Lds Church Joins Religious Coalition In Opposing Obamacare Mandate

[Darren10]

Maybe Mark Beesley should be blaming the electorate for tolerating a government program that has made such a thing necessary.

That would make sense.

[Darren10]

In a democracy predicated upon citizens’ equality before the law: rights to personal safety, health, and liberty must supersede the religious beliefs of individuals.

There's a big difference between laws being enforced equally among a nation's citizens and laws which guarantee equality for each citizen. The former is what our nation was founded upon, the latter, from my view, is historically the quickest way to oppress targeted people and create classes of elitism.

[Darren10]

Playing devil's advocate here, but some would argue that health and personal safety could fall under the same rights to life, and the pursuit of happiness. A lot of the classical liberal philosophers who influenced (or were themselves) the Founder Fathers of the US felt as such.

Absolutely one has the right to life. One therefore should not be forced by government mandate to purchase a good or a service merely because that person is alive. If an individual does not want health insurance there is no reason to use government to make him or her buy health insurance. Same goes for the LDS church and all religious institutions. None should be forced by the government to provide services which violate their doctrinal beliefs.

[cdowis]

Right to health? I'm not aware that there was any such right. Ditto for the right to personal safety.

1. Obamacare is based on that "right".

2. Are you aware of helmet laws? Personal safety is mandated.

[bluebell]

2. Are you aware of helmet laws? Personal safety is mandated.

Not in all states, which would seem to imply that, though it may sometimes be mandated, it's not inalienable. And if it's not inalienable, then it isn't really a 'right', is it?

[BlueDreams]

2. Are you aware of helmet laws? Personal safety is mandated.

UT doesn't have said law. You can go helmetless. Though personally I think it's an underhanded thumbs up to evolution. Survival of the smartest and all that. A better law to make the point with would probably be alcohol age restrictions.

As for the OP, I'm not super enthused. I don't have a firm grip on either side of the argument about this, but my gut reaction and what little I have read is definitely not in line with what is signed by the presiding bishop. If health care is being provided I don't feel like it's a religion's business to decided what can be available to an individual employee. I would take more issue if, say, the religious institutions were being forced to provide those services directly. Until then I feel that this is overblown.

With luv,

BD

[volgadon]

As for the OP, I'm not super enthused. I don't have a firm grip on either side of the argument about this, but my gut reaction and what little I have read is definitely not in line with what is signed by the presiding bishop. If health care is being provided I don't feel like it's a religion's business to decided what can be available to an individual employee. I would take more issue if, say, the religious institutions were being forced to provide those services directly. Until then I feel that this is overblown.

With luv,

BD

My feelings on this so far are very similar.

[thesometimesaint]

Does your "right" to "health" supersede your doctors right to liberty? Or must he slavishly provide you care?

Yes. I pay my doctor for his services. He has no right to refuse that service based on his religion.

For many years I was a mandated reporter. I could not and would not refuse to do my job because of my religion. Of course I could quit my job so I wasn't a slave, in fact I was well compensated for my services. Yours is a red herring

[thesometimesaint]

Not in all states, which would seem to imply that, though it may sometimes be mandated, it's not inalienable. And if it's not inalienable, then it isn't really a 'right', is it?

Under the US Constitution you have no inalienable rights. They are ALL subject to law.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

AND

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/07/06/the-rights-made-up-constitution/

[Sleeper Cell]

In a democracy predicated upon citizens’ equality before the law: rights to personal safety, health, and liberty must supersede the religious beliefs of individuals.

If the draft were reinstituted, would you oppose an exemption for conscientious objectors?

[thesometimesaint]

If the draft were reinstituted, would you oppose an exemption for conscientious objectors?

Non sequitur.

[jwhitlock]

Playing devil's advocate here, but some would argue that health and personal safety could fall under the same rights to life, and the pursuit of happiness. A lot of the classical liberal philosophers who influenced (or were themselves) the Founder Fathers of the US felt as such.

