PPACA and the Catholic temper tantrum.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Is a Hospital that practices policies like these extend my life? If I have a living will saving "Do Not Resuscitate or a DNR" will they still keep me alive raking in the federal dollars.

Barney

Originally Posted by Zeke

Do you imply the opposite of Logan's Run?

Originally Posted by Oerets

I just asking, if you take to the extreme, the belief that all life is sacred this would seem a likely next step. If not then may I ask why?

Barney

Imply away, cuz it's the Zombie Troof.

Ever hung out in a nursin' home before? My mother did volunteer work in one for many years and ended up there herself when Azheimers put the zap on her. On the occasions that she would have a lucid moment and realize where she was she would go berserk.....cuz she knew what the deal was.

We keep old folks alive well past their expiration date. Yeah, part of it's cuz we family members love'em and have a hard time lettin' go. And part of it's cuz of that $9,000 a month rent check the man in the suit gets..........Ayup.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Charles

That's why I suggested a deduction in payments based on this issue alone, not an elimination of all payments.

Since federal funding is your expertise, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm assuming that payments are based on services rendered, so why not offer an opt out clause on this particular one?

Not being a woman, I don't see that abortion or birth control are any of my business. Then again, I don't see that attempting to force people to violate their moral principles are any of my business either.

There is enough hate in this world without creating even more. This should be a non issue.

Chas

It was a non-issue to begin with-----the pointy hats over at Our Lady of the Imaculate Conception just haven't figured it out yet. They're worried about a rule that nearly none of their flock pays any attention to anyways.

Maybe that's what really bothers them, deep down inside.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by barbara

Dave and DRay, I work with federal funding (yes, I'm one of those people who spend your hard earned tax dollars) and I can remember the public outcry when Bush pushed faith based social programs. Fact is, organized religions, not just the Catholics, have been receiving federal funding for decades for various reasons and they have the same rules as any other organization that accepts federal funds.
This whole issue is simply being blown up for the sake of politics. That people get caught up in it is an indicator of how easy it is to sway the masses. (pun not intentional).

Yeah, I was one of those crying out. Not only do they not pay any taxes, but we pay them to exist and run their businesses. Ahhhhhh, the Biblethumper Bailout, what a beautiful racket.

Do churches now get to contribute to political campaigns? Wouldn't surprise me at all if they do.

Dave

[Charles]

Originally Posted by barbara

Chas, just because birth control options are covered in a health plan doesn't mean a woman has to use them. My insurance covers prostate exams, but I'm not likely to take advantage of that benefit.

I think you have missed my point.

Whether right or wrong, birth control is a moral issue for millions of people. The cost of such isn't the object. The fact that if you take ANY federal payments compels you to perform an act which you find morally repulsive is.

Perhaps we should eliminate government funding altogether, which is basically only social engineering.

Chas

[Big_Bill]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Newt has deeply held convictions? Who knew.

Of course Newt has deeply held convictions, but just one town at a time

You don't think he's a full time hypocrite, do you ?

Bill

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Charles

I think you have missed my point.

Whether right or wrong, birth control is a moral issue for millions of people. The cost of such isn't the object. The fact that if you take ANY federal payments compels you to perform an act which you find morally repulsive is.

Perhaps we should eliminate government funding altogether, which is basically only social engineering.

Chas

That I definitely could support. Not only does the federal intrusion engender a number of moral dilemmas, but it also gives the government a big club to whack over the head of those receiving the funding. The federal government, once it funds something, uses the funding to compel individuals, states, and institutions to act in a manner commensurate with that funding. Social engineering via "nudging" is not congruent with the ideal of liberty.

[Big_Bill]

Originally Posted by Charles

I won't go so far as to say this issue is completely politics, just mostly politics. It's also not an issue I would pick to engage in, there are plenty of others.

But if someone doesn't want to administer a medication to me due their moral beliefs, I would respect them.

And take my business down the street. That way we can both be happy.

Now concerning Federal funding. Since app 30% of the population has a problem with this, why not include an opt out clause which comes with a reduction in payments which reflects the actual costs of this particular service?

That way everybody can be happy. And it will no longer be a political issue.

Chas

Great post Chas,

I'm with you 100%, if they feel that they can not comply with a service, don't make them, but don't pay them for that service either.

+1.

Bill

[Big_Bill]

While I do not believe in "man made religions", our Constitution does.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

And Obama and his advisor's, screwed the pooch. ANY invasion of the free exercise of religion, is totally illegal, ANY.

And those that run ANY religions can clearly see the direction Obamas administration is heading. If the Government is allowed in any way, to intervene with the beliefs of any religious group, all of their beliefs will be threatened. And this has every religion paying attention now.

And anyone that believes that the Government "cares for our health and wellbeing" should think about the death tolls in military actions today, not too much. We are just a way to a means, expendable.

If they, Government, can dictate change in an established religions teachings, they will know that they can dictate anything to anyone, anytime they wish. This is just a test.

Just think, if the Government can limit, direct or abridge and of our amendments, what will be next, and where will it stop ?

Just look at how they have been attacking the Second Amendment, and still are.

thinkaboutit

Bill

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Big_Bill

While I do not believe in "man made religions", our Constitution does.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

And Obama and his advisor's, screwed the pooch. ANY invasion of the free exercise of religion, is totally illegal, ANY.

And those that run ANY religions can clearly see the direction Obamas administration is heading. If the Government is allowed in any way, to intervene with the beliefs of any religious group, all of their beliefs will be threatened. And this has every religion paying attention now.

And anyone that believes that the Government "cares for our health and wellbeing" should think about the death tolls in military actions today, not too much. We are just a way to a means, expendable.

If they, Government, can dictate change in an established religions teachings, they will know that they can dictate anything to anyone, anytime they wish. This is just a test.

Just think, if the Government can limit, direct or abridge and of our amendments, what will be next, and where will it stop ?

Just look at how they have been attacking the Second Amendment, and still are.

thinkaboutit

Bill

Government has all sorts of involvement in issues involving contradictions between religious teachings and public law. For example, a Muslim in America (or a Mormon, for that matter) can only take one wife. How do you feel about this government intrusion into religious freedom?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Big_Bill

While I do not believe in "man made religions", our Constitution does.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

And Obama and his advisor's, screwed the pooch. ANY invasion of the free exercise of religion, is totally illegal, ANY.

And those that run ANY religions can clearly see the direction Obamas administration is heading. If the Government is allowed in any way, to intervene with the beliefs of any religious group, all of their beliefs will be threatened. And this has every religion paying attention now.

And anyone that believes that the Government "cares for our health and wellbeing" should think about the death tolls in military actions today, not too much. We are just a way to a means, expendable.

If they, Government, can dictate change in an established religions teachings, they will know that they can dictate anything to anyone, anytime they wish. This is just a test.

Just think, if the Government can limit, direct or abridge and of our amendments, what will be next, and where will it stop ?

Just look at how they have been attacking the Second Amendment, and still are.

thinkaboutit

Bill

This does not control doctrine. It controls the conduct of institutions acting as an employer in a secular enterprise.

Regards,

D-Ray