The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-08-2004, 12:37 PM   #16
wolf
lobber of scimitars
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phila Burbs
Posts: 20,774
Plastic surgery is elective.

Birth control is elective.

Lasix is elective.

Sterilization procedures, male or female are elective.

Pills and devices to prevent pregnancy are elective.

Prenatal and birthing care, while the result of an elective choice on the part of the consumer do fall under the umbrella of necessary health care.

I, however, shouldn't have to pay extra on MY premiums because YOU got knocked up, and now have to also insure your offspring. Extra people on your policy should be paid by YOU, not by my employer.
__________________
wolf eht htiw og

"Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island

High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis
wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2004, 12:42 PM   #17
marichiko
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf
Plastic surgery is elective.

Birth control is elective.

Lasix is elective.

Sterilization procedures, male or female are elective.

Pills and devices to prevent pregnancy are elective.

Prenatal and birthing care, while the result of an elective choice on the part of the consumer do fall under the umbrella of necessary health care.

I, however, shouldn't have to pay extra on MY premiums because YOU got knocked up, and now have to also insure your offspring. Extra people on your policy should be paid by YOU, not by my employer.
I would hardly put birth control in the same catagory as plastic surgery, and if I were a member of an HMO, I'd rather chip in for birth control pills, rather than labor room costs. I agree that HMO members should pay for the cost of insuring their own offspring.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2004, 03:23 PM   #18
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf
I, however, shouldn't have to pay extra on MY premiums because YOU got knocked up, and now have to also insure your offspring. Extra people on your policy should be paid by YOU, not by my employer.
I understand what you are saying here, but isn't the whole point of insurance to have everyone pay into the system to cover the costs of those who need it? If you really wanted to be responsible for just your own hide, you wouldn't have insurance at all. You would pay out of pocket for the procedures you get yourself, and you would hope you never get cancer, heart disease, etc.

I'm a thin, healthy-food eating, active, non-smoking adult. I don't like my money going to cover the obese, sedentary, McDonald's-eating smokers, but we are all in this boat together. That's the whole point of insurance.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2004, 07:14 PM   #19
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Quote:
I'm a thin, healthy-food eating, active, non-smoking adult.
Damn, don't you have any fun?
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2004, 07:18 PM   #20
Elspode
When Do I Get Virtual Unreality?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raytown, Missouri
Posts: 12,719
Insurance companies cover Viagra, Cialis, etc. So why not birth control?
__________________
"To those of you who are wearing ties, I think my dad would appreciate it if you took them off." - Robert Moog
Elspode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2004, 07:23 PM   #21
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspode
Insurance companies cover Viagra, Cialis, etc. So why not birth control?
Only if the need is explained and justified, by a Doctor for a medical condition.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2004, 07:56 PM   #22
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
In an earlier thread a lot of people were posting in defense of an employee who had been fired for persistently breaking company rules and eating pork on the premises. In that instance Lookout if i am not much mistaken you felt that the employers were being unreasonable.

Perhaps the fact that these are Catholics and therefore a part of the Christian spectrum (and as such less alien and more understandable to us than the moslem employers who did not wish their employees to bring forbidden substances into their offices) means we are more forgiving of their ideosyncracies
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2004, 10:15 AM   #23
Clodfobble
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
But the Muslim employers weren't being forced to BUY the woman her pig sandwich. The Catholic employer's not saying their employees can't use birth control on the premises or off, only that they're not going to pay for it.
Clodfobble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2004, 10:22 AM   #24
lookout123
changed his status to single
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Right behind you. No, the other side.
Posts: 10,308
it may seem a fine line Dana, but i think that is the essence of what bothers me about this.

IIRC the muslim company had no written policies regarding pork consumption, just a word of mouth warning. the employee was fired for eating it during her unpaid lunch break.

the catholic company's insurance rider would spell out in detail what is covered and what isn't. it is the individual's responsibility to decide to work there or not. they can do whatever they choose to do with their body as there is no requirement to be catholic in order work there. but to turn around and sue a company that is tied (but not closely enough) to the catholic church for not including BC in insurance coverage, knowing full well that BC isn't compatible with church doctrine?
__________________
Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin
lookout123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2004, 11:32 AM   #25
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Ok, that makes sense.
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2004, 12:47 PM   #26
depmats
Major Inhabitant
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 124
Why the hell can't Catholics use birth control anyway?
depmats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2004, 01:04 PM   #27
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by depmats
Why the hell can't Catholics use birth control anyway?
The Pope says only god can determine when a child is conceived. Humans have no right to think for themselves nor control their own body. That is god's domain. All contraception - except the rythm method - is out. Sex is for making kids. This from a man who 'theoretically' does not come from where the work gets done.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.