The Conservative War On Women

NormanTheIntern wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
First up, I appreciate you taking the time to write that post - I disagree with your conclusion (and some of your premises), but genuinely enjoy folks engaging in substantive dissent rather than drive-by snarkiness.

A thousand times this.

On a related note, where is the War on Religion thread?

If that was directed at me - you saw the smilie, right? Like, I put it there to indicate I wasn't serious.

It might've been, I honestly don't remember who said it. I did assume it was serious, as did other people who said they would welcome the discussion.

If it wasn't serious...then ignore me. Oops.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
When exactly did employer-provided healthcare become a "right"?

Why is the church in the hospital / insurance business? If they would like to exit this business then they are free to do whatever they like. But as long as they're amongst providers the government reimburses for services they have to act as a secular healthcare provider.

It's not that it's a right. It's that most people don't have a choice or... say... a "public option" for their healthcare. They have to use who their employer provides. And if that's a church then that church should provide equal service.

DSGamer wrote:
It's not that it's a right. It's that most people don't have a choice or... say... a "public option" for their healthcare. They have to use who their employer provides.

I've seen this presented before and...how is that true? Plenty of people purchase their own insurance. http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ is a popular choice.

I agree with the rest of the post though. Once you perform secular duties you're held to secular restrictions. Providing health insurance for employees is not a religious duty.

gregrampage wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
It's not that it's a right. It's that most people don't have a choice or... say... a "public option" for their healthcare. They have to use who their employer provides.

I've seen this presented before and...how is that true? Plenty of people purchase their own insurance. http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ is a popular choice.

I agree with the rest of the post though. Once you perform secular duties you're held to secular restrictions. Providing health insurance for employees is not a religious duty.

If my company wants to hand me back in cash the money they pay for my group health insurance I'll be happy to go get my own insurance. But otherwise this is a tax on people who don't want to be held hostage by their insurance company.

And, once again, it disproportionately affects the poor, people who can't generally afford or qualify for their own health insurance.

DSGamer wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
It's not that it's a right. It's that most people don't have a choice or... say... a "public option" for their healthcare. They have to use who their employer provides.

I've seen this presented before and...how is that true? Plenty of people purchase their own insurance. http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ is a popular choice.

I agree with the rest of the post though. Once you perform secular duties you're held to secular restrictions. Providing health insurance for employees is not a religious duty.

If my company wants to hand me back in cash the money they pay for my group health insurance I'll be happy to go get my own insurance. But otherwise this is a tax on people who don't want to be held hostage by their insurance company.

And, once again, it disproportionately affects the poor, people who can't generally afford or qualify for their own health insurance.

Actually wouldn't that be an acceptable solution to the church problem? Take the money that they would spend on something against their beliefs, give it to the employee (since it's their money, really) and let them do what they want. If that's not acceptable then payment of any kind is unacceptable because it can be spent against the religious beliefs of the employer.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Honestly not seeing where the "discrimination" comes in here. As already noted, employer provided healthcare is not a defined right but in the process of becoming a legally-mandated benefit. What that benefit entails is still being worked out legislatively and policy-wise. So while it would clearly be discrimination to deny one group of your employees some benefit you already provide to another group, that's not the case here.

Crispus wrote:

I understand what you're saying here, and I don't disagree in the case of the contraceptive hubbub, but that sort of broad philosophy could be used to trample a lot of religious beliefs or exemptions (religious schools being able to discriminate when not hiring homosexuals or unmarried pregnant women, churches not having to pay taxes, etc.) that secular society finds objectionable. I guess that'd probably be fodder for a different thread, though.

I was responding specifically to this quote, which generally addresses the question of where secular controls begin/end.

However, while we are here, I'd like to ask an open-ended question. If a company's insurance plan specifically does not cover treatment for certain classes of illnesses, could that be counted as discriminatory? For example, if OB/GYN visits, pre-natal and pregnancy/delivery treatment is excluded, would that qualify as discriminatory against women? Or cardiological and diabetic care being denied is tantamount to discrimination against overweight people.

I am asking this to the group as a whole, since I don't know what, if anything, laws say about this. There is a legal term for this in terms of employment, constructive dismissal. Is there a variant of this regarding benefits and compensation?

Kraint wrote:

However, while we are here, I'd like to ask an open-ended question. If a company's insurance plan specifically does not cover treatment for certain classes of illnesses, could that be counted as discriminatory? For example, if OB/GYN visits, pre-natal and pregnancy/delivery treatment is excluded, would that qualify as discriminatory against women? Or cardiological and diabetic care being denied is tantamount to discrimination against overweight people.

I am asking this to the group as a whole, since I don't know what, if anything, laws say about this. There is a legal term for this in terms of employment, constructive dismissal. Is there a variant of this regarding benefits and compensation?

