|
On March 04 2012 11:07 kevinthemighty wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2012 10:55 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 10:36 kevinthemighty wrote:On March 04 2012 05:08 Silvertine wrote:
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick. Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it. In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around. It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere. Please familiarize yourself with it. How it currently works: Show nested quote +There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company). http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/basics.html Um...I know how healthcare currently works. But thanks?
Well...you were asking where it said in the constitution that the government has the right to mandate what they include...I was clarifying how things are currently determined.
|
On March 04 2012 11:12 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 11:07 kevinthemighty wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2012 10:55 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 10:36 kevinthemighty wrote:On March 04 2012 05:08 Silvertine wrote:
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick. Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it. In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around. It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere. Please familiarize yourself with it. How it currently works: Show nested quote +There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company). http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/basics.html Um...I know how healthcare currently works. But thanks? Well...you were asking where it said in the constitution that the government has the right to mandate what they include...I was clarifying how things are currently determined. No need to be rude.
I really don't see the connection between your post and my question. Sorry.
My point is that Constitutionally, the federal government has no business in healthcare reform—or more specifically, to even establish a "birth control policy." Nowhere is it written in the Constitution that the federal government has that authority. Thus, to ask what part of the Constitution is being violated shows a lack of understanding of what the Constitution is and what it does.
If somehow what you posted addresses my point, then I apologize in advance.
|
|
|
On March 04 2012 11:19 kevinthemighty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 11:12 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 11:07 kevinthemighty wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2012 10:55 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 10:36 kevinthemighty wrote:On March 04 2012 05:08 Silvertine wrote:
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick. Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it. In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around. It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere. Please familiarize yourself with it. How it currently works: Show nested quote +There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company). http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/basics.html Um...I know how healthcare currently works. But thanks? Well...you were asking where it said in the constitution that the government has the right to mandate what they include...I was clarifying how things are currently determined. No need to be rude. I really don't see the connection between your post and my question. Sorry. My point is that Constitutionally, the federal government has no business in healthcare reform—or more specifically, to even establish a "birth control policy." If somehow what you posted addresses my point, then I apologize in advance.
It was more towards the person you were arguing with, and about the general way in which what is covered gets mandated. There is no push towards establishing a "birth control policy" either- it has been included in insurance for decades and now is being argued that it should be able to get taken away.
|
What an appropriate username for the OP.
|
On March 04 2012 00:59 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:45 SimDawg wrote:
I find it hard to imagine someone loving Catholic education but hating so much of the culture. Show nested quote +I would also like to state that this is being used as a shield to avoid the subject of promiscuity. Ah... your true colors.
Seriously? You cite ovarian cysts and want to pretend this money isn't going towards people having sex?
I think your true colors are quite a bit more on display. You immediately assumed I was a mysogynist instead of understanding my true point about taxpayers subsidizing sex. Condoms and OCP alike.
I like edits, apparently: Just to add, how many young guys on this forum do you think don't enjoy women who like having tons of sex? I deeply wish there were more in the world. The line is drawn when you expect other people to pay the costs of your choices.
|
On March 04 2012 11:22 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 11:19 kevinthemighty wrote:On March 04 2012 11:12 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 11:07 kevinthemighty wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2012 10:55 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 10:36 kevinthemighty wrote:On March 04 2012 05:08 Silvertine wrote:
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick. Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it. In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around. It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere. Please familiarize yourself with it. How it currently works: Show nested quote +There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company). http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/basics.html Um...I know how healthcare currently works. But thanks? Well...you were asking where it said in the constitution that the government has the right to mandate what they include...I was clarifying how things are currently determined. No need to be rude. I really don't see the connection between your post and my question. Sorry. My point is that Constitutionally, the federal government has no business in healthcare reform—or more specifically, to even establish a "birth control policy." If somehow what you posted addresses my point, then I apologize in advance. It was more towards the person you were arguing with, and about the general way in which what is covered gets mandated. There is no push towards establishing a "birth control policy" either- it has been included in insurance for decades and now is being argued that it should be able to get taken away.
Wrong. The Blunt Bill specifically addresses recent changes made by the federal government's policies on contraception. It is not an attempt to take it away from "decade-old" policies in which it is already included.
|
On March 04 2012 11:45 SimDawg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:59 Silvertine wrote:On March 04 2012 00:45 SimDawg wrote:
I find it hard to imagine someone loving Catholic education but hating so much of the culture. I would also like to state that this is being used as a shield to avoid the subject of promiscuity. Ah... your true colors. Seriously? You cite ovarian cysts and want to pretend this money isn't going towards people having sex? I think your true colors are quite a bit more on display. You immediately assumed I was a mysogynist instead of understanding my true point about taxpayers subsidizing sex. Condoms and OCP alike.
There's nothing wrong with sex.
Without contraception cheaply available, the costs goes back onto society, as it will lead to an increasing chance of women making babies that they cannot afford and falling into poverty as a result.
The reason why 3rd world African countries can't get out of a vicious cycle of poverty is because the religious charities are against contraception. As a result, the child birth rates in these countries are astronomically higher than in first world countries, and these women, already in poverty and force to support a families they cannot afford, continue the perpetual cycle of poverty.
If the answer was as simple as "don't have sex", then we wouldn't have 3rd world countries that are in the gutter.
|
On March 04 2012 12:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
Without contraception cheaply available, the costs goes back onto society, as it will lead to an increasing chance of women making babies that they cannot afford and falling into poverty as a result.
The reason why 3rd world African countries can't get out of a vicious cycle of poverty is because the religious charities are against contraception. As a result, the child birth rates in these countries are astronomically higher than in first world countries, and these women, already in poverty and force to support a families they cannot afford, continue the perpetual cycle of poverty.
If the answer was as simple as "don't have sex", then we wouldn't have 3rd world countries that are in the gutter.
Woah woah woah. There are plenty of other reasons why 3rd world countries are impoverished. Lack of property rights, poor state institutions, no access to health care... it takes more than proper contraception policies to end third world poverty.
On March 04 2012 12:03 paralleluniverse wrote:There's nothing wrong with sex.
Completely agree. I'm surprised that so many object to something that we are biologically programmed to do. Unfortunately, religious extremists are rarely satisfied by evolutionary arguments.
|
On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives.
|
On March 04 2012 12:32 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 12:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
Without contraception cheaply available, the costs goes back onto society, as it will lead to an increasing chance of women making babies that they cannot afford and falling into poverty as a result.
The reason why 3rd world African countries can't get out of a vicious cycle of poverty is because the religious charities are against contraception. As a result, the child birth rates in these countries are astronomically higher than in first world countries, and these women, already in poverty and force to support a families they cannot afford, continue the perpetual cycle of poverty.
If the answer was as simple as "don't have sex", then we wouldn't have 3rd world countries that are in the gutter. Woah woah woah. There are plenty of other reasons why 3rd world countries are impoverished. Lack of property rights, poor state institutions, no access to health care... it takes more than proper contraception policies to end third world poverty. Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 12:03 paralleluniverse wrote:There's nothing wrong with sex. Completely agree. I'm surprised that so many object to something that we are biologically programmed to do. Unfortunately, religious extremists are rarely satisfied by evolutionary arguments.
I'm certainly not suggesting that lack of access to contraception is the only cause of 3rd world poverty, but it is a significant cause. The lack of access to contraception perpetuates this poverty with a negative feedback loop, unlike, say, lack of property rights, which merely contributes to the problem.
|
On March 04 2012 12:59 Luepert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech. It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives.
So what?
|
On March 04 2012 13:03 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 12:59 Luepert wrote:On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech. It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives. So what?
In America it is illegal to force someone to do something that is against their religion.
|
On March 04 2012 13:07 Luepert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 13:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 04 2012 12:59 Luepert wrote:On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech. It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives. So what? In America it is illegal to force someone to do something that is against their religion.
