Hello:
Can a church decide to be an insurance company and demand to be treated like a church?
excon
|
Hello:
Can a church decide to be an insurance company and demand to be treated like a church?
excon
If they want to be an insurance company, they are governed by the same laws as ALL the insurance companies are regulated, and governed by. What's the problem??
Hello tal:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Well, the Catholic church wants to be a hospital, but wants to treat its employees and its patients like they're getting ministered to instead of treated and paid for the work they do.
Specifically, the church won't cover insurance for its employees IF it pays for contraception, and it won't provide contraception services to its patients. Please note, tal, that we're not talking about abortion here. It's contraception...
excon
What are you complaining about? Free enterprise and the right to refuse service to anyone?
Ouch, I knew it would be something DUMB. But isn't this the same bunch that protects phedophiles from the law? What would you expect from these type of NUTS!!
These "NUTS" are widely acknowledged to have provided hospital services second to none. Care for the patient comes before technology - a philosophy sadly missing in far too many hospitals.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
They have a perfect right to decide which insurance carrier they should use. If the carrier violates their religious principles, they should not be compelled to use it.
If, on the other hand, the Church itself gets into the insurance business offering coverage to whomever, they should definitely be under the same rules of all insurance providers - and not expect to be treated as a religious organization.
A hospital and a insurance company are two different things. Insurance pays the hospital. In the early days, it was the Churches that provided a lot of the medical care and many of the first hospitals. All hospitals have the right to decide if they will or will not take public funds, ( reason many large private hospitals don't have to take charity cases) But many insurance companies pay so poorly, that many hospitals don't accept them, For doctor office, many don't take 1/2 or more of the insurance carriers. Or types of plans, I have to change doctors almost every time my old work place charged carriers.
In fact, did you know Blue Cross/Blue Shield, was a 501C3 tax exempt non profit association, till 1986. They were operating under the same protection. In fact back when they were a non profit, you did not have to be a licensed insurance agent to sell their products,
The Catholic Church has always had it's business/service arm and they are protected from many recent laws.
This is different to outright lawlessness in the protection of a criminal element in their ranks. They have not yet emerged from the middle ages.
The church is not the insurance company. But ;like all employers that provide the benefit ;they get to set the terms of their coverage. That was until Obama came along.
This is one of the biggest blunders the President has made. All around the country ,Priests read to their congregations their objection to this imposing on the moral foundations of the church. It will be the one thing that unites a divided Catholic population in opposition to the President .
Catholic hospitals are "non-profit" entities. For profit hospitals are still a fairly new concept, ex, but I've already pointed that out and that the church has provided health care services for centuries. You apparently have some mixed views of separation of church and state my friend.
Oh, and churches have also banded together to provide "insurance" coverage as well so to speak. Our city self-funds it's employee care as well, so who said "insurance" had to be a for-profit endeavor anyway?
The insurance companies!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yes, as are all for profit businesses, but making a profit is evil to the current regime and the occupiers which is why instead of encouraging success, they want the successful brought down. Unless of course you're an Obama donor, a union boss or Jon Corzine.
Making profit is not evil. What's evil is making profit by taking it from others, and having no fair exchange. You better look up the details of American Airlines emerging from bankruptcy, and the states fighting insurance companies the last 7 years to understand the business model of these companies better. California, and Kansas are the best illustrations of increasing profits at the expense of people.
It also illustrates the mad scramble by companies to raise prices fast while they can, as we have seen the last two years. Its interesting and eye opening.
Just on a personal note, I don't believe you take a rape victims choice for the day after contraception away from them. Or let a female having a difficult pregnancy, suffer for lack of proper care. That's basically what it comes down to.
Then again 90% of the congregation is likely on some form of birth control so the morality argument is spurious at best.
The morality argument is the government has no right to dictate church doctrine.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
If the customer agrees to pay the price for the product and receives that product, that's a fair exchange. What Corzine and his company did was not a fair exchange.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
No it doesn't, it comes down to the Obama administrator dictating church doctrine or getting out of the game for services and products that are readily and reasonably available elsewhere. Access to contraception is a spurious argument, PP would love to give your kids contraception.Quote:
Just on a personal note, I don't believe you take a rape victims choice for the day after contraception away from them. Or let a female having a difficult pregnancy, suffer for lack of proper care. That's basically what it comes down to.
It isn't. "Making available" is not imposing doctrine. Don't want an abortion? Then don't get one! Don't believe in contraception? Then don't buy any! But stop imposing your will on others.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Imagine the government telling the Orthodox Jews they can no longer segregate in temple based on sex. Imagine the government telling the Catholic church they must employ female clergy or conduct marriages for homosexuals.
Obama is indeed the high priest of the USA .
It darn sure is, NK. Requiring Catholic providers to furnish free birth control violates church doctrine, period. That, my friend is the height of "imposing your will on others", so spare us your protests.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
What protests? If the users of the insurance never require any birth control then it's a non-issue since it'll never be asked for, but the weird part is that catholics do use contraception as much as atheists or jews or any other segment of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
NK, it doesn't matter what the individual does, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to dictate church doctrine, period. It's not weird, it's black and white. Your argument is nothing but a straw man.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
They aren't dictating, they are saying that ALL insurance companies need to provide those certain services.
If my argument is a strawman then your Obama/hypocrite argument is also a strawman since the catholics are being incredible hypocrites by, one the one hand, making the argument you are making then on the other hand personally using contraception. You see no issue there at all?
