Lds Church Joins Religious Coalition In Opposing Obamacare Mandate

[Calm]

Did not see the quote to which your reply addresses, but our taxes come from Companies and Individuals.

He was responding to my expressing the possibility of the employer taking the money he saved on not buying insurance that provided birth control, abortion, and other religiously problematic coverage but just the other noncontroversial stuff and giving the difference directly to the employee to buy---if s/he cares to---additional insurance to cover those items. Say for example, the employer saves $100 per employee per month by not providing group coverage of religiously sensitive procedures/products. Ideally he would then add the $100 to the employees' paychecks so the employees could apply that to supplemental insurance. Unfortunately that might be difficult to guarantee and volgadon is cynical enough (tsk, tsk...so sad to see in a young man) to expect that the employer will actually do the opposite, take the extra $100 and use it for what he wants.

[halconero]

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.

I'm not familiar with the system in the United States, so help me here. What does a person who can't afford good health care do? Are there options available that provide not just adequate, but superb health care? You probably know more about this than I do.

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.

I understand where you're coming from. From your perspective, what rights does an individual have?

[halconero]

Double post

[halconero]

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.

Yeah, my girlfriend has pretty intense periods. Excessive bleeding, huge cramps, etc. So she takes the pill to regulate it. It's a smaller dosage, and likely wouldn't stop her from getting pregnant, but it does help her a lot.

A family member of mine has severe medical issues that would be incredibly life threatening should she get pregnant. So, she's on it to prevent that from happening.

[Calm]

So, he's on it to prevent that from happening.

Yeah, I think it would be very life threatening for a guy to get pregnant....wise choice there.

(I love typos and if it wasn't so funny, I really should ignore it since you did use "she" first...just can't resist today though)

[jwhitlock]

I understand where you're coming from. From your perspective, what rights does an individual have?

As with many terms, "rights" isn't really well defined. Do we have any guaranteed rights? About the only one I can think of is the right to make a choice. While that choice can be heavily influenced, we still can make a choice and bear the consequences.

Otherwise, there are no guaranteed rights. Life, health, safety, liberty, etc. are not guaranteed without regard to situation or choice. Otherwise, rights really don't exist in any absolute, guaranteed form as I see it. They can be respected, even by government at times, but they are never guaranteed.

[Scott Lloyd]

It was in my case [birth control amounting to health care].

I don't dispute there are some instances when it is.

But does Obamacare specify such instances or does it mandate providing birth control on demand regardless of the reason?

[Calm]

I don't dispute there are some instances when it is.

But does Obamacare specify such instances or does it mandate providing birth control on demand regardless of the reason?

Don't have a clue...

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't have a clue...

My guess is that it doesn't differentiate -- hence the opposition by the coalition of faith groups.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

You seriously see no differentiation between a life-threatening or debilitating condition and someone merely wanting to boost his libido?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Insurance companies estimate risk, and charge you accordingly. You may be very healthy and long-lived and not use the healthcare system as frequently as others. Yet you will bear the average risk that insurance companies estimate and be charged a higher premium than if everyone were as healthy as you. By the way, the insurance companies wrote the Affordable Healthcare Act (which is RomneyCare/ObamaCare). So all of us are going to continue to be charged high rates for insurance company overhead, along with what we already pay in HIT (Health Insurance Tax) for Medicare.

Another source of money for healthcare comes directly from taxes collected by City, County, and State governments for the costs of operating general hospitals and ERs (trauma centers) and Fire & Rescue first responders. To the degree that some uninsured parts of society have much higher levels of maladies which are untreated and develop into chronic, emergency room cases (not to mention victims of violence), all of us end up paying for it, including you. All civilized countries (except the USA) have one-payer healthcare systems which spread the cost of all that fairly over the entire population, while at the same time providing preventive care. The USA, for example, has a very high infant mortality rate because pre-natal and neo-natal care is not provided to those who are poor.

The yokels in Washington, DC, haven't the foggiest idea what it might mean to write intelligent, cost-effective legislation, and all of us are the poorer for it.

[Calm]

My guess is that it doesn't differentiate -- hence the opposition by the coalition of faith groups.

I will have to take a good look at my prescriptions next time and see if there is any indication of what the drugs are for.