Really? Where does it say that?
Yet somehow your country managed to abolish slavery.
So if I invented a religion that required weekly human ritual sacrifices, I couldn't be charged with murder?
|
On March 04 2012 12:32 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 12:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
Without contraception cheaply available, the costs goes back onto society, as it will lead to an increasing chance of women making babies that they cannot afford and falling into poverty as a result.
The reason why 3rd world African countries can't get out of a vicious cycle of poverty is because the religious charities are against contraception. As a result, the child birth rates in these countries are astronomically higher than in first world countries, and these women, already in poverty and force to support a families they cannot afford, continue the perpetual cycle of poverty.
If the answer was as simple as "don't have sex", then we wouldn't have 3rd world countries that are in the gutter. Woah woah woah. There are plenty of other reasons why 3rd world countries are impoverished. Lack of property rights, poor state institutions, no access to health care... it takes more than proper contraception policies to end third world poverty.
Proper birth control has been the HUGEST asset to third world countries. Population control, control of STDs. We actually have the luxury of arguing whether birth control is actual medicine in this country (although I still find it retarded to say it isn't), but in third world countries such as many in Africa this discussion would not be taking place because despite whatever the Bible or the Constitution may say, birth control is a huge asset for society at large. Its benefits literally immeasurable.
|
On March 04 2012 12:59 Luepert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech. It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives.
Too much misinformation in this thread. No one is forcing Catholic hospitals to physically provide contraceptives to their employees. The reform would force the insurance carriers of religious institutions to include contraceptives as part of their coverage policies, increasing the costs. Now, of course, there are exemptions, but that is beside the point.
|
I just want to bring this up because I think it's a valid point.
Aren't there religions that oppose things like surgery? I know for sure there's ones that oppose things like blood transfusions. What about those examples?
It feels like, to me, that if you support the right to refuse contraceptives, then you have to support the right to refuse blood transfusions, surgeries, basically any (what I consider) lunatic religious stipulation by any minor or major organized religion.
And that seems a bit much. So where do you draw the line? And why choose to draw the line at women's contraceptives?
|
should birth control be allowed in general? yes.
should the government pay for your birth control? no.
is abortion murder? depends on your opinion.
there is no reason for birth control to be banned, and it never will be no matter how many poloticians try, anyone with half a brain knows nothing like that will be passed ever.
|
On March 04 2012 13:17 kevinthemighty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 12:59 Luepert wrote:On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech. It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives. Too much misinformation in this thread. No one is forcing Catholic hospitals to physically provide contraceptives to their employees. The reform would force the insurance carriers of religious institutions to include contraceptives as part of their coverage policies, increasing the costs. Now, of course, there are exemptions, but that is beside the point.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/semantics-at-highest-level.html
|
On March 04 2012 13:07 Luepert wrote:In America it is illegal to force someone to do something that is against their religion.
Freedom of religion is the freedom to believe and not the freedom to act. I can believe in a religion that justifies slavery/murder/etc. however, I am not free to act upon my beliefs, since acting upon my beliefs infringes on the freedoms of others.
The argument for insurance-funded contraception is the same concept. While religious groups believe contraception is morally wrong, they should not infringe on the freedoms of the non-religious by imposing their belief on others.
On March 04 2012 13:02 paralleluniverse wrote:
I'm certainly not suggesting that lack of access to contraception is the only cause of 3rd world poverty, but it is a significant cause. The lack of access to contraception perpetuates this poverty with a negative feedback loop, unlike, say, lack of property rights, which merely contributes to the problem.
Lack of enforcable property rights is often cited as the primary cause for lack of economic development. Without property rights, there is no incentive to work, and thus no economic activity. Lack of economic activity leads to less availible work and so forth, leading to a viscious negative feedback loop.
Lack of contraception is also a negative feedback loop, but it is much much less of an effect than other factors (property rights, lack of govt institutions, etc). In the times before contraception, civilizations have risen out of poverty without the morning-after pill. The same can't be said for enforcable property rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