Pope Paul VI 's 'Theology of the Body' makes it clear that artificial contraception is taboo. There is no compromise and it's outrageous that the state would impose values on the church that is antithetical to it's beliefs .
But it's OK that the congregation uses contraception right? Is that not a bigger issue? Should a test be given to the faithful or else refuse entry to the church?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What is it about "requiring" do you not understand? Does it have a different meaning in Canada? Are you also incapable of distinguishing between the "individual" church member and the "church"? Of course the church is full of hypocrites, there's always room for one more if you're interested, but member behavior does not negate church doctrine. There is no straw man it's black and white.
What part of "you are free to select which services to use" do you not understand? See we can all be condescending like you! Cool eh?
I love how you have absolutely no problem with the churches being full of hypocrites, like it's a normal everyday thing. But if there's a liberal hypocrite then WHOA!. time to start another thread! LOL! You're funny.
What part of "you are free to find employment elsewhere" don't you understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I never said I didn't have a problem with it, I acknowledged there is a problem - I'm still waiting for the left to acknowledge their hypocrites.Quote:
I love how you have absolutely no problem with the churches being full of hypocrites, like it's a normal everyday thing. But if there's a liberal hypocrite then WHOA!. time to start another thread! LOL! You're funny.
My point remains the same, having hypocrites in the church is no justification to allow this unconstitutional, unethical power grab. Nothing funny about it.
We are people with free will. The church does NOT approve of the congregation using artificial constraception;nor will it tolerate the dictates of the state on this matter . They will 'lay their necks to the sword ' first .Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Good luck with your outrage. But you should clean your own house first.
Nice try but still utterly, totally, completely, unequivocally irrelevant to the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
For you maybe because you turn a blind eye to it all but not for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Dude, I acknowledged hypocrites in the church twice, 'tis you turning the blind eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I repeat, whether a parishioner lives in perfect obedience to church doctrine is utterly, totally, completely, unequivocally irrelevant to the issue. The government is expressly forbidden from establishing church doctrine or preventing the free exercise - or not - of said doctrine.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
You are in no way being prohibited from exercising your religion. It's quite simple.
Karma what is your interest in religion you are an atheist
I enjoy spirited debate, don't you? Also it good to expose faulty arguments when they surface. I don't drive an F1 car but I enjoy watching the races.
Huh ? The church is forced to do something completely against it's tenents .Quote:
You are in no way being prohibited from exercising your religion. It's quite simple
a) The church is not an insurance company
b) once again, you are not being prohibited from practicing your beliefs
Where does it say the church is prohibited from offering contracts of insurance?
There is great confusion here over the roles of organisations and their relationship to government. As I understand it the government must not prohibit the establishment of any religion and is prohibited from establishing a state religion. I don't read that it is able to prohibit the church from commercial activities however it does have the power to regulate commercial activities. Commercial activities are not an inherent part of religious activities and so a church must be subject to regulation in this regard just as any other. Any commercial organisation is free to determine what services it provides and which it does not.
Where we have a problem is where the state in order to enforce policy ties subsidy to regulation and there by makes rules which contravene religious principles
We cannot regulate or force the church to do anything, nor should we, but insurance is a business, and therefore regulated. The church like everyone else can either buy it or not, and if the policy goes against there doctrines or whatever, then they don't have to deal with it, but they don't get to force companies to observe there doctrines, follow there beliefs, or limit in any way the free choice in a free society.
If its against the church, where do all those catholics get birth control? So why dictate what a private business offers in product? Buy it, or you don't just like the rest of us. Or pay the workers a wage that they can get their own insurance, and have there needs met under the law, no matter what religion you are.
Exemptions or not, I find it hypocrisy that they rail against the obamacare law when 24 states have the same law on the books about pay for the full range of reproductive services for women.
Pill bills: States that mandate contraceptive equality | Insure.com
The church has options already so what's the big deal now, and its funny to me that not all females are trying to prevent pregnancy, they are preventing certain cancers specific to females, or have high chances of complications due to pregnancy.Quote:
Twenty-four states require that health insurers cover contraceptives, up from 20 in 2004, according to the National Women's Law Center (NWLC). Generally, these state laws say that if a health insurance policy includes coverage for prescription drugs, it must also cover prescription contraceptives, according to NWLC. However, these mandates to not apply to self-insured plans and most states allow religious employers such as churches to refuse to carry contraceptive coverage.
Funny how you want to do away with the very place poor people and the uninsured go for over all female health care. And of course you blame Obama for an argument that's started way before he he became president and why do righties always say that any one who doesn't agree with them is dictating, but its okay for them to dictate sticking there nose into my freedom to chose.Quote:
No it doesn't, it comes down to the Obama administrator dictating church doctrine or getting out of the game for services and products that are readily and reasonably available elsewhere. Access to contraception is a spurious argument, PP would love to give your kids contraception
By my logic, more contraceptives, less abortions. Just for the record, I talked to my kids at puberty, and birth control, yes both male and female followed shortly after. Just in case the only true birth control, ABSTINANCE, didn't work.
I will write a letter to my Bishop today recommending that all Catholic Hospitals, Day Centers, Catholic nursing homes, Shelters shut down in a year rather than succumb to this unconstitutional dictate.
This country was originally settled by people escaping State interference in the affairs of religious institutions and compelling their values on the people of faith . The founders recognized this and wrote the establishment clause specifically to deny the state the power to impose rules that go against the values of religion.
This really is a line in the sand issue. Let's see the state replace all those services since that is the goal of the "progressive "socialists anyway.
There are 70 million Catholic voters Mr President . Maybe you want to reconsider ?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:13 AM. |