Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-30-2012, 12:44 PM   #121
Veteran Member
riff's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,408
QuoteOriginally posted by metaglypto Quote
If the abortion is a form of birth control (contraception), it violates some religious institutions beliefs which are protected under the First Amendment.
I don't believe anyone has said one must have an abortion regardless of their religious beliefs. An employer is just that, an employer, not a dictator of what is and what is not religiously medically acceptable for employees.

03-30-2012, 01:00 PM   #122
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 12,416
Who owns health insurance in the USA? If it is provided as a benefit of working for an employer, then it is part of the pay package, just like any other benefit, and the employer is merely the administrator of it, and therefore has no business injecting his or her religious beliefs into the decision about what is covered and what isn't.
An employer telling me how to spend my money is quite a violation of civil rights and human rights. If I want my benefit package to include birth control, that is my business, since it is my health care.
The whole concept of group health policies is socialism at it's core (yes, I know, Americans hate socialism until it benefits them). Socialism is all about compromise, since it puts the good of the group ahead of the wishes of the individual.
One of the concerns I would have with an employer dictating what health care is available to me based on religious grounds is they might decide that health care in general is against their beliefs (if you get sick or injured, it is God's will), and cancel the benefit entirely.
This really really could be viewed as a thin edge of the wedge issue.
What "Obamacare" is doing isn't getting involved in separation of church and state, it is not allowing one person to dictate their religious beliefs onto another person.

Last edited by Wheatfield; 03-30-2012 at 01:05 PM.
03-30-2012, 01:06 PM   #123
Veteran Member
riff's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,408
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
it is not allowing one person to dictate their religious beliefs onto another person.
Wait a sec, ain't that un 'merican.
03-30-2012, 01:46 PM   #124
Senior Member
metaglypto's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Umatilla, Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
One of the concerns I would have with an employer dictating what health care is available to me based on religious grounds is they might decide that health care in general is again
Okay I will attempt to clarify my stand on this issue and regardless of what anyone is trying to imply, it is my stand. Then I am going to get out of it. If you disagree with me, then we agree to disagree. I will be taking myself out of this thread, and possibly others. My initial reason for joining Pentax Forums was for sharing of ideas and information about photography, not a political discussion. Mind you this is not sour grapes, more I just don't have the time to be taking on so many different discussions. I enjoy the exchanges, and the challenging of ideas, I learn a lot this way. It forces me to validate and research my own as well as others suppositions. I just don't have the time for so many discussions.

If a "church", owns a separate business, such as a thrift store, that is not exempt from paying taxes, then I agree with your stand. OTOH, if a church, that is the church proper, the sanctuary, etc., employs a pastor, elders, secretaries, and others necessary for the running of the church and it's official church functions, then the church enjoys protection under the First Amendment. Accordingly the government has no right to tax, regulate, or mandate policy other than human rights policy. This has been law and recognized in this country for quite awhile. I am not positive as to where federal law and state law come into play, but I know that "church" in the state of Oregon is not even required to pay unemployment, though some of them do voluntarily. As to a federal mandate that they carry health insurance that covers procedures they consider to be contrary to their moral code, that is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

03-30-2012, 01:56 PM   #125
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,066
As mentioned, religious institutions would be exempted. This seems sensible to me, too, so we agree after all! *shakes hand*

Here’s the federal Affordable Care Act’s definition of a “religious employer” who would be exempt from the mandate to offer contraceptive coverage to employees:
A religious employer is one that: *(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii). *45 C.F.R. §147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B)

Please don't stop posting here by the way, it would be boring if we all thought exactly the same way.

Last edited by ihasa; 03-30-2012 at 02:03 PM.
03-30-2012, 02:20 PM   #126
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Tie in to a few threads......
Crooks and Liars
QuoteQuote:
Wendell Potter spent 20 years as top executive with CIGNA. He wrote “Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans”. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act - with a decision expected in June - the insurance industry whistleblower says the industry’s real goal is not to repeal the law, but to defeat Democrats in November.

Wendell Potter: “They don’t want the bill - quite honestly - to be overturned or repealed. They want the bill to go forward with the individual mandate intact. But what they want to do is to get people to vote out the Democrats who voted for the bill so that they’ll have more friends in Congress to strip out the consumer protections.”

Potter says for-profit health insurers are killing health health care and their unsustainable system will implode within a few years. That’s the view he got from the CIGNA corporate ladder.

