBODY should be MANDATED to carry such coverage, you won’t get any disagreement from me. As to to employer vs. employee…The employer is providing the benefit, the employee accepts the terms upon accepting the job. That’s called a voluntary agreement. When the government decides to step in, it ends with telling people of faith, running hospitals and other services, that they must fundamentally violate dearly held religious convictions OR GET THE HECK OUT! This has resulted from some novel ‘right’ of one sub-set of the population to employ the government (which must use force) against religious folks, to dictate the terms of a what is properly a voluntary agreement. Curious ‘right,’ this one.
I agree with sloth entirely and I can understand his frustration. This is a hugely important issue and is part of an orchestrated attack on civil and religious liberties and the constitution by the left.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I agree with sloth entirely and I can understand his frustration. This is a hugely important issue and is part of an orchestrated attack on civil and religious liberties and the constitution by the left.[/quote]
It is a very important one. And when these two dismissed Catholics (me), other faiths, and even atheists if they have some sort of objection, as being self-afflicted by ‘pseudo-persecution,’ it royally pissed me off. To carry Obama’s water on this, and smugly dismiss us…don’t even expect civility. Simple solution; a full friggen exemption. An American citizen’s right to not just free worship (which seems to be the prevailing thought), but free exercise of religion (the constitutional reality), trumps your free condoms forcibly provided through others. Your bedroom, your business? Then you’ll damn sure act like it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
C. The “accommodation” is done but the government pays the cost difference to free the church from indirectly paying through an accounting trick.[/quote]
Where does the government get its money?[/quote]
This would be a less expensive version of choice A. I know choice B was not that realistic but it was to see if the church is against the employee getting any free contraceptive coverage from insurance, or just coverage directly linked to the insurance plan associated with the church/employee.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Here’s what I don’t get with this whole blunt amendment thingy.
Your employer can now deny you certain types of medical coverage based on their moral objections correct?
Why is it that the religious opinions of the owners of the corporations trumps the opinions of the employees? Aren’t their religious freedoms being encroached upon?[/quote]
Untouched.
So am I wrong here errrrr… is my understanding of the amendment incorrect?[/quote]
Well, if you’re arguing that NOBODY should be MANDATED to carry such coverage, you won’t get any disagreement from me. As to to employer vs. employee…The employer is providing the benefit, the employee accepts the terms upon accepting the job. That’s called a voluntary agreement. When the government decides to step in, it ends with telling people of faith, running hospitals and other services, that they must fundamentally violate dearly held religious convictions OR GET THE HECK OUT! This has resulted from some novel ‘right’ of one sub-set of the population to employ the government (which must use force) against religious folks, to dictate the terms of a what is properly a voluntary agreement. Curious ‘right,’ this one.
[/quote]
The insurance coverage is like a minimum wage, it has to include some minimum set of services. Could a religious institution have the belief that employees should only get paid $4 an hour?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Here’s what I don’t get with this whole blunt amendment thingy.
Your employer can now deny you certain types of medical coverage based on their moral objections correct?
Why is it that the religious opinions of the owners of the corporations trumps the opinions of the employees? Aren’t their religious freedoms being encroached upon?[/quote]
Untouched.
So am I wrong here errrrr… is my understanding of the amendment incorrect?[/quote]
Well, if you’re arguing that NOBODY should be MANDATED to carry such coverage, you won’t get any disagreement from me. As to to employer vs. employee…The employer is providing the benefit, the employee accepts the terms upon accepting the job. That’s called a voluntary agreement. When the government decides to step in, it ends with telling people of faith, running hospitals and other services, that they must fundamentally violate dearly held religious convictions OR GET THE HECK OUT! This has resulted from some novel ‘right’ of one sub-set of the population to employ the government (which must use force) against religious folks, to dictate the terms of a what is properly a voluntary agreement. Curious ‘right,’ this one.
[/quote]
The insurance coverage is like a minimum wage, it has to include some minimum set of services. Could a religious institution have the belief that employees should only get paid $4 an hour?[/quote]
You’re going to use the minimum wage, which is debatable in it’s own right, to justify a newly discovered power to override religious doctrines–long allowed the free exercise of–manifested in voluntary agreements (offer and acceptance of the job)…Just to provide some small population ‘free’ elective contraception…
You really want to make that connection? To help make the argument that the minimum wage is a slippery slope? Please, continue.