When RLS was less well known, the drugs used for it were being prescribed outside of their normal usage (Parkinson's). I know of this happening with a lot of drugs when first thought to have an effect on something before being approved by the FDA for that usage, such as Paxil for Social Anxiety. I have a friend who is trying to get pregnant who has some other issues so the doctor is using another issue as the code to get the insurance to pay for her drugs that they are hoping will help her fertility because pregnancy issues are not covered by her insurance. On occasion I've had a doctor warn me before some new drug has been approved for my various issues, that the insurance company may not pass it on through because it's not officially designated for what I've got (so far that's never happened though I've heard it of happening with others so I must have a more flexible insurance company than most). Considering all these conditions, it makes sense to me that for birth control pills like other drugs which are indicated for more than one thing, for example acne and PMDD ( http://www.rxlist.com/lo-loestrin-fe-drug/indications-dosage.htm ), insurance companies have codes for allowed usages and if so, surely a government health plan would do the same thing.

[Calm]

The yokels in Washington, DC, haven't the foggiest idea what it might mean to write intelligent, cost-effective legislation, and all of us are the poorer for it.

Truth. It's like they looked at other countries with national health plans and said "we want what they have" and then simply crossed out the label on the private insurance plans, wrote in "National Health Care" and had ten different people write up ideas on how to pay for it, cut the plans up into pieces and then mixed and matched them randomly....

Okay, that is an exaggeration, but that is what it seems like sometimes to me. I don't understand how the government manages to say 'we want to be like Canada' or whatever nationalized health care country you want to pick from and then completely ignores how that country goes about doing it, including learning from the mistakes of others (which unfortunately there are plenty to learn from). It's like American politicians think America is ahead of the curve of everyone else and therefore can't learn anything from them, even in something where they point to other countries as examples. I guess we have to be the best in our screwups as well as our successes.

The whole wanting to be able to sue that pants off of anyone we choose and get millions in damages for a broken toenail coupled with a labyrinth private/public health insurance is a recipe for disaster if I've ever seen one. And chances are rather than scraping the whole thing or at least trying to fix the legal aspect of it, they will just keep layering it with more and more funding as corrections rather than actual changes....ah, better stop now as this is the one political issue that I could go on and on about.

[Robert F. Smith]

Truth. It's like they looked at other countries with national health plans and said "we want what they have" and then simply crossed out the label on the private insurance plans, wrote in "National Health Care" and had ten different people write up ideas on how to pay for it, cut the plans up into pieces and then mixed and matched them randomly....

Okay, that is an exaggeration, but that is what it seems like sometimes to me. I don't understand how the government manages to say 'we want to be like Canada' or whatever nationalized health care country you want to pick from and then completely ignores how that country goes about doing it, including learning from the mistakes of others (which unfortunately there are plenty to learn from). It's like American politicians think America is ahead of the curve of everyone else and therefore can't learn anything from them, even in something where they point to other countries as examples. I guess we have to be the best in our screwups as well as our successes.

The whole wanting to be able to sue that pants off of anyone we choose and get millions in damages for a broken toenail coupled with a labyrinth private/public health insurance is a recipe for disaster if I've ever seen one. And chances are rather than scraping the whole thing or at least trying to fix the legal aspect of it, they will just keep layering it with more and more funding as corrections rather than actual changes....ah, better stop now as this is the one political issue that I could go on and on about.

Actually, the first idea out of the box in both Massachusetts and on Capitol Hill was an automatic rejection of anything smacking of a national healthcare system or comparison with any other country (Dennis Kucinich was left out in the cold on that). The Congress had the insurance companies come in and write the provisions of the Act to suit themselves. Nobody wanted to fight them. Too much money and too many lobbyists. By trying to keep everyone happy and make no enemies, the Affordable Care Act ended up being a piece of classic committee legislation which pleases no one -- except the insurance companies.

[halconero]

Yeah, I think it would be very life threatening for a guy to get pregnant....wise choice there.

(I love typos and if it wasn't so funny, I really should ignore it since you did use "she" first...just can't resist today though)

Only a chosen few can hack it.

[Calm]

Actually, the first idea out of the box in both Massachusetts and on Capitol Hill was an automatic rejection of anything smacking of a national healthcare system or comparison with any other country

Right, why bother learning from anyone else's experience? Why does this not surprise me one bit?

There is a reason why I try to stay away from politics. It drives me insane.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't dispute there are some instances when it is.

But does Obamacare specify such instances or does it mandate providing birth control on demand regardless of the reason?

That by definition is the freedom of religion. You have no right to impose your religion on others.

[Calm]

That by definition is the freedom of religion. You have no right to impose your religion on others.

And others have no right to impose theirs on you.

[Scott Lloyd]

That by definition is the freedom of religion. You have no right to impose your religion on others.

This remark is an utter non sequitur. In what way is opposing government coercion of entities providing services that violate their consciences imposing one's religion on others?

