Thursday, March 8, 2012

A Plaintiff Statement on Contraception, Religion, Health Insurance, and the Federal Government

In a free society (and the last time that I checked we were), the strong arm of the Federal government does NOT have the right to dictate to a privately insured faith-based institution what it can and cannot cover in terms of their insurance. It plainly and totally DOES NOT (this, in that if in fact it did, that would represent a form of "soft" fascism). NOW, if the Federal government wanted to more DIRECTLY provide these services to folks (either through clinics, rebates, or whatever), that, yes, would represent an entirely different situation. I mean, it would still be debatable in that a lot of conservatives would probably still object to it and all (perhaps in relation to the government overspending angle), but at least it would be debatable.

23 comments:

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

I agree we are a free society, which is why others cannot dictate to the person who's insurance policy it acutally is what insurance coverage they request. I think that would be some kind of "soft fascism".

Also, are you like dmarks, in that you don't know what fascism is? This isn't the "strong arm of the government", it's "we the people". Obama has public opinion on his side! A majority of the public is with him. Check the polls.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Sounds like you'd be OK if they decided not to cover other things beside birth control. Let's say someone contracts an STD. It's OK if the religious institution refuses to cover it? Because STDs are caused by promiscuity (in their view) and that's against their religious beliefs? What if the person who contracts the STD was in a committed relationship and their partner cheated (and they did not know). Is it still OK that they not be covered? This is a very slippery slope that you're advocating, IMO. There could be some pretty serious negative consequences.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Again, you cannot force a privately insured religious institution to provide services that they find objectionable. If the government wants to provide those services to people, that's a different story....You obviously don't understand religious liberty.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The way that I see it, if Mr. Obama can give his union buddies (a fair chunk of SEIU chapters) waivers, then he can also give privately insured faith-based institutions a waiver on this contraception thing.......And it's a slippery slope in your direction, too. I mean, are you going to mandate that privately insured faith-based institutions cover abortion procedures, too? What about the allowing to die protocol of living babies from botched abortions procedures? Should the strong arm of the Federal government be able to mandate THAT, also?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

What about the forcing you're obviously in favor of? You're in favor of forcing individuals to accept dictates from religious institutions regarding what coverage they can get. These insurance policies belong to individuals. They should be able to get the coverage they and their doctors decide they need.

You obviously don't understand individual liberty. It's no surprise that you'd stand with "big religion" against the individual though. It's the same reason you stand with big money (wealthy individuals and corporations) and against the middle class and workers.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

I mean, are you going to mandate that privately insured faith-based institutions cover abortion procedures, too?

Yes, I would.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

These are free associations, wd. A person, if they don't like the coverage that a privately insured faith-based institution offers them, then they should go somewhere else and work. Just because a person wants something, that doesn't necessarily mean that they automatically get it. I mean, I know that you're an entitlement addict and all but no. As long as the faith-based institution is the one who's providing the funding, that takes precedence. Sorry.......And, really , you're going to force privately insured faith-based institutions to pay for abortion procedures? Really, wd?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: These are free associations, wd. A person, if they don't like the coverage that a privately insured faith-based institution offers them, then they should go somewhere else and work.

No, I don't buy the "free association" argument. That's not an excuse that should enable big religion (or anyone) to take away people's rights. Often people don't have a choice... they have to take jobs where they can find them.

Will: Just because a person wants something, that doesn't necessarily mean that they automatically get it.

We're talking about people's health care RIGHTS. Nobody should be allowed to take them away.

Will: really, you're going to force privately insured faith-based institutions to pay for abortion procedures?

What the policy holder does with the insurance is their business. So, I guess... yes.

Jerry Critter said...

It is my understanding that the churches themselves were exempt. It is only church businesses that these mandates would apply...the same as any other business regardless of ownership.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

People don't have a "right" to free contraception! You're frigging making up rights, for Christ sakes! And they certainly don't have a right to something that the person paying for it finds morally reprehensible. I'm sorry, but that's how the grown-up world works, wd.......And, besides, Title 10 is such that poor people can ALREADY get free contraception (yeah, I'm willing to throw away religious liberty because somebody doesn't want to frigging walk 3 blocks) from a clinic and, even if they don't qualify for that, they can go to Walmart or another discount pharmacy and get it for $9 a month. It's not even a frigging issue, for Christ sakes but still you want bald-faced big brother to come in and tell religious institutions how to run their business. Absolutely disgraceful.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Jerry, I think that Mr. Obama's compromise (which I have in fact lauded, btw) has basically fixed most of this. It's just the organizations that are self-insured in which these issues tend to get complicated. The way that I see it, if Mr. Obama was willing to give all of those SEIU chapters a heath-care waiver, then he should probably also be willing to give self-insured religious institutions a break as well. It's only fair.