Again, there isn't any inherent right to "health". Whether there's a right to "health care" is another issue, but there's never any guarantee that I have a right to "health" of any sort. If I am unhealthy for any reason, that's just the way it is, and I cannot demand to be healthy and demand that someone fix it for me. I have the right to be responsible for my health, and try to fix things myself, but no one is ultimately required to make me healthy. That, of course, is driven by the fact that certain medical conditions simply cannot be cured, and personal responsibility to live a healthy lifestyle cannot be legislated. Nor do we want it to be legislated, since doing so would significantly erode personal freedoms.

In the same manner, there is no right to "safety". If I engage in unsafe behavior, or if there are unsafe situations thrust upon me (think: terrorist attack), the results are simply the way things are. No one is mandated or required to guarantee that I will always be "safe" at all times in all things. Nor do I particularly want such a guarantee, since it would significantly limit my personal freedoms.

Ultimately, the above concepts affect "rights" or "mandates" for health care. Stating that we have a right to health care raises a series of troubling questions, such as what level of healthcare do we have the "right" to? What are the guarantees of such a right to health care? (Hint: there can be no guarantee of good or total health.) Who is going to pay for that health care? Who is going to ration out or control that health care? And so on.

With the mandates being implemented by Obamacare, none of these questions are answered or even addressed in any meaningful way. We're left with unrealistic expectations, broken promises, inefficiencies, and the steady erosion of personal freedoms when someone tries to redefine such mandates as "rights to health and safety". Indeed, governments are glad to provide rights of "safety" because they increase governmental control over the populace. Unfortunately, even with the controls in place, there is ultimately no real guarantee that we'll be totally safe.

Because Obamacare's mandates are vague and don't address the questions related to "health care rights", they have and will continue to lead to the erosion of our freedoms. The church's response is appropriate and wise. We depend on revelation through a prophet to guide us in an increasingly wicked society, and the statement from the church is prophetic counsel warning us of the erosion of our agency and right to worship. I, for one, am not going to get bogged down in worldly sophistries rationalizing rights at the expense of agency and freedom when the church is providing some rather clear direction of the dangers ahead.

[jwhitlock]

If health care is being provided I don't feel like it's a religion's business to decided what can be available to an individual employee. I would take more issue if, say, the religious institutions were being forced to provide those services directly. Until then I feel that this is overblown.

You must not be aware, then, that every health care plan - including Obamacare - includes restrictions on what they will and will not cover. There is no blank check that assures that I can get any service that I want and have it covered. Whoever is providing the coverage or paying for it decides what will be covered.

Personally, I find it hypocritical of the government to demand that health plans cover birth control, but provide no coverage or limited coverage for preventative services such as health exams, mental health services, etc. The whole thing is politically motivated, and a direct attack on religious freedom. It is difficult to believe that no one in the administration thought that maybe there would be religious concerns about birth control. Perhaps they're just setting the stage for demanding that churches pay for abortion on demand, despite all they're "assurances" that religions will be exempted from their various social mandates.

Or do you believe that the church should also provide unrestricted abortion services since it provides health care, and it has no business deciding what can be available to individual employees?

[jwhitlock]

1. Obamacare is based on that "right".

2. Are you aware of helmet laws? Personal safety is mandated.

I'm going to take the liberty of assuming that you have concerns about both of the above. I certainly do, especially since there has been a steady erosion of freedoms over the last few decades in the name of "safety".

As I've noted, Obamacare has done a terrible job of addressing what the right to health care really entails. If they're defining it as the right to "health", then anyone who thinks at all about the impact of such "rights" should be horrified.

[bluebell]

UT doesn't have said law. You can go helmetless. Though personally I think it's an underhanded thumbs up to evolution. Survival of the smartest and all that. A better law to make the point with would probably be alcohol age restrictions.

As for the OP, I'm not super enthused. I don't have a firm grip on either side of the argument about this, but my gut reaction and what little I have read is definitely not in line with what is signed by the presiding bishop. If health care is being provided I don't feel like it's a religion's business to decided what can be available to an individual employee. I would take more issue if, say, the religious institutions were being forced to provide those services directly. Until then I feel that this is overblown.

With luv,

BD

I actually agree with you on this. I can certainly see where the other side was coming from (and agree that it's a tough moral issue for a lot of people with no easy answers) but then I contemplate how I would feel if I was working for a Jehovah's Witness and he refused to pay for blood transfusions because it was against his religion. I would not agree with his right to do that, and so I don't see how I can I agree with an employers decisions not to cover birth control (for example) without feeling like a hypocrite.

[bluebell]

Under the US Constitution you have no inalienable rights. They are ALL subject to law.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

AND

http://consortiumnew...p-constitution/

They are subject to law, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[BlueDreams]

You must not be aware, then, that every health care plan - including Obamacare - includes restrictions on what they will and will not cover. There is no blank check that assures that I can get any service that I want and have it covered. Whoever is providing the coverage or paying for it decides what will be covered.

No, I've read enough to know that much. It's a poor argument though. Just because it doesn't cover all things, doesn't mean that what it does enforce should be removed. That's certainly not an improvement.

Personally, I find it hypocritical of the government to demand that health plans cover birth control, but provide no coverage or limited coverage for preventative services such as health exams, mental health services, etc.

Birth control is a preventative measure.

The whole thing is politically motivated

Of course it is, that also wasn't mentioned in my concern.

and a direct attack on religious freedom.

I disagree on that one.

It is difficult to believe that no one in the administration thought that maybe there would be religious concerns about birth control. Perhaps they're just setting the stage for demanding that churches pay for abortion on demand, despite all they're "assurances" that religions will be exempted from their various social mandates.

That's a major jump and I don't find that likely at all.

Or do you believe that the church should also provide unrestricted abortion services since it provides health care, and it has no business deciding what can be available to individual employees?

Again you're jumping well ahead of yourself. But if you want to go down hypotheticals as to what I believe the health care system should be like, it would look drastically different than it does today period. I don't think businesses and my health/anyone's health should be so incredibly linked together. And if they were still, there would be far better and clearer restrictions on costs, reduction in paper work and hoops to jump, greater similarity and explanse in what must be covered, etc. But such hypotheticals are pointless....neither is likely to happen anytime soon.

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Also While looking up more info about this I found a number of articles on the split between catholic hospitals and the catholic hierarchy on it. Which is intriguing considering the statements by a number about it being a clear attack on religion. If it was so clear, you'd think there would be far better consensus on this. Frankly, the more I research the less I'm feeling like the claims about infringement of religious freedom is accurate or warranted.

And Here

With luv,

BD

[Sleeper Cell]

Non sequitur.

Please explain.

While you are at it, please explain why saying that rights to personal liberty must supersede the religious beliefs of individuals is not a non sequitur.

[thesometimesaint]

They are subject to law, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

A right without legal recourse is for all intents and purposes no right at all.

[thesometimesaint]

Please explain.

While you are at it, please explain why saying that rights to personal liberty must supersede the religious beliefs of individuals is not a non sequitur.

Your right to swing your arm ends at my noise.

[Calm]

Yes. I pay my doctor for his services. He has no right to refuse that service based on his religion.

Even if he gave back the money?

[bluebell]

A right without legal recourse is for all intents and purposes no right at all.

But the term 'inalienable' implies rights that exist regardless of the laws of any country, doesn't it?

[Calm]

I contemplate how I would feel if I was working for a Jehovah's Witness and he refused to pay for blood transfusions because it was against his religion.

I think this contingency and others could be covered by the money he would save by not having to pay for that level of insurance being given directly to the employee, who can then decide to use that to pay for a supplemental insurance that would cover what he wants covered as an individual.

Personally I view the idea of mixing private health insurance with government direction on what to cover a major problem. If they are going to insist on mandated insurance, than basic health insurance should be covered by the government through taxes so there is no more debate than where it occurs with people who don't believe our government should be giving foreign aid or welfare in general or armed forces, etc. and then individuals can buy supplemental insurance to cover whatever extras they want or companies can provide it for their employees as incentives.

Trying to fix a broken system by keeping the system and just adding on to it an already malfunctioning process is lunacy in my view.

[Calm]

But the term 'inalienable' implies rights that exist regardless of the laws of any country, doesn't it?

Which inalienable rights can be demonstrated to be fictional simply by moving to another country and seeing if your inalienable right continues to exist there.