If little boys could get pregnant..

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

So they're getting waivers just like the unions? I hadn't heard that, can you provide a link?

Quote

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with that at all. It's also not applicable to the issue of Fed.gov mandating that the Church provide BC in opposition to the tenets of faith.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,991]

>I have a problem with the church being made to pay for it

The church doesn't pay for it.

>if the individual wants this coverage they should have to pay for it themselves with a
>rider attached to the policy.

That's basically what happens. (They don't have to pay extra, but there is a rider attached so that their policy is separate from the standard church policy.)

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>I have a problem with the church being made to pay for it

The church doesn't pay for it.

>if the individual wants this coverage they should have to pay for it themselves with a
>rider attached to the policy.

That's basically what happens. (They don't have to pay extra, but there is a rider attached so that their policy is separate from the standard church policy.)

If I heard correctly is that Obama said that the insurance company would prvide it to the employee for free but that cost would be passed on to the church through the premium. I would only agree if a seperate policy is attached and the employee paid out thier own pocket 100% of the addition.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

The church has to pay for those requested services in the rate. If some things are not covered then the rate goes down
So YES, they ARE requiring the church to provide those services and YES I do have a problem with that as it is a violation of the boundaries between church and state (and a bunch of other constitutional statues)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I would only agree if a seperate policy is attached and the employee paid out thier own pocket 100% of the addition.

If this was the case than only the employees who actually used birth control would buy it. Therefore the cost of the policy would=the average cost of birth control/number of employees+cost of processing claims. People who use relatively cheaper forms of birth control would be paying way too much and would drop the coverage to buy their birth control products directly which would then lead to rapid premium increases for the other users. In the end what you have is a payment plan for birth control, not true insurance in any sense of the word.

Of course this is somewhat illustrative with the problems with health insurance in general as well.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,991]

>I would only agree if a seperate policy is attached and the employee paid out thier
>own pocket 100% of the addition.

That's not called "health insurance." That's called "a drug store."

Churches currently pay for other people's treatments. A church that has a moral problem with homosexuals (say, the Westboro Baptists) and would never accept helping any of them - pays for their care. That's how insurance works. The premiums the Westboro Baptists pay to, say, United Healthcare goes to treating evil homosexuals who have AIDS. The premiums those evil homosexuals pay go to helping the Westboro Baptists when they go to the hospital.

Which is how it works right now. And until now, no churches seemed to have a problem with it - and many covered contraception. This sounds like another manufactured controversy.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

>I would only agree if a seperate policy is attached and the employee paid out thier
>own pocket 100% of the addition.

That's not called "health insurance." That's called "a drug store."

Churches currently pay for other people's treatments. A church that has a moral problem with homosexuals (say, the Westboro Baptists) and would never accept helping any of them - pays for their care. That's how insurance works. The premiums the Westboro Baptists pay to, say, United Healthcare goes to treating evil homosexuals who have AIDS. The premiums those evil homosexuals pay go to helping the Westboro Baptists when they go to the hospital.

Which is how it works right now. And until now, no churches seemed to have a problem with it - and many covered contraception. This sounds like another manufactured controversy.

^Your Westboro example is valid, if, and only if, the institutions are not self-insuring. Many large institutions (presumably including at least some of the Catholic hospitals and universities at issue) are self-insuring and only contract with an insurance company for claims adjudication and payment. In this case there is no "insurance pool" involved beyond the companies own employees.

Note also that churches already have a ministerial exemption from the requirement to provide contraception and it is only the "affiliated institutions" which have to comply with the mandate.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

Indeed, self-insured instititions like the Washington Archidiocese will be included in those "insurance companies" required to provide birth control, abortifacients, and sterilization "for free." The only difference appears to be that they would not list that as a covered service in their policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/birth-control-compromise-still-presents-grave-moral-concerns-to-catholic-church/2012/02/16/gIQAwpTtHR_story.html

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[BIGUN 1,314]

Quote

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

The church has to pay for those requested services in the rate. If some things are not covered then the rate goes down
So YES, they ARE requiring the church to provide those services and YES I do have a problem with that as it is a violation of the boundaries between church and state (and a bunch of other constitutional statues)

Well, technically there is no constitutional statute or any other law requiring a separation of Church and State.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

The church has to pay for those requested services in the rate. If some things are not covered then the rate goes down
So YES, they ARE requiring the church to provide those services and YES I do have a problem with that as it is a violation of the boundaries between church and state (and a bunch of other constitutional statues)

Well, technically there is no constitutional statute or any other law requiring a separation of Church and State.

I hink there is

[Butters 0]

Quote

The original European settlers came to America seeking refuge from government intrusion into their religion.

They came for many reasons, some because of government intrusion into their religion, some because of government intrusion into their lack of religion, ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kallend 2,027]

Oh the hypocrisy:

www.latimes.com/health/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216,0,3392996.story?track=lat-pick

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

So they're getting waivers just like the unions? I hadn't heard that, can you provide a link?

Quote

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with that at all. It's also not applicable to the issue of Fed.gov mandating that the Church provide BC in opposition to the tenets of faith.