I'm going to assume that legally, at least, there's not an issue with this. Why? Because *no* insurance plan covers *every* treatment or class of illnesses.

Kraint wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Honestly not seeing where the "discrimination" comes in here. As already noted, employer provided healthcare is not a defined right but in the process of becoming a legally-mandated benefit. What that benefit entails is still being worked out legislatively and policy-wise. So while it would clearly be discrimination to deny one group of your employees some benefit you already provide to another group, that's not the case here.

Crispus wrote:

I understand what you're saying here, and I don't disagree in the case of the contraceptive hubbub, but that sort of broad philosophy could be used to trample a lot of religious beliefs or exemptions (religious schools being able to discriminate when not hiring homosexuals or unmarried pregnant women, churches not having to pay taxes, etc.) that secular society finds objectionable. I guess that'd probably be fodder for a different thread, though.

I was responding specifically to this quote, which generally addresses the question of where secular controls begin/end.

However, while we are here, I'd like to ask an open-ended question. If a company's insurance plan specifically does not cover treatment for certain classes of illnesses, could that be counted as discriminatory? For example, if OB/GYN visits, pre-natal and pregnancy/delivery treatment is excluded, would that qualify as discriminatory against women? Or cardiological and diabetic care being denied is tantamount to discrimination against overweight people.

I am asking this to the group as a whole, since I don't know what, if anything, laws say about this. There is a legal term for this in terms of employment, constructive dismissal. Is there a variant of this regarding benefits and compensation?

I'm guessing it depends on why they don't cover it. If it's because of reason X and reason X also applies to a male procedure that is covered..it's discrimination. If it's for reason Y (and Y isn't "because you're a woman") and Y is applied across the board then I don't think there's a case there.

Edit: You can probably get away with Y being "because you're a woman" if you don't publicly express that fact.

DSGamer wrote:
It's not that it's a right. It's that most people don't have a choice or... say... a "public option" for their healthcare. They have to use who their employer provides. And if that's a church then that church should provide equal service.

If equality of services by employer is so important, where is the backlash from the left against the obamacare waivers? Churches forcing employees to buy their own contraceptives is a huge deal, but arbitrarily deciding that 4 million people deserve less *general* health coverage than the rest of the country is fine? I'm not sure that's an internally consistent stance.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
It's not that it's a right. It's that most people don't have a choice or... say... a "public option" for their healthcare. They have to use who their employer provides. And if that's a church then that church should provide equal service.

If equality of services by employer is so important, where is the backlash from the left against the obamacare waivers? Churches forcing employees to buy their own contraceptives is a huge deal, but arbitrarily deciding that 4 million people deserve less *general* health coverage than the rest of the country is fine? I'm not sure that's an internally consistent stance.

Why do you so frequently respond to all criticisms of the right with accusations that the left is doing it too? Is your only goal to point out hypocrisy? Because it doesn't come off that way. It comes off like you're trying to defend the right and when you get to a point where that can't be done, you just shift the blame to the left.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
It's not that it's a right. It's that most people don't have a choice or... say... a "public option" for their healthcare. They have to use who their employer provides. And if that's a church then that church should provide equal service.

If equality of services by employer is so important, where is the backlash from the left against the obamacare waivers? Churches forcing employees to buy their own contraceptives is a huge deal, but arbitrarily deciding that 4 million people deserve less *general* health coverage than the rest of the country is fine? I'm not sure that's an internally consistent stance.

I thought the Obama healthcare bill was terrible. My criticism of the right in this debate has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama bill. I hated it. I thought we'd be better off with either universal healthcare or a public option to completely opt-out of the silly employer-based system. Not sure who you're debating, but it's not me.

Norman, keep in mind that many, many threads here are full of vociferous displeasure with the Democrats and the Obama administration. Yes, some Democrats do give other Democrats more slack than they should, and don't hold them to the same standards that they hold Republicans. (I see that all the time over on Metafilter, and it drives me nuts. If it was bad when Bush did it, it's worse when Obama does it, not better.)

But, for what it's worth, I don't see much of that here. I'm not sure what the issue is that you're referring to with waivers and Obamacare, but as someone who thinks Obamacare is flatly unconstitutional, I think it would get a fair hearing here if you want to explain it in more detail.

We may not agree with your analysis, but I don't think this group of people would be unfair.

To my knowledge, only Robear supported the ACA, and even that was just a careful pointing out of fallacies people believed about it.

Actually, yeah, you're right, I think he was the lone champion for that bill.

Seth wrote:
To my knowledge, only Robear supported the ACA, and even that was just a careful pointing out of fallacies people believed about it.

Robear is good at that.

I'm not even sure Obama liked Obamacare.

