If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   So can a Jehovah's Witness institution deny coverage for blood transfusions? Can a Hindu organization deny bovine based insulin? Can a Jewish or Muslim group deny porcine heart valves?   (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 466
    More: Scary, Hindus, muslims, employment discrimination, Ohio Republican, insulin, Rob Portman, hospital system, institutions  
•       •       •

5638 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Feb 2012 at 4:37 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



466 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-09 04:51:44 PM
Why we aren't driving these cultists under our boot by now is beyond me.
 
2012-02-09 04:51:58 PM

Tatsuma: As an official spokesman of the Jewish World someone who knows what he's talking about:


We Jews are 100% fine with porcine heart valves, or any other life-saving operations that involve porcine products.

Thank you.


came here to say THIS
plus, jews and muslims have rules which allow you to basically break most or all the rules if saving lives are involved.
jews and muslims work during times when no one is SUPPOSED to work.
muslims are allowed to eat and drink water during fast periods of ramadan because of work or illness.
they are supposed to make it up at a later date ....

pretty sure that jews and muslims are allowed to eat pork if the alternative is DEATH. ...
this probably never comes up in the real world because muslims and jews live in the real world where they have access to stores and soup kitchens.

wait, what was the article actually about?
 
2012-02-09 04:51:59 PM
Can a Scientology institution deny coverage for all mental health issues?
 
MFK
2012-02-09 04:52:33 PM
is anyone else sick to death of having to account for peoples' Imaginary Friends when making actual, real-world policy decisions?
 
2012-02-09 04:52:42 PM

muck4doo: It looks to me like the only people complaining are people in Catholic leadership. You know, the people who swore an oath of celibacy to be in their positions.


No, I'm a pro-choice catholic and I agree with those who are complaining about this proposal.

Why shouldn't an employer be able to provide the coverage it wants? In response to the headline, my answer would be an absolute yes to all.

If I own a company and the healthcare coverage I voluntarily provide to my employees includes a provision that no sevices provided on Tuesdays will be covered, that's my prerogative. Don't like it, dont enroll.
 
2012-02-09 04:52:47 PM
yes, to all of those

you aren't entitled to have the coverage that you want, nor should companies be forced to provide specific coverage.

if the company doesn't provide you what you want, go to another company or get private insurance.
 
2012-02-09 04:54:15 PM
It's times like these that make ashamed to be a Catholic sometimes.
 
2012-02-09 04:54:28 PM

namatad: wait, what was the article actually about?


Controlling women.
 
2012-02-09 04:55:13 PM

Serious Black: Can a Scientology institution deny coverage for all mental health issues?


Isn't Scientology in the DSM?
 
2012-02-09 04:55:13 PM

muck4doo: Mugato: As someone who knew a girl very close to me who was trapped in that farking cult, fark the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their refusal of blood transfusions for their children is only one of their backward ass offenses. But that's not really what this is about so I digress.

There are some things I like about them, but that, and the whole "shunning" thing of people who leave is a bit extreme.


So if you want them to stop bothering you, join and then leave.
 
2012-02-09 04:55:33 PM

Tatsuma: As an official spokesman of the Jewish World someone who knows what he's talking about:


We Jews are 100% fine with porcine heart valves, or any other life-saving operations that involve porcine products.

Thank you.


You're the expert, so I'll take your word for it. I have to admit that I'm a bit puzzled. It seems, to me, that if it's unclean to eat something, it'd be even worse to permanently incorporate it into your body as a major organ.

But, hey: your religion, your rules. They don't have to make sense to me.
 
2012-02-09 04:55:39 PM

I Have The Touch of a Shocked Monkey: It's a good point, and honestly I was baptized at 13, but I was already aware of all the excommunication procedures, and it's generally a given that you get baptized knowing what happens if you decide later in life to renounce the religion. However, you are right in that some get baptized too early due to pressures from parents, and that kind of baptism I don't approve of (and neither does the Bible), but like I mentioned earlier, this is usually the minority. Witness children usually do get baptized around 14 and 15.


what is the point of baptizing at 13-15??
why isnt it delayed until 18+?
why isnt it required that the person not be living at home?

I hated the fact that I was forced to have my confirmation while in grade school (catholic equivalent to late baptism)
I was forced to reaffirm my belief???? ROFL

I wonder how many kiddies be baptized at 13 REALLY REALLY believe or are doing it because their parents told them to STFU and do it. I also wonder if the kiddies are able to affirm this faith, they should also be treated as adults, allowed to vote, drink, procreate, right?? how would one be rational and logical, but not the others??
 