Let's apply your thinking to a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that as a result of some weird chain of events over time, prostitution were not only legalized but deemed by the government to be an essential benefit that must be made universally available to workers by employers. Suppose further that some employers objected on moral grounds to that governmental mandate. Would you accuse such employers of "imposing [their] religion on others?" That is your thinking extended to its logical conclusion.

[Scott Lloyd]

I will have to take a good look at my prescriptions next time and see if there is any indication of what the drugs are for.

I don't think that would give us the answer. The provision of Obamacare to which the faith groups are objecting is not yet in effect, and in fact, the deadline for it has been moved back.

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

No it doesn’t. There are differences of opinion in nearly every faith, even on core doctrines. Your argument would effectively eliminate religious freedom.

As I pointed out, each church decides for itself whose opinion prevails. In the Catholic church, that is the Catholic hierarchy, not hospital employees. Furthermore, each member of the Catholic hierarchy has spent many years in rigorous academic study of Catholic doctrine and morals, while hospital employees generally have not.

The Catholic hierarchy would strongly disagree that hospital personal are the most “likely to be affected,” simply because they would be the ones using/not using the contraception.

As I understand their objection, they believe that the Obamacare proposal would force the Catholic Church, itself, to become a party to the extremely serious sin of taking innocent human life -- and not just taking one innocent life, but doing so on a massive scale. What is at stake for them is the integrity of their faith and the standing of their Church before God.. Again, this is not my religious belief, but it is their religious belief. The fact that some, or even most, of their hospital employees may disagree is irrelevant.

IIRC, there was some discussion of the possibility that the Catholic church might close down all its hospitals rather than become an accomplice to what they regard as a horrific evil.

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.

What do you think of the compromise I proposed earlier in this thread?

The most incredible part is that this church-state conflict is not necessary. The govt. could avoid it and still achieve its goal of “free” birth control by simply doing the following:

1. Exempt any faith based organizations from directly or indirectly providing birth control coverage to their employees if they feel doing so would violate their core religious beliefs.

2. Pay directly for the birth control of their employees from general tax revenue.

The govt. accomplishes its goal of “free” birth control for everybody. FBOs maintain their religious integrity. The country avoids an unnecessary divisive “church and state” conflict. True, this would cost the govt. some money, but it probably would be cheaper than a long, drawn out court battle, which it may well lose.

One more thing. The govt. would avoid the possibility of a major disruption of our critical medical infrastructure, should the Catholic Church decide that, if it were forced to violate its core religious principles, it could no longer, in good conscience, continue to operate its hospitals. How much money would that cost the government? To say nothing of the social costs due to reduced availability of medical services.

[thesometimesaint]

Insurance companies estimate risk, and charge you accordingly. You may be very healthy and long-lived and not use the healthcare system as frequently as others. Yet you will bear the average risk that insurance companies estimate and be charged a higher premium than if everyone were as healthy as you. By the way, the insurance companies wrote the Affordable Healthcare Act (which is RomneyCare/ObamaCare). So all of us are going to continue to be charged high rates for insurance company overhead, along with what we already pay in HIT (Health Insurance Tax) for Medicare.

Another source of money for healthcare comes directly from taxes collected by City, County, and State governments for the costs of operating general hospitals and ERs (trauma centers) and Fire & Rescue first responders. To the degree that some uninsured parts of society have much higher levels of maladies which are untreated and develop into chronic, emergency room cases (not to mention victims of violence), all of us end up paying for it, including you. All civilized countries (except the USA) have one-payer healthcare systems which spread the cost of all that fairly over the entire population, while at the same time providing preventive care. The USA, for example, has a very high infant mortality rate because pre-natal and neo-natal care is not provided to those who are poor.

The yokels in Washington, DC, haven't the foggiest idea what it might mean to write intelligent, cost-effective legislation, and all of us are the poorer for it.

Actual experience so far is that the ACA reduces the cost of insurance, by expanding the pool of those insured. I would prefer the Medicare for all model that virtually every country of the world follows. But that wasn't to be. 300,000,000 subscribers is a lot of subscribers.

Agreed.

Agreed.

[thesometimesaint]

And others have no right to impose theirs on you.

True, but irrelevant. It is some churches that want to impose their beliefs on others not of their faith.

It is like a church pressuring a pharmacist to refuse you antibiotics, because they don't believe in the germ theory of disease.

[Calm]

True, but irrelevant.

How is that irrelevant when "[y]ou have no right to impose your religion on others" isn't?

[thesometimesaint]

How is that irrelevant when "[y]ou have no right to impose your religion on others" isn't?

Very simple. I'm allowing all to believe as they want. What I'm not doing is saying that all must do as I believe. IE; The ACA doesn't require anyone to take birth control or not take birth control. It simply allows people through their insurance company to buy birth control if they want to.