| Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Contraception "Compromise"; President Obama's compromise on Health Insurance coverage | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 11 2012, 03:31 PM (340 Views) | |
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 11 2012, 03:31 PM Post #1 |
THE Bald Assertion
|
Two things stood out to me when I heard the President's compromise solution concerning the requirement of contraception and abortion coverage in insurance provided by religious institutions. 1) Lots of strawmen arguments. The commentators on the radio programs I heard covering this debate kept referring to an argument that, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist. They went something like this, "Who are these religious people kidding? No one is forcing women to get contraception or have abortions," and "This program doesn't promote forced sterilization. Why are we even debating that?," and "Why the worry? The cost of contraception coverage is negligible. It's cheaper than pregnancy coverage. The employers shouldn't even be worried about the cost." 2) The President's compromise wasn't a compromise at all. Saying that the insurance companies have to cover the cost of contraception, not the employers at religious institutions, will simply divert the cost to the premium instead of the employer's co-pay for the specific coverage. Al Mohler writes more thorough thoughts in an article titled "What Compromise? This Policy Leaves Religious Liberty in Peril and Planned Parenthood Smiling." Thoughts? |
 |
 
|
| Marv | Feb 11 2012, 07:17 PM Post #2 |
THE EVIL ONE
|
The insurance they pay for will still have to cover contraception, right? I don't really get the difference. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 12 2012, 04:53 AM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
In related moves: Jehovahs Witnesses, citing first amendment rights, demand that no health insurance cover blood transfusions, Christian Scientists insist that all health insurance and health organizations be legally banned and a Jewish group says that insurance companies should force all males born to be circumcised. Also, President Obama says "Good Morning" and the Christian Church in America falls on floor in apoplectic fit and "confesses" Psalm 109:8 because he dared to sully the word "good" by using it. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 12 2012, 04:58 AM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
I remember when Kennedy was running, it was fear-mongered that the Pope would dictate US policy. Now, apparently the first amendment demands that the Pope should dictate US policy. Politics, weird bedfellows and all that. |
|
|
|
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 12 2012, 09:00 AM Post #5 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
'Cept it isn't about all insurance companies or all insurance coverage, is it? It's about forcing an employer to pay for specific practices that he/she/the organization find morally and/or religiously reprehensible. I mean, it's no secret, I'm against Universal health care coverage. But, that isn't the issue I'm addressing. PP-ACA is law... it passed, now we get to see what's in it and some of it is not good. I, personally, will neither pay for an abortion nor will I spend my money on abortifacient contraceptives, for anyone... ever. Would that I were an employer, I should not be forced to pay for either. Honestly, as an employer, I would rather not save the 15-17% than save the money and cover the deductible of aborting children. I understand that that could be too easily abused, which is why I have very little heartburn with limiting any exceptions to policy to recognized religious organizations (I do have heartburn, but PP-ACA is the law and I understand the issue) . If the Jehovah's Witnesses owned a business (as an organizations... say, a Jehovah's Witness bookstore) - no, they shouldn't be forced to pay the deductible for blood transfusions (not that that has anything to do with anyone else's coverage, only the employees of the Jehovah's Witnesses... so, that's not "no health insurance," it's only "health insurance they provide" - which is what makes your examples red herrings). If a non-Jehovah's Witness thinks that coverage for blood transfusions is necessary then they shouldn't work at that book store. Same same for abortion/abortifacient contraceptives. If a woman thinks that coverage for those is necessary then that woman shouldn't work at a Roman Catholic hospital, or at a Crisis Pregnancy Center Clinic (not Roman Catholic, btw), or at Crossway Publishing (not Roman Catholic), or at Southern Baptist Seminary (not Roman Catholic), or at Westminster Seminary (not Roman Catholic), or at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Tennessee (not Roman Catholic), or Veritas Christian Schools (not Roman Catholic).
If I didn't make it clear in the comments above, maybe Mohler, in the article I linked, can explain:
|
|
|
|
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 12 2012, 09:11 AM Post #6 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
That's just it, there really is no difference. The compromise (as Mohler says) "will resolve the issue only for those whose conscience can be resolved by an accounting maneuver." |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 12 2012, 09:35 AM Post #7 |
|
Deleted User
|
Ah yes, I'm surprised that Mohler being the astute non-partisan observer which he is - and this is certainly not about demonizing Obama himself or making the Mormon a more palatable vote in November - missed Gingrich spewing that Obama was going to persecute Catholics "the day after he is re-elected" or Santorum framing it as anti-Catholicism at work or Mike Huckabee saying "We are all Catholics today". Nope it's that evil Obama framing things. Yep. And Planned Parenthood, too? Oh the conspiracy! Providing health care for poor women! They should be shut down immediately. |
|
|
|
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 12 2012, 10:25 AM Post #8 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
Fine, political spewing on both sides, and the idiot politicians and mouth pieces on the right are just as wrong to frame it as a Roman Catholic issue. At the very least, I'm not framing it as a Roman Catholic issue.... ... and none of that changes these facts: 1) Abortifacient contraceptives and abortions abort. 2) Under the plan, as it was, employers (religious organizations) had to pay directly for these abortive services. 3) Now, under a compromised plan, the same employers will have to pay for these abortive services through an increased premium. You can frame it as providing health coverage for poor women all day long, but no-one is arguing that they don't want to provide health coverage for poor women under this plan - the argument is that they don't want to provide abortions for anyone, nor should they be required to do so. The subject of the thread is whether the compromise was a compromise (and, I suppose, whether the complaints that led to the compromise should even have been entertained). |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 12 2012, 11:32 AM Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
The point of this thread is the compromise a compromise? Well, nothing that guy in the White House does is going to be acceptable, even if it is right down the line written by the Right. So, no. Any agreement which does not involve the removal of Obama from the White House is worthy of the name compromise (which the right defines as everything which we demand and nothing of anything else). Side question: When did Political Compromise (upon which our Constitution was based and sought to put into our political rule) attain the exact same level of contempt as Theological Compromise? |
|
|
|
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 12 2012, 01:03 PM Post #10 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
Does that mean you think that this is an effective compromise on the specific issue of providing abortions and abortifacient contraceptives (and condoms, too, for the papist) under the religious organization's health coverage provider's plans? I ask because I made specific observations about the issue I raised, and all I can conclude from a plain reading of your responses so far is, "The Right Sux!" That can't be Side answer: Since the men that drafted the founding documents of our country began running for office. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · News and Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
5:22 PM May 22