2012-02-09 04:55:42 PM
We all know the obvious solution. Employers stop providing health insurance, and let everyone get their own coverage. If only there was an entity large enough to provide health care for all the citizens. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
 
2012-02-09 04:56:41 PM

serpent_sky: NowhereMon: SphericalTime: it's up to the conscience of the individual to make the determination for him or herself.


This bears repeating!

Unfortunately, I actually heard a Representative from Long Island (NY) last night say this:

He was asked what about non-Catholic people that certainly work there and their rights. His answer? "They can get a job somewhere else, nobody makes them work there."

I wonder if he'd have the same answer for the Catholic doctor at a public hospital refusing an abortion or the morning after pill to a rape victim or a pharmacist refusing to dispense properly prescribed birth control.



The law already states doctors and pharmacists need to do what they're told to do by their employers, regardless of religious beliefs. Logically the Catholic Church should be granted the same employers' protections and rights to put rules on their employees.

Oh, wait...I forgot that knee-jerk anger and illogical arguments carry more weight when making rules. Logic and consistency with opinions have no place when contraception and/or the magic of women's hoo-hahs are involved.
 
2012-02-09 04:57:02 PM

serpent_sky: SphericalTime: That's excellent news for the 98% of Catholic women who use birth control.

All of whom should be speaking out.

Why do people like me have to fight their battle for them?


speaking out about what?
no one is preventing someone from buying birth control.

the only question is whether a company has to provide insurance that covers birth control.

I know people want to just keep asking for things and getting free stuff, but a company should not be forced to provide specific coverage if they don't want to.
 
2012-02-09 04:57:14 PM

I Have The Touch of a Shocked Monkey: It's a good point, and honestly I was baptized at 13, but I was already aware of all the excommunication procedures, and it's generally a given that you get baptized knowing what happens if you decide later in life to renounce the religion. However, you are right in that some get baptized too early due to pressures from parents, and that kind of baptism I don't approve of (and neither does the Bible), but like I mentioned earlier, this is usually the minority. Witness children usually do get baptized around 14 and 15.


My connection with this issue is obviously too personal so there's really no point in commenting further.
 
2012-02-09 04:57:25 PM
ok let's call it ovulation control pills.

much like the term marriage, birth seems to rile these tards up too.
 
2012-02-09 04:57:46 PM
In Islam consumption of pork products is prohibited.

Implantation of pork parts != consumption
 
2012-02-09 04:58:47 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: muck4doo: It looks to me like the only people complaining are people in Catholic leadership. You know, the people who swore an oath of celibacy to be in their positions.

No, I'm a pro-choice catholic and I agree with those who are complaining about this proposal.

Why shouldn't an employer be able to provide the coverage it wants? In response to the headline, my answer would be an absolute yes to all.

If I own a company and the healthcare coverage I voluntarily provide to my employees includes a provision that no sevices provided on Tuesdays will be covered, that's my prerogative. Don't like it, dont enroll.


Health coverage is a part of the employee's compensation package; they are already paying for it. Why should an employer decide what the employee does with their compensation?

Alternatively, would you give the part of the employee's compensation that would normally be spent on health care directly to them, so they can choose the plan that suits them the best instead of being forced on to a "one size fits all" corporate plan?

What about employees who are not adherents to the employer's primary belief system? Why is it acceptable for an employer to force his morality on his employees?
 
2012-02-09 04:58:54 PM
OMG federal laws banning marijuana are open warfare against the Rastafarian religion?
 
2012-02-09 04:59:00 PM
Given that there's already an exemption for organizations who employ essentially entirely individuals with the same moral objection, why would an organization who employs a large number of non-objecting employees need an exemption?

Should the church decide they don't want to give priests and nuns and deacons the option of having a policy that provides contraception I sort of get, but there's aboslutely no reason for them to not provide a policy with contraception to employees of a large, federally funded hospital or to faculty at a local school.

Being employed by a religious organization is not the same as being a member of said religious organization.
 
2012-02-09 05:00:35 PM

tenpoundsofcheese:
I know people want to just keep asking for things and getting free stuff


Yeah just look at all those corporate lobbyists in Washington.
 
2012-02-09 05:00:49 PM
Seems like the Catholic church will be left with one of two choices. Either it will hold its nose and pay for something that is incredibly repugnant to it, or it will stop employing people to provide health care. I'm not sure I see how society wins with either choice.
 
