> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 8, 6:11 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>Wheaton does not want to offer emergency contraception because in
> >>>their minds taking it causes an abortion.
> >>That's just idiocy, not a religious belief. Thought even you had
> >>gleened that.
> >>>(At least some of) Wheaton's employees do not share Wheaton's
> >>>religious scruples.
> >>>But Wheaton wants to impose their religious scruples on their
> >>>employees anyways.
> >>Does Wheaton College control all the doctors and pharmacies?
> >The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is cost-sharing. Bringing
> >women's health care under the Affordable Care Act facilitates cost-
> >sharing. There is no treatment that every person will need in the
> >course of a lifetime, so deal with it. As with any medication, studies
> >have shown that the more the co-pay, the more women will give up using
> >contraception.
> dix goes off on another tangent.
> Moron: Women who would use the morning after pill are NOT on contraception.
> This issue has nothing to do with employers paying for ongoing contraception.
First, it's not an abortifacient, it's contraception. Second, no woman
is on contraception still she starts taking it. Maybe she didn't
figure she needed it until and unless she found a boyfriend. But then
maybe she really clicked with a guy, right away. Maybe she thought her
period was imminent but then recounted in the light of day. Maybe she
was the victim of date rape, or stranger rape, or who the fuck cares.
The point is that she has the right to the same treatment as any other
women. There won't be first class and steerage.
> It's not a point of dispute that some human beings don't use contraception
> because they think it's too expensive. Clearly, some human beings are
> simply too stupid to have sex, but there aren't laws against stupid
> people reproducing due to flaws in logic.
> Now, get back to the issue at hand, or fuck off. Answer my question.
> Does Wheaton College controll all the doctors and pharmacies?
> >>Most health plans in this country don't include dental. Yet dentists have
> >>patients.
> >Dentists are not physicians.
> It's a matter of what health care is typically covered. Psychiatrists are
> physicians. Typically, mental health services aren't covered, or if they
> are, it's for too short a period to cure anyone.
> The point is that medical care doesn't end just because it's not part of a
> health plan. What we are discussing has a nominal price, given that it's
> a one-time use. The point is it's not an imposition of religion not to
> pay for a particular aspect of health care.
> Does dix acknowledge that adult women are free to obtain emergency
> contraception as needed because they are free to make their own choices?
> >Right now the ACA is a mandatory health
> >care plan, not a dental plan. The ACA doesn't cover nursing home care,
> >either. Vets have patients, too, for that matter, yet the ACA is
> >limited to human beings.
> Is that where you get your shots?
> >>How does not being able to submit a bill through an employer-provided
> >>health plan impose a religious belief on an employee? Is the employee
> >>still free to act on her own?
> >Why should the health care plan cover pregnancy? Or heart bypass? Or
> >acne? Why should one sort of treatment be singled out for exclusion?
> >Why contraception and not prostate cancer?
> dix goes off on yet another tangent.
> >Religious organizations can exclude certain treatments from its
> >personnel in positions where they must adhere to their set of beliefs.
> >Not every jamoke that they hire will qualify as such an exception.
> dix, you moron, how exactly does the religious organization prevent
> the employee from getting treatment? Is there some form of unