hoyabinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by hoyabinx on Mar 5, 2012 22:18:29 GMT -5
It's a big deal because Catholics think it's a big deal and because forcing them to pay for insurance that covers it directly interferes with their free exercise of religion, which, as I'm constantly told, includes social justice outreach through institutions. And, oddly enough, President Obama agrees with me that forcing Catholics (or Muslims, or Protestents or whoever) to purchase insurance that covers birth control, sterilizations and abortificents violates their free exercise of religion, or he wouldn't have created an exception for Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and other places of worship. I'm honestly a little shocked that the Democratic Party would come out so strongly against religious freedoms that they'd consider Ted Kennedy's views to be extremist, but hey, such is modern politics. You do realize you didn't actually answer my question. What's the difference between scenario 1 and 2? Catholic money already pays for birth control indirectly through salaries. Obama instead wants them to pay for it indirectly through insurance. What's the actual difference? "Because the catholic church says there's a difference" is not an adequate answer in my book. What's the difference between (1) a pacifist paying an employee $50,000 and that employee buying a $500 gun with that salary and (2) the government forcing the pacifist to buy the gun for his employee and deducting the cost from salary? The difference is my hypo is closer to constitutional than yours. And buying insurance that covers contraception is not indirectly paying for contraception, really. /throws grenade in room, runs away.
|
|
hoyabinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by hoyabinx on Mar 5, 2012 22:27:54 GMT -5
You do realize you didn't actually answer my question. What's the difference between scenario 1 and 2? Catholic money already pays for birth control indirectly through salaries. Obama instead wants them to pay for it indirectly through insurance. What's the actual difference? "Because the catholic church says there's a difference" is not an adequate answer in my book. What's the difference between (1) a pacifist paying an employee $50,000 and that employee buying a $500 gun with that salary and (2) the government forcing the pacifist to buy the gun for his employee and deducting the cost from salary? The difference is my hypo is closer to constitutional than yours. And buying insurance that covers contraception is not indirectly paying for contraception, really. /throws grenade in room, runs away. Let me alter my post a bit. In my hypo, the employer has to pay for Home Security Insurance, where the employee can opt for a grenade launcher, an AK47, a missile launcher, or ADT. The reason I used those weapons as examples is because they are offensive to a pacifist as contraception is to the Church, from my lay perspective anyway.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 5, 2012 22:35:40 GMT -5
Also, physicians at the Catholic hospital prescribe birth control: www.georgetownuniversityhospital.org/body_dept.cfm?id=557232"Sexuality-related care includes discussion of relationships, counseling regarding birth control and sexually transmitted diseases, prescribing birth control, and screening for and treating gynecologic, including sexually transmitted, infections."
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 5, 2012 22:46:30 GMT -5
It's a big deal because Catholics think it's a big deal and because forcing them to pay for insurance that covers it directly interferes with their free exercise of religion, which, as I'm constantly told, includes social justice outreach through institutions. And, oddly enough, President Obama agrees with me that forcing Catholics (or Muslims, or Protestents or whoever) to purchase insurance that covers birth control, sterilizations and abortificents violates their free exercise of religion, or he wouldn't have created an exception for Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and other places of worship. I'm honestly a little shocked that the Democratic Party would come out so strongly against religious freedoms that they'd consider Ted Kennedy's views to be extremist, but hey, such is modern politics. You do realize you didn't actually answer my question. What's the difference between scenario 1 and 2? Catholic money already pays for birth control indirectly through salaries. Obama instead wants them to pay for it indirectly through insurance. What's the actual difference? "Because the catholic church says there's a difference" is not an adequate answer in my book. Do insurance policies that cover birth control and policies that pay the entire cost of birth control cost the same? What about policies that cover the entire cost of sterilizations? Or policies that cover the entire cost of abortifacients? I don't think they do, which means that the church is paying to subsidize birth control, something they are not doing otherwise. Also, constitutionally, I think it DOES matter that the Catholic church says it matters because they are the ones that are having their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion violated. And you didn't answer my question--if this wasn't a First Amendment issue, why do places of worship get an exemption?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 5, 2012 22:48:03 GMT -5
Also, physicians at the Catholic hospital prescribe birth control: www.georgetownuniversityhospital.org/body_dept.cfm?id=557232"Sexuality-related care includes discussion of relationships, counseling regarding birth control and sexually transmitted diseases, prescribing birth control, and screening for and treating gynecologic, including sexually transmitted, infections." Georgetown's inability to follow Catholic teaching doesn't mean that Catholic institutions shouldn't be able to follow Catholic teaching. I mean, if we made Catholic institutions follow Georgetown's example, there'd never be another church built ;D
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 5, 2012 23:20:40 GMT -5
This entire controversy is why the Catholic Church and the Republican party are both making themselves more and more irrelevant to people under the age of 50.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 5, 2012 23:21:34 GMT -5
Churches are exempt and do not have to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees. The university, law school, medical school, and hospital are not churches. If they were they would not be eligible for all the federal taxpayer subsidies that they receive - taxes that come from people of other religions and no religion who cannot be forced to subsidize a church.