2012-02-09 05:01:56 PM

vernonFL: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Jeremiah 1:5


So you're saying he's omnipotent but can't break a condom?
 
2012-02-09 05:02:09 PM

error 303: Given that there's already an exemption for organizations who employ essentially entirely individuals with the same moral objection, why would an organization who employs a large number of non-objecting employees need an exemption?

Should the church decide they don't want to give priests and nuns and deacons the option of having a policy that provides contraception I sort of get, but there's aboslutely no reason for them to not provide a policy with contraception to employees of a large, federally funded hospital or to faculty at a local school.

Being employed by a religious organization is not the same as being a member of said religious organization.


As I understand it, the exemption is for churches and churches only; something like a Catholic hospital does not qualify.
 
2012-02-09 05:03:05 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Tatsuma: As an official spokesman of the Jewish World someone who knows what he's talking about:


We Jews are 100% fine with porcine heart valves, or any other life-saving operations that involve porcine products.

Thank you.

You're the expert, so I'll take your word for it. I have to admit that I'm a bit puzzled. It seems, to me, that if it's unclean to eat something, it'd be even worse to permanently incorporate it into your body as a major organ.

But, hey: your religion, your rules. They don't have to make sense to me.



I was told the whole kosher thing is a reminder of traditions, a way to bring thinking about the religion and God into your life every day, not a "you're going to hell" deal.

/not Jewish
 
2012-02-09 05:03:24 PM

qorkfiend: For fark's sake


Literally
 
2012-02-09 05:03:30 PM

simplicimus: FirstNationalBastard: muck4doo: It looks to me like the only people complaining are people in Catholic leadership. You know, the people who swore an oath of celibacy to be in their positions.

That's "celibacy" with an asterisk, an asterisk that, oddly enough, may resemble a young boy's anus.

celibacy means not married, chaste means not screwing around.


Celibacy includes marriage and sexual relations. Strictly speaking you could vow never to marry yet still have lots of sex -- that wouldn't make you celibate, obviously.
 
2012-02-09 05:03:43 PM
Don't be silly, none of those are real religions. There's no Jesus in them.
 
2012-02-09 05:03:55 PM

Mugato: I Have The Touch of a Shocked Monkey: It's a good point, and honestly I was baptized at 13, but I was already aware of all the excommunication procedures, and it's generally a given that you get baptized knowing what happens if you decide later in life to renounce the religion. However, you are right in that some get baptized too early due to pressures from parents, and that kind of baptism I don't approve of (and neither does the Bible), but like I mentioned earlier, this is usually the minority. Witness children usually do get baptized around 14 and 15.

My connection with this issue is obviously too personal so there's really no point in commenting further.


I'll respectfully quiet down on this too. I just wanted to try to clarify. And sorry about the original point of anger that you mentioned at first, honestly no one deserves to be forced into making such important decisions in life.
 
2012-02-09 05:04:13 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: vernonFL: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Jeremiah 1:5

So you're saying he's omnipotent but can't break a condom?


Or we are all prophets?
 
2012-02-09 05:04:40 PM

qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: muck4doo: It looks to me like the only people complaining are people in Catholic leadership. You know, the people who swore an oath of celibacy to be in their positions.

No, I'm a pro-choice catholic and I agree with those who are complaining about this proposal.

Why shouldn't an employer be able to provide the coverage it wants? In response to the headline, my answer would be an absolute yes to all.

If I own a company and the healthcare coverage I voluntarily provide to my employees includes a provision that no sevices provided on Tuesdays will be covered, that's my prerogative. Don't like it, dont enroll.

Health coverage is a part of the employee's compensation package; they are already paying for it. Why should an employer decide what the employee does with their compensation?

But the employee gets to decide which plan they are offering. Different plans have different costs that usually heavily subsidized by the employer. Don't like the plan? Don't enroll, get private insurance or go get another job You aren't entitled to a health plan that covers X, whether that X is prescription coverage or birth control or infertility treatments, or arthroscopic knee surgery, etc.

Alternatively, would you give the part of the employee's compensation that would normally be spent on health care directly to them, so they can choose the plan that suits them the best instead of being forced on to a "one size fits all" corporate plan?

Many companies do this.

 
2012-02-09 05:04:56 PM
What is the difference between giving money to an insurance company to pay for contraception, and giving money to an employee to pay for contraception? If she wants it, she's going to get it. I don't understand how you avoid catholic hell by dicking your employees out of $80 a month.
 