CHURCHES don't have to. Hospitals and universities are NOT churches, regardless of who or what sponsors them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

The church has to pay for those requested services in the rate. If some things are not covered then the rate goes down
So YES, they ARE requiring the church to provide those services and YES I do have a problem with that as it is a violation of the boundaries between church and state (and a bunch of other constitutional statues)

It's funny how the righties get their panties in a wad about separation of church and state on this issue, but deny any such thing when it comes to prayers in public schools, references to "God" on the currency, crosses on public land, dispays of the 10 Commandments in courthouses, etc.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

The church has to pay for those requested services in the rate. If some things are not covered then the rate goes down
So YES, they ARE requiring the church to provide those services and YES I do have a problem with that as it is a violation of the boundaries between church and state (and a bunch of other constitutional statues)

It's funny how the righties get their panties in a wad about separation of church and state on this issue, but deny any such thing when it comes to prayers in public schools, references to "God" on the currency, crosses on public land, dispays of the 10 Commandments in courthouses, etc.

Nothing funny about it all

The two are not even close to being related

Not that I expect you care though

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

The church has to pay for those requested services in the rate. If some things are not covered then the rate goes down
So YES, they ARE requiring the church to provide those services and YES I do have a problem with that as it is a violation of the boundaries between church and state (and a bunch of other constitutional statues)

It's funny how the righties get their panties in a wad about separation of church and state on this issue, but deny any such thing when it comes to prayers in public schools, references to "God" on the currency, crosses on public land, dispays of the 10 Commandments in courthouses, etc.

Nothing funny about it all

The two are not even close to being related

QED.

Wow, proof of my point arrived even faster than I expected.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

The church has to pay for those requested services in the rate. If some things are not covered then the rate goes down
So YES, they ARE requiring the church to provide those services and YES I do have a problem with that as it is a violation of the boundaries between church and state (and a bunch of other constitutional statues)

It's funny how the righties get their panties in a wad about separation of church and state on this issue, but deny any such thing when it comes to prayers in public schools, references to "God" on the currency, crosses on public land, dispays of the 10 Commandments in courthouses, etc.

Nothing funny about it all

The two are not even close to being related

QED.

Wow, proof of my point arrived even faster than I expected.

Proof?



ok, if you say so

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Butters 0]

Quote

The two are not even close to being related

Relationships are not based solely on whether you are for or against something. It appears from your posts (in this and other threads) that your stance on government involvement is directly related to whether you agree with the involvement and not to whether the involvement is constitutional.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The two are not even close to being related

Relationships are not based solely on whether you are for or against something. It appears from your posts (in this and other threads) that your stance on government involvement is directly related to whether you agree with the involvement and not to whether the involvement is constitutional.

I see it as a constitutional issue

Period

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The two are not even close to being related

Relationships are not based solely on whether you are for or against something. It appears from your posts (in this and other threads) that your stance on government involvement is directly related to whether you agree with the involvement and not to whether the involvement is constitutional.

I see it as a constitutional issue

Period

Of course you do. You can go back to your hypocrisy/trolling now ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The two are not even close to being related

Relationships are not based solely on whether you are for or against something. It appears from your posts (in this and other threads) that your stance on government involvement is directly related to whether you agree with the involvement and not to whether the involvement is constitutional.

I see it as a constitutional issue

Period

Of course you do. You can go back to your hypocrisy/trolling now ...

And it must be just an emotional exercise for you



Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

So they're getting waivers just like the unions? I hadn't heard that, can you provide a link?

Quote

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with that at all. It's also not applicable to the issue of Fed.gov mandating that the Church provide BC in opposition to the tenets of faith.

Can we take it, then, that you are also opposed to a presidential candidate who says he will speak out as president to tell us all that "Contraception is not OK"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Quote

And in the end the States is now crossing the church and state line. This fact can not be argued

Do you think laws against polygamy are also crossing the church and state line? Or laws prohibiting sex with minor children? Or laws probiting the beating of a wife?

Laws set *minimum* standards for society. Religions are free to impose more restrictive requirements on their adherents if they choose, but they don't have the authority to buck any law otherwise deemed good for society. In this case, the government threw churches a bone by exempting them from the requirement, they just didn't extend that exemption to anyone and everyone. Personally, I feel the correct choice would be to withdraw the exemption from the churces. If they don't like it, they can cancel their insurance plans. Come to think of it, why do they need health insurance anyhow, when they have prayer?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And in the end the States is now crossing the church and state line. This fact can not be argued

Do you think laws against polygamy are also crossing the church and state line? Or laws prohibiting sex with minor children? Or laws probiting the beating of a wife?

Laws set *minimum* standards for society. Religions are free to impose more restrictive requirements on their adherents if they choose, but they don't have the authority to buck any law otherwise deemed good for society. In this case, the government threw churches a bone by exempting them from the requirement, they just didn't extend that exemption to anyone and everyone. Personally, I feel the correct choice would be to withdraw the exemption from the churces. If they don't like it, they can cancel their insurance plans. Come to think of it, why do they need health insurance anyhow, when they have prayer?

Blues,
Dave

Are those in the constitution?

Did you know that 82% of catholic hospitals are self insured?

But I guess you support Wasserman’s position that it is not fair that all women do not get free contraceptives

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BIGUN 1,314]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

The church has to pay for those requested services in the rate. If some things are not covered then the rate goes down
So YES, they ARE requiring the church to provide those services and YES I do have a problem with that as it is a violation of the boundaries between church and state (and a bunch of other constitutional statues)

Well, technically there is no constitutional statute or any other law requiring a separation of Church and State.

I hink there is

No Mark

I'm afraid there is not.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.