Again, employers do not pay for contraceptives or any health care provided by insurance. The only reason we have employer-provided health insurance is because it is not taxed when it is financed that way. The economic effect is that employees agree to reduce their pay by X dollars in exchange for their employer paying X dollars in health insurance premiums for them. So the X dollars are not taxable income for the employee, neither the employer nor the employee pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on the X dollars, and the employer counts the X dollars as a tax deductible business expense. This is the employer having an incentive to set up a system for the employee to pay for his/her health care tax-free. It is still the employees and his/her dependents paying for their health care.
The cartoonish analogy up there about the weapons is off the mark. In the real world, there is no universal demand for assault weapons as there is for health care, and there are no federal tax subsidies that give employers an incentive to set up a system for their employees to reduce their pay in exchange for a tax-free mechanism to purchase assault weapons. And in pretty much every other way, we do not live in that right-wing comic book fantasy world where people need an AK47 in anything equivalent to the way people need cancer treatment or other medical care.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Mar 5, 2012 23:28:37 GMT -5
Do insurance policies that cover birth control and policies that pay the entire cost of birth control cost the same? What about policies that cover the entire cost of sterilizations? Or policies that cover the entire cost of abortifacients? I don't think they do, which means that the church is paying to subsidize birth control, something they are not doing otherwise. I'm pretty sure that birth control coverage isn't a huge determinant of price of coverage. And I'm pretty sure the data doesn't even exist because most health insurance covers it (and if they don't cover it for contraceptive purposes, they don't question your doctor's reason for writing you the prescription like Georgetown does. "Oh but the excruciating pain you experience on a monthly basis that could be relieved by this medication is natural, and is not due to a disorder.") I wish I made that up. But I digress... Quickly looking at the university's benefits webpage, employees have 4 options. Each doesn't clearly lay out if it covers contraception, but its pretty clear the price differential is due to differences in deductibles, etc because the two most expensive policies provide more comprehensive coverage. I think thats important to notice is that, regardless of the plan, Georgetown pays the exact same sum towards the total cost. benefits.georgetown.edu/245446.html
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 5, 2012 23:31:30 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for pregnancy and birth, and when it is used for preventive medical reasons it is cheaper than the complications it is preventing.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 5, 2012 23:33:20 GMT -5
Churches are exempt and do not have to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees. The university, law school, medical school, and hospital are not churches. If they were they would not be eligible for all the federal taxpayer subsidies that they receive - taxes that come from people of other religions and no religion who cannot be forced to subsidize a church. So do you think the dividing line on whether the religious employer is exempt should be whether the religious institution receives federal funds?
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Mar 5, 2012 23:40:03 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for pregnancy and birth, and when it is used for preventive medical reasons it is cheaper than the complications it is preventing. This too ;D
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 5, 2012 23:43:37 GMT -5
Do insurance policies that cover birth control and policies that pay the entire cost of birth control cost the same? What about policies that cover the entire cost of sterilizations? Or policies that cover the entire cost of abortifacients? I don't think they do, which means that the church is paying to subsidize birth control, something they are not doing otherwise. I'm pretty sure that birth control coverage isn't a huge determinant of price of coverage. And I'm pretty sure the data doesn't even exist because most health insurance covers it (and if they don't cover it for contraceptive purposes, they don't question your doctor's reason for writing you the prescription like Georgetown does. "Oh but the excruciating pain you experience on a monthly basis that could be relieved by this medication is natural, and is not due to a disorder.") I wish I made that up. But I digress... Quickly looking at the university's benefits webpage, employees have 4 options. Each doesn't clearly lay out if it covers contraception, but its pretty clear the price differential is due to differences in deductibles, etc because the two most expensive policies provide more comprehensive coverage. I think thats important to notice is that, regardless of the plan, Georgetown pays the exact same sum towards the total cost. benefits.georgetown.edu/245446.htmlI agree completely with the argument that Georgetown's policy makes no sense. It's why I didn't get super excited about DeGioia's letter. I also don't have a problem with Georgetown offering plans that cover birth control. I have a problem with the government forcing them to do so if it goes against their religious beliefs. Georgetown has clearly stated through their actions that they have no problem with health care plans that cover birth control.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 5, 2012 23:49:32 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for pregnancy and birth, and when it is used for preventive medical reasons it is cheaper than the complications it is preventing. This too ;D Does it cost the employer more to have an insurance policy that covers pregnancy & birth and alternative medical treatments without covering birth control?