I like Obamacare, but only as a "f*ck it, something is better than nothing" move. I support socialized medicine all the way, but no way was that going to get passed.

Hypatian wrote:
I like Obamacare, but only as a "f*ck it, something is better than nothing" move. I support socialized medicine all the way, but no way was that going to get passed. :(

+1

Tanglebones wrote:
Hypatian wrote:
I like Obamacare, but only as a "f*ck it, something is better than nothing" move. I support socialized medicine all the way, but no way was that going to get passed. :(

+1

Same here.

I see this more as a Health Insurance Privacy issue. Catholic churches are stating that they can dictate treatment for their employees.

I think that the real shame here is that the Federal Government will lock me up if I kill someone, when my religion gives hundreds of reasons for when killing someone is a perfectly valid option. My wife did not have an intact hymen on our wedding night, and yet OBAMA won't let me stone her to death. Now some of you Christian-haters will say that her right to live trumps my right to kill her. My question to you is: why do you hate Jesus?

A parable for those that are not yet convinced at how terrible the WAR ON CHRISTIANITY has gotten:

First they came for the people that stoned non-virgin wives to death, and I said nothing because my wife had "all the tokens of virginity."

Then they came for the people that stoned disobedient sons to death, and I said nothing because I had only daughters.

Then they came for the people that stoned people who blasphemed, and I said nothing because I said "God-dammit" that one time I hit my finger with a hammer.

Then they came for me, because my religion says that I'm allowed to stone people to death that curse the King, and I interpret Obama to currently be our King, and there are a lot of people that have cursed Obama, but there was no one to protect me because all of the other people that liked stoning people to death had already been taken.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
It's not that it's a right. It's that most people don't have a choice or... say... a "public option" for their healthcare. They have to use who their employer provides. And if that's a church then that church should provide equal service.

If equality of services by employer is so important, where is the backlash from the left against the obamacare waivers? Churches forcing employees to buy their own contraceptives is a huge deal, but arbitrarily deciding that 4 million people deserve less *general* health coverage than the rest of the country is fine? I'm not sure that's an internally consistent stance.

That was part of the whole "compromise" thing. Sometimes adults accept something that they don't like all the way, so that people that disagree with them will also be able to accept something that they don't like all of the way.

A couple of slightly tangential things to the current discussion:

Here's a powerful account of exactly why legal abortion should be a thing
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/201...

And here's some words from everyone's favourite Rick Santorum
http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/14...
"[Contraception is] not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

And some slightly more sane thoughts with actual real data (and from a right-wing pundit)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...

I don't think they're tangential at all.

We've repeatedly said that if anti-abortion proponents actually want to save lives and reduce the number of abortions then they should be the biggest champions of sexual education and easy access to contraception. Instead, what we see is that they fight tooth and nail against both because of some f*cked up concept that sex is only OK if it 1) happens in a marriage, and 2) happens only when the couple is trying to procreate.

I wish I was arrogant enough to know how things are supposed to be. That must be very comforting.

It wasn't your wife's fault, Yonder. It was Prozac's.

If this isn't a war on women in Virginia, I would like to hear someone tell what it is.

And on a 63-36 vote, the (Virginia) House passed a bill that requires women to have a "transvaginal ultrasound" before undergoing abortions.

Do you know what a "transvaginal ultrasound" is? I do.

But let the U.S. National Library of Medicine describe the procedure:

You will lie down on a table with your knees bent and feet in holders called stirrups. The health care provider will place a probe, called a transducer, into the vagina. The probe is covered with a condom and a gel. The probe sends out sound waves, which reflect off body structures. A computer receives these waves and uses them to create a picture. The doctor can immediately see the picture on a nearby TV monitor.

These people are mentally unstable.

"Maybe we can't ban abortions, but by God, we're gonna humiliate those sluts."

On top of how stupid the whole fricking idea is, WTheck do they think they're going to find by doing it that way than doing it the other way?!

I had to have two of these in the last couple months and I can assure you that this is a painful, incredibly humiliating process and I'm not in that position at all. I can't imagine what it would feel like to have to be dealing with that decision and have to deal with this.

Why stop with companies/organizations determining access to birth control/contraception of their employees within the health insurance plans? Let's have them take the next step and determine if lifesaving treatment is worth it for a particular employee or their family. Ebineezer Scrooge could've avoided a whole storyline if he had just decided Little Timmy's fate early on.

Maybe HR departments can expand to include a 'Death Panel' (Hey, that phrase isnt getting used nearly enough anymore) to work with the insurance companies to review employee requests for treatment and determine if it meets market trends and aligns strategically with business goals. By partnering with the insurance industry, maybe they could earn corporate discounts to help drive down costs on behalf of shareholders.