2012-02-09 05:05:24 PM
Here's a reasonable compromise on the whole issue:

You can refuse to cover your employees for birth control, sterilization, abortion...hell, anything.

And you get exactly jack and shiat in the way of federal funds for anything, ever. No contracts, no grants, no federal education funds, no federal hospital money, no Medicare funds, no Medicaid funds.

There. Your rights are no longer being disrespected.
 
2012-02-09 05:07:03 PM
Right wing liars say that contraception goes against the belief's of Catholics. It doesn't. More than 90% of American Catholic adults over the age of 20 have used contraception. Clearly contraception is not against the beliefs of millions of Catholics. Sure, it might be against the beliefs of the 350 or so Bishops (in the US) but they are out numbered by the rank and file Catholics 100,000 to 1. It is an undisputable fact that contraception is not in conflict with the belief of actual real practicing Catholics but rather against the beliefs of a tiny number of pedophile monks.
 
2012-02-09 05:07:19 PM

qorkfiend: error 303: Given that there's already an exemption for organizations who employ essentially entirely individuals with the same moral objection, why would an organization who employs a large number of non-objecting employees need an exemption?

Should the church decide they don't want to give priests and nuns and deacons the option of having a policy that provides contraception I sort of get, but there's aboslutely no reason for them to not provide a policy with contraception to employees of a large, federally funded hospital or to faculty at a local school.

Being employed by a religious organization is not the same as being a member of said religious organization.

As I understand it, the exemption is for churches and churches only; something like a Catholic hospital does not qualify.


Which is why the Catholic Churches are lobbying to include things like hospitals as well.

To me the whole thing is stupid and it baffles me that we're arguing about birth control in 2012!

The Catholic Church has more important things to worry about than stupid crap like this.

/Catholic
 
2012-02-09 05:07:58 PM

ruinevil: In Islam consumption of pork products is prohibited.

Implantation of pork parts != consumption


Lawyer-speak. They didn't have "implantation" back in the day, did they?
 
2012-02-09 05:09:15 PM

TheWhoppah: Right wing liars say that contraception goes against the belief's of Catholics. It doesn't. More than 90% of American Catholic adults over the age of 20 have used contraception. Clearly contraception is not against the beliefs of millions of Catholics. Sure, it might be against the beliefs of the 350 or so Bishops (in the US) but they are out numbered by the rank and file Catholics 100,000 to 1. It is an undisputable fact that contraception is not in conflict with the belief of actual real practicing Catholics but rather against the beliefs of a tiny number of pedophile monks.


It's stuff like this which shows how out of touch the Catholic Church is with contemporary society.

Well that and stuff like this.
 
2012-02-09 05:09:20 PM
If a little pill can prevent God from doing something He really wants to do, then either it's a helluva pill or He's not much of a God.

THIS

As a 48 yr old woman I'm getting to the point where pregnancy would be physically dangerous for me. Am I to tell my husband no more sex forever to avoid this risk? (Could I even survive no sex forever?) How long do you think marriages would last if this was the only option? What is the point of covering viagra if the wife can't have sex anyway? Why are they encouraging men to cheat? WHY DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HATE MARRIAGE?!
 
2012-02-09 05:09:30 PM
You can run your private church anyway you want (well, not really, you're still subject to the laws of the land). When you decide to run a school or hospital and start employing the public at large, it becomes a secular institution. An employer with religious ties does not become exempt or get special rules from any other employer. They all have to pay minimum wage, subject to EEO laws, pay FICA taxes, etc.


And on an aside, FARK YOU to anyone trying to restrict the freedom and liberty of a woman on the decision of when she wants to have a family.
 
2012-02-09 05:09:52 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: yes, to all of those

you aren't entitled to have the coverage that you want, nor should companies be forced to provide specific coverage.

if the company doesn't provide you what you want, go to another company or get private insurance.


I'm still getting up to speed on this, so maybe you can help me out a bit.

Is the issue that these Catholic institutions are being granted federal funds and that one of the conditions of that funding is that they have to provide comprehensive insurance?

If so, I don't agree with your conclusion. Government money has always come with strings attached and there's nothing that compels you to take it.

On the other hand, if this is their private money, I'd reluctantly be willing to accept the argument that they should have discretion with it comes to choosing their insurance policies.

I want to be clear that I think that it's wrong of them to deny their employees that coverage, especially when their employing non-Catholic workers, but I'm not convinced that I want the government to be involved.
 
2012-02-09 05:10:00 PM

James!: EnviroDude: DamnYankees: EnviroDude: Is health insurance a "god given right", an entitlement, or an employee benefit?