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Mar 5, 2012 23:56:20 GMT -5
I agree completely with the argument that Georgetown's policy makes no sense. It's why I didn't get super excited about DeGioia's letter. I also don't have a problem with Georgetown offering plans that cover birth control. I have a problem with the government forcing them to do so if it goes against their religious beliefs. Georgetown has clearly stated through their actions that they have no problem with health care plans that cover birth control. But Georgetown has clearly stated through their actions that they have a problem with providing their students health care plans that cover birth control. This is wrong. I'm glad we can agree on that. I understand your confusion otherwise, but I believe that once religious institutions engage in things/activities/sectors that are not purely of a religious character (like Georgetown, which is providing an education that is not limited to pure Catholic theology to people not just of the Catholic faith), they face different responsibilities, per say. And here, that responsibility is to provide adequate health care to women just like any other business/corporation/hospital/educational entity. And if they are receiving federal funds, etc, they have a heightened responsibility to abide by governmental guidelines. It's late, and I'm pretty sure that isn't a 100% crystal clear explanation, but I hope it got the point across.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 6, 2012 0:01:54 GMT -5
The line is not whether the institution receives federal funds but whether its activities could receive federal funds without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I think that if an institution says it is eligible for federal support because it serves the secular purposes of federal programs, then it shouldn't be easy to invoke a religious exemption as an employer in those programs.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 6, 2012 0:08:28 GMT -5
The line is not whether the institution receives federal funds but whether its activities could receive federal funds without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I think that if an institution says it is eligible for federal support because it serves the secular purposes of federal programs, then it shouldn't be easy to invoke a religious exemption as an employer in those programs. Is that where the current exemption line is drawn?
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 6, 2012 0:49:14 GMT -5
Not exactly: virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html"When it made its decision in August 2011 on women’s preventive services, HHS also put forward an exemption to the required coverage of contraception for health plans provided by “religious employers”. That key term is defined as an organization that has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose, primarily employs and serves people who share its religious tenets, and is a nonprofit organization under sections of U.S. law that refer to “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches” and to “the exclusively religious activities of any religious order”. The language mirrors the religious exemptions to contraceptive coverage laws established, and upheld by courts, in California and New York"
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Mar 6, 2012 7:53:07 GMT -5
I think this is particularly shallow ground on which to mount a "defense of religious freedom" because of the substantive issue. The Church's stance on birth control is horribly short sighted and out of touch. And I don't buy the doctrine-based arguments because there was a point during John XXIII where the Church was ready to change its position but reversed at the last second. So clearly there is nothing especially sacred about this rule. (I learned that in my intro to catholic theology class at Georgetown.).
Reversing birth control does not unravel the entire ball of yarn and it is not a slippery slope. There are plenty of devout married couples that waited until marriage and never would think about having an abortion but need to use birth control because, for example, a pregnancy would harm the life of the mother. And quite frankly, in a world where we are running out of room, a little planning and control is a wise move from a sustainable perspective.
The whole thing also smacks of paternalism. Why can't Catholic institutions trust that Catholics will just follow the rules? Probably because so few follow it anyway.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 6, 2012 10:44:09 GMT -5
As an additional point, my fellow students and I who are upset over this issue have been criticized for even going to Georgetown, when we could have chosen a non-Catholic law school. Yes, true, but do you think "contraception coverage" really factored into our minds when we chose Georgetown? Apparently it was THE factor for Ms. Fluke: In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Mar 6, 2012 11:16:13 GMT -5
And I can assure you, she was alone.
|
|