"The higher up that ladder I climbed the more I could see what these companies do to meet Wall Street’s profit expectations. And most of the big insurance companies are now for-profit companies. They cancel people’s health insurance when they get sick. They refuse to sell coverage to people who need coverage. They price policies so high that small businesses can no longer afford care. They are spending less and less of our premium dollars on our health care and more and more to reward shareholders and senior executives.”
03-30-2012, 02:44 PM   #127
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,209
QuoteOriginally posted by metaglypto Quote
Okay I will attempt to clarify my stand on this issue and regardless of what anyone is trying to imply, it is my stand. Then I am going to get out of it. If you disagree with me, then we agree to disagree. I will be taking myself out of this thread, and possibly others. My initial reason for joining Pentax Forums was for sharing of ideas and information about photography, not a political discussion. Mind you this is not sour grapes, more I just don't have the time to be taking on so many different discussions. I enjoy the exchanges, and the challenging of ideas, I learn a lot this way. It forces me to validate and research my own as well as others suppositions. I just don't have the time for so many discussions.

If a "church", owns a separate business, such as a thrift store, that is not exempt from paying taxes, then I agree with your stand. OTOH, if a church, that is the church proper, the sanctuary, etc., employs a pastor, elders, secretaries, and others necessary for the running of the church and it's official church functions, then the church enjoys protection under the First Amendment. Accordingly the government has no right to tax, regulate, or mandate policy other than human rights policy. This has been law and recognized in this country for quite awhile. I am not positive as to where federal law and state law come into play, but I know that "church" in the state of Oregon is not even required to pay unemployment, though some of them do voluntarily. As to a federal mandate that they carry health insurance that covers procedures they consider to be contrary to their moral code, that is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
I could of course be wrong but I thought this was exactly the case in the US under the new health care act, a worker at a church is not the same as a worker at a hospital or apartment bldg owned by the church.
03-30-2012, 05:00 PM   #128
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 12,416
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
I could of course be wrong but I thought this was exactly the case in the US under the new health care act, a worker at a church is not the same as a worker at a hospital or apartment bldg owned by the church.
It's a deflection. The question I asked, and did not get an answer to is quite simple:
Who owns the health insurance?
Is it the employer or the employee?
If it is covered by the employer as part of a pay package, then the employee would own it, the same as they own their paycheque, and the employer has no business tinkering with it.
What I am seeing is employers who are using the 1st amendment as a cudgel to bully their employees into a particular behaviour. It's just another reason for why for profit health insurance that must be purchased is an idea whose time has passed. It's time for the USA to join the rest of the developed world and move towards a single payer system that doesn't bully people into particular behaviour patterns that they have no business dictating.

03-30-2012, 05:06 PM   #129
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,829
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
It's a deflection. The question I asked, and did not get an answer to is quite simple:
Who owns the health insurance?
Is it the employer or the employee?
If it is covered by the employer as part of a pay package, then the employee would own it, the same as they own their paycheque, and the employer has no business tinkering with it.....
Exactly. However, to me, what this points out is the moral bankruptcy of having the employer pick health care for employees. We should have a single payer system or some system that allows individuals to buy the same coverage as employers can. I don't know any good reason why I am in the business of picking health care for the people who work for me, but under the current system, that is how it is expected that they will be covered. Religion aside, what business do I have telling adults who happen to work for me what health care they should receive?
03-30-2012, 08:45 PM   #130
Veteran Member
riff's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,408
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Religion aside, what business do I have telling adults who happen to work for me what health care they should receive?
I'd agree except I would not leave religion aside.
03-31-2012, 07:01 AM   #131
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,829
QuoteOriginally posted by riff Quote
I'd agree except I would not leave religion aside.
Perhaps I should have said, "religion or not."
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
canada, care, countries, health, healthcare, infant, mortality, system, systems, u.s
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USA Health care redux jeffkrol General Talk 78 02-22-2011 07:58 AM
Let's not forget about health care jeffkrol General Talk 32 11-04-2010 01:41 PM
Another Fiasco With Health Care Artesian General Talk 16 10-10-2010 09:35 AM
Obama's health care law will increase the nation's health care costs Artesian General Talk 187 05-20-2010 10:18 AM
Interesting op-ed regarding the health care debate deadwolfbones General Talk 15 11-25-2009 07:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top