Lds Church Joins Religious Coalition In Opposing Obamacare Mandate

[jwhitlock]

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.

What Obamacare does try to mandate is arbitrary and and based on purely political - not medical - agendas. That makes it fair game for challenging why it should be included in the first place.

Birth control is a preventative measure.

What does birth control try to prevent? What does an annual checkup try to prevent? They're two very different types of prevention, unless you consider pregnancy an illness like cancer that needs to be excised.

I disagree on that one.

It's your right to do so. However that doesn't negate the clear fact that this administration is becoming very religion-unfriendly on a variety of fronts. This is just one of them.

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

Really?? Do you realize that Medicaid provides abortion coverage in 15 states currently? That, of course, sets the stage for including it as an Obamacare mandate at some point. Given the political leanings of this administration, not only is it not a major jump, but the probability is that it will eventually be included. It ain't hypothetical if a government mandated program already provides it as coverage.

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.

I'm not jumping ahead of myself, nor am I dealing in hypothetical situations. We, and the church as well, can look down the road and see what's coming based on what government is currently doing. Mandating birth control is just an attempt to set the stage for more egregious mandates to come.

Another thing to point out is that government is primarily responsible for how costly medical services are today. They have regulated and litigated the industry to the point where reducing liability is the driving factor in everything they do. That simply drives up costs to the point where they are abusive. And now the government wants to take over and provide us socialized medicine, first via mandates to businesses, and next - when businesses can no longer provide medical insurance due to the cost - by finally implementing a fully socialized system. If you think business shouldn't be in the position of mandating health coverage, you should be absolutely terrified of government doing it.

I believe that the church, at some point, will simply quit providing health care benefits altogether, along with virtually all other business and religious groups. They won't be able to do it due to the cost mandated by government. I do agree with you that needed reform is not going to come, because the government is the entity mandating all of the increased paperwork and regulations. If anyone thinks that Obamacare has our best interest in mind with what it's mandating, they are seriously misinformed.

[strappinglad]

There have been many studies of the various health care systems used around the world. The best ones use a mix of public and private care. I find it immoral to say that because I am poor, when I get a serious disease, I should just get on with dying. If I break my arm I need to get used to waiting for hours in the ER because I can't afford anything quicker and better. If you want to experience a true loss of freedom, then see just how free you are when , because of enormous medical bills, you lose your car, your home, and perhaps your family. Bankruptcy is so liberating!

[Sleeper Cell]

Your right to swing your arm ends at my noise.

There, there. Don’t be so hard on yourself. Although I disagree with some of the things you say, you are an intelligent person and I would hardly call any of your posts, mere “noise.”

[volgadon]

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

Call me cynical, call me jaded, but somehow I doubt that the extra money will find its way to the employee's paycheck.

[Scott Lloyd]

I find it difficult to think of birth control necessarily being "health care," per se.

If people want to try to practice unfettered sexual intercourse removed from any consequence, let them do it on their own dime and not force others to pay for it, especially those who object to it as a matter of conscience.

[Scott Lloyd]

Call me cynical, call me jaded, but somehow I doubt that the extra money will find its way to the employee's paycheck.

Then the employee could seek employment elsewhere -- from an employer whose ability to attract employees with a competitive salary would be unhindered by oppressive government mandates.

[mtomm]

I find it difficult to think of birth control necessarily being "health care," per se.

If people want to try to practice unfettered sexual intercourse removed from any consequence, let them do it on their own dime and not force others to pay for it, especially those who object to it as a matter of conscience.

And if they are on your insurance plan you can instead help pay for the new baby! A much cheaper choice.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Do you not regard freedom of conscience and religion as liberty?

[Scott Lloyd]

And if they are on your insurance plan you can instead help pay for the new baby! A much cheaper choice.

If birth control is cheaper than having a baby, couldn't we reasonably expect a couple who doesn't want a baby to find some way to obtain birth control, even if they have to fund it in some other way than forcing an unwilling employer to provide it?

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................

