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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:33 PM. |