Jerry Critter said...

The fact that there is no copayment does not mean it is free. The cost is rolled into the premium. Even with employer supplied insurance, there iis still a premium. To call it free is a misrepresentation.

Rusty Shackelford said...

This has absolutly NOTHING to do with premiums or co-pays.Its about religious freedom.If the catholic church doctrine denounces contraception,the government cannot force the church to violate its beliefs.
Someone from the left please explain why,say Georgetown or Notre Dame should be forced by the federal government to violate its doctrine.
Students that enroll in BYU sign a pledge to honor the beliefs of the mormon church...should the federal government have the power to void that contract?
I have to give the dems kudos for turning this issue to womens contraception rights vs.what it actually is.....religious freedom.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

I stand by what I've already said, despite Will's need to (as usual) throw out the ad hominems... I'm not "grown up" because I disagree with him. Why don't you grow up Will and realize you can't win debates via ad hominem?

I never said anyone had a right to free contraception. I said they have a right to whatever services they and their doctor decide they need and that their health care insurance policy should cover it. Religious institutions have no business dictating to the individual what they can or cannot use THEIR health care insurance for.

Obviously Will is in favor of this form of soft fascism.

Rusty Shackelford said...

You are dead wrong WD.Religious institutions have a lawful right to tailor their healthcare programs as not to include contraception based on their dogma.

Obama cannot force any catholic institution to violate their intrinsic beliefs.

Jerry Critter said...

So can religious institutions tailor their healthcare programs to not include anything that does not fit their dogma?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Actually Rusty, you are dead wrong. Constitutional expert David Boies says, "There isn't a constitutional issue involved in this case... You don't exempt religious employers just because of their religion. You are not asking anybody in the Catholic church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal law that every employer has to comply with".

Follow the link to watch the 5:23 video of Mr. Boies on the "Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell. Later on in the video Boies says, "This is not a question of freedom of religion. Nobody is forcing Catholics to use contraception. The church can still preach to their employees not to use it".

This is a labor law issue. Religious employers must comply. Obama's compromise wasn't necessary except, perhaps, for political reasons.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Last I knew David Boies is'nt a court of law,his opinion is just that,his opinion.Just because he voiced his opinion to Larry O'Donnell does'nt make it correct WD,dont believe everything you hear just because it fits your ridgid framework.

The catholic bishops feel just the opposite,and I think they are a pretty smart bunch.

And for heavens sake this is about as far from a labor law issue as one could be.If you are trying to attach that tag you are just acting stupid,unless of course ThinkProgress is leading you down that trail.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

One cherry-picked "Constitutional expert" who spews his bullshit on MSNBC and that settles that? Paleeeeease. And the fascism component is the slothful disgusting strong arm of big brother mandating how a privately insured faith-based institution spends it's own money. THAT'S the fascism. And for the umteenth frigging time, people who can't afford to get their contraception out of pocket can get it generally free of charge at virtually any clinic. Why not do it that way and NOT trample on an institution's religious liberty? What, not fun/divisive enough for you?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: One cherry-picked "Constitutional expert" who spews his bullshit on MSNBC and that settles that?

It's settled as far as I'm concerned.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The only thing that's settled is your insistence that big government steam-roll religious liberty.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Religious liberty isn't being trampled. Religious employers have to follow labor law just like any other employer. They've got no case, as Constitutional expert David Boies pointed out.

I think what's been settled is that you believe big religion has a right to steamroll individual liberty.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

How can individual liberty be trampled when poor people can get contraception free at a clinic, when the rest of us can get it for $9 at Walmart , and when we're ALL free to leave a job that we don't particularly care for?............And Obama can give his union toughies a waiver but he can't give the Catholic Church a break? He's the one without a leg to stand on, not only mandating that individuals and companies purchase a product (simply because they're breathing) but dictating as well the absolute dimensions of the product. Tell me how in the hell that that defends "individual liberty"? This, wd, is a draconian solution to a non-existing problem.