. I wonder if the church will also be writing to governments in a the other countries they have members in.

.......................................

Yes, especially since most members of the LDS Church live outside the USA. And even more since all technologically advanced countries now have one-payer healthcare systems (as was advocated for this country by Rep. Dennis Kucinich), and their healthcare costs are half of the overall per capita cost in this country.

As with our failure to implement the metric system, we are the only modern country to ignore rationality and economics in making our policy decisions.

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................

If people want to try to practice unfettered sexual intercourse removed from any consequence, let them do it on their own dime and not force others to pay for it, especially those who object to it as a matter of conscience.

Yeh, and why should we pay for unfettered access to viagra as a healthcare benefit? Let them pay for it on their own dime!!

[strappinglad]

Yeh, and why should we pay for unfettered access to viagra as a healthcare benefit? Let them pay for it on their own dime!!

Absolutely , although a dime won't buy much Viagra !

[Calm]

Call me cynical, call me jaded, but somehow I doubt that the extra money will find its way to the employee's paycheck.

That would be one of the issues that would be required to be kept a watch on.

[Calm]

I find it difficult to think of birth control necessarily being "health care," per se.

It was in my case. Getting pregnant would have had severe consequences for me...did have for just the two I managed. However, since I couldn't take the pill either, we simply doubled up on the cheaper varieties which were effective for us.

[BlueDreams]

What Obamacare does try to mandate is arbitrary and and based on purely political - not medical - agendas. That makes it fair game for challenging why it should be included in the first place.

It can be both.

What does birth control try to prevent? What does an annual checkup try to prevent? They're two very different types of prevention, unless you consider pregnancy an illness like cancer that needs to be excised.

That's excessive in your analogy. Birth control can be preventative and better the women's/family's overall health. Not simply by delaying pregnancy (and thus expensive bills, possible complications etc....especially for women where pregnancy is high risk or dangerous for physical of mental health) but also by regulating hormones and cycles. I've known a number of friends who are on the pill for other reasons that don't include worries about child-bearing. Pregnancy, the female reproductive system, and their effect on a woman are not always the blessed result of a beautiful child. And even when they are, in the wrong set of circumstances the child can be crippling for the family and a far greater health-systems financial burden.

Also I can't remember where you mentioned this, but the health care reform does include other full-coverage for other forms of preventative care. One's I found quickly with a google search just for women:

As of August 1, 2012, all new health plans must cover a range of women’s preventive services without cost sharing. These services have been identified by the Institute of Medicine and endorsed by the Health Resources and Services Administration. They include:

(1) Breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling;

(2) Screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence;

(3) Screening for gestational diabetes;

(4) DNA testing for high-risk strains of HPV;

(5) Counseling regarding sexually transmitted infections, including HIV;

(6) Screening for HIV;

(7) Contraceptive methods and counseling; and

( Well woman visits.

Found here

Really?? Do you realize that Medicaid provides abortion coverage in 15 states currently? That, of course, sets the stage for including it as an Obamacare mandate at some point. Given the political leanings of this administration, not only is it not a major jump, but the probability is that it will eventually be included. It ain't hypothetical if a government mandated program already provides it as coverage.

No it doesn't, it's still a leap. Especially when it's 15 out of 51 states. Especially in the current political climate of fighting to restrict abortion in a number of states. Especially when the bill has stayed "abortion neutral" and never mentions it. The admin doesn't show any indication of pushing the issue in the least. If it were to happen it would have to do so on another president's shift. In the next 3 years it's just not all that likely. And afterwards you would still need the appropriate political conditions for something like that to pass...which considering the make up/issues of congress, that's not very likely.

I'm not jumping ahead of myself, nor am I dealing in hypothetical situations. We, and the church as well, can look down the road and see what's coming based on what government is currently doing. Mandating birth control is just an attempt to set the stage for more egregious mandates to come.