The latter 2. The first one doesn't exist.

The constitution disagrees. We have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.....

Get a load of the guy who can't tell a declaration from a constitution!


Given today's police state, does they even matter anymore?
 
2012-02-09 05:11:20 PM

DeltaPunch: simplicimus: FirstNationalBastard: muck4doo: It looks to me like the only people complaining are people in Catholic leadership. You know, the people who swore an oath of celibacy to be in their positions.

That's "celibacy" with an asterisk, an asterisk that, oddly enough, may resemble a young boy's anus.

celibacy means not married, chaste means not screwing around.

Celibacy includes marriage and sexual relations. Strictly speaking you could vow never to marry yet still have lots of sex -- that wouldn't make you celibate, obviously.


That's the current, not the original, definition. The deal back in the middle ages was that the first born son was to become a priest, so the family holdings would go to the Church after he died. Legitimate male heirs would complicate the deal.
 
2012-02-09 05:11:38 PM

Mugato: Lawyer-speak. They didn't have "implantation" back in the day, did they?


I'm pretty sure there's something in Leviticus or Deuteronomy about uncircumcised heathen pork swords.
 
2012-02-09 05:12:57 PM
The problem here is that people confuse freedom of religion with freedom of religious expression.

Your freedom ends where my nose begins. Religion does not bridge that gap.

If your religion prevents you from following the rules then don't play the game. It is not the governments' job to bend the rules or look the other way for you to play the game.
 
2012-02-09 05:13:17 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: muck4doo: It looks to me like the only people complaining are people in Catholic leadership. You know, the people who swore an oath of celibacy to be in their positions.

No, I'm a pro-choice catholic and I agree with those who are complaining about this proposal.

Why shouldn't an employer be able to provide the coverage it wants? In response to the headline, my answer would be an absolute yes to all.

If I own a company and the healthcare coverage I voluntarily provide to my employees includes a provision that no sevices provided on Tuesdays will be covered, that's my prerogative. Don't like it, dont enroll.

Health coverage is a part of the employee's compensation package; they are already paying for it. Why should an employer decide what the employee does with their compensation?

But the employee gets to decide which plan they are offering. Different plans have different costs that usually heavily subsidized by the employer. Don't like the plan? Don't enroll, get private insurance or go get another job You aren't entitled to a health plan that covers X, whether that X is prescription coverage or birth control or infertility treatments, or arthroscopic knee surgery, etc.

Alternatively, would you give the part of the employee's compensation that would normally be spent on health care directly to them, so they can choose the plan that suits them the best instead of being forced on to a "one size fits all" corporate plan?

Many companies do this.


Exactly. You have the option of enrolling in a plan offered by the employer. If you don't want the coverage, you are free to refuse it. Just like you are free to quit the job if you don't like the compensation or plans offered.

I support Obama, think he's right on most issues, and hope he wins this fall, but he's wrong on this one.
 
2012-02-09 05:13:40 PM

dahmers love zombie: Here's a reasonable compromise on the whole issue:

You can refuse to cover your employees for birth control, sterilization, abortion...hell, anything.

And you get exactly jack and shiat in the way of federal funds for anything, ever. No contracts, no grants, no federal education funds, no federal hospital money, no Medicare funds, no Medicaid funds.

.


so what you are saying is that if you want a grant for something like providing cancer screenings to poor people, that you have to do everything the government wants you to do?

you a sick fark.
 
2012-02-09 05:13:56 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: want to be clear that I think that it's wrong of them to deny their employees that coverage, especially when their employing non-Catholic workers, but I'm not convinced that I want the government to be involved



Some people didn't want the govt to tell business owners that they had to serve black people.

Some people didn't want the govt to tell states they had to let women vote.


Sometimes people need the govt to stand up for them because the rest of the country is too lazy to do what's right...
 
2012-02-09 05:14:34 PM
Hey, if my religion doesn't believe in workplace safety, can the business run by my church ignore OSHA rules? What if we believe that hard work by children is a key element of spiritual enlightenment... can we violate child labor laws? What if Catholic bishops believe it is ok for a priest to rape little boys? Can Catholic businesses protect pedophiles?
 
2012-02-09 05:14:59 PM
Birth control is just the beginning. First, they control your body, then they control your mind. The police state isn't far from becoming a reality. When Obama and his minions have finished wiping our minds or any individual free thought, we'll all whistle happily as we head for the gas chambers.
 
Displayed 50 of 466 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report