I'd prefer not to get into this. I don't enjoy debating politics as much as I used to. But I will state that I disagree based on evidence that I've seen

With luv,

BD

[bluebell]

It was in my case. Getting pregnant would have had severe consequences for me...did have for just the two I managed. However, since I couldn't take the pill either, we simply doubled up on the cheaper varieties which were effective for us.

As BlueDreams mentioned, hormonal birth control is used to treat other medical conditions as well. I knew a few sister missionaries who were on it to help regulate hormones and excessive bleeding, and using it for that is not at all uncommon. As you've implied, it's not just used so that people can have sex without responsibility.

[Sleeper Cell]

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

If I want good medical care, I will go to a Catholic hospital. If I want authoritative information about Catholic doctrine and morals, I will ask the Catholic hierarchy.

[Calm]

As BlueDreams mentioned, hormonal birth control is used to treat other medical conditions as well. I knew a few sister missionaries who were on it to help regulate hormones and excessive bleeding, and using it for that is not at all uncommon. As you've implied, it's not just used so that people can have sex without responsibility.

I would have loved to be able to take the pill, but it caused severe depression for me....I am such a sensitive soul.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

The Pill isn't just for birth control: Did you know that it can also protect against certain life-threatening cancers, plus help relieve some painful period symptoms? Here, experts explain the top seven health benefits of taking the Pill and how to make them work for you.

[BlueDreams]

If I want good medical care, I will go to a Catholic hospital. If I want authoritative information about Catholic doctrine and morals, I will ask the Catholic hierarchy.

I'm not stating otherwise. My main point was that there were differences of opinion within the catholic faith as a whole about whether these changes will do or not do to the faith most likely to be effected by it, if only due to size and scope of their professional services. I found it interesting that the branch most likely to be effected by the change/bargain in the catholic church are also those most ok with it. Though I don't think they hold doctrinal clout per se, it still speaks a lot about whether this is really a religious freedom problem or not. Honestly after reading this and what the actions would actually entail, I think this search for "religious freedom" is crouching upon the individual rights of people who may or may not be apart of that religious sect though they work for the faith in question. The inability to find any ground of compromise, even when the catholic tenets effected feel the compromise is appropriate, seems excessive if not polemic.

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

I would have loved to be able to take the pill, but it caused severe depression for me....I am such a sensitive soul.

http://www.webmd.com...o-take-the-pill

Yeah, that happened to my cousin as well. It also made her strangely more cautious and a homebody, which is so not like her. Needless to say, she didn't use it for very long

[Calm]

Yeah, that happened to my cousin as well. It also made her strangely more cautious and a homebody, which is so not like her. Needless to say, she didn't use it for very long

Me neither....just during the wedding and the honeymoon....which almost didn't happen because of it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Here.

Good for the Church and its ecclesiastical allies in standing up for religious liberty in the United States.

Very good for a Bill that some said "we need to pass it to find out what was in it". This is not how a Republic works. Now that we know it is woeful to what it changed to be and anyone can cheat. Not to mention the fact that the care of all of us can and will be left up to committees. This means whomever is in power will get to decide. So in one admin, Republicans will be discriminated against, then Democrat; who here wants to give the Government that kind of power? That God for Prophets who look out for all it's members. Besides, ever Hospital who accepts funds from the Government is required to provide healthcare to all that cannot pay...be they American citizens or not if they can not pay. This Nation has had free health care for a very long time. The insult comes from those who lie about it or don't bother to educate themselves. My greatest love for my Church is that they take the time to see things for what they are.

[thesometimesaint]

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

We have a Constitution that put those so called inalienable rights as subject to law. The courts can take your liberty, your property, and your life by due process of law. I don't know of any country on earth that can't take at least the first two.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeh, and why should we pay for unfettered access to viagra as a healthcare benefit? Let them pay for it on their own dime!!

Why should I be required to pay anything for anyone's disease, malady, or condition?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Call me cynical, call me jaded, but somehow I doubt that the extra money will find its way to the employee's paycheck.

Did not see the quote to which your reply addresses, but our taxes come from Companies and Individuals. If company taxes are increased, we pay more for goods...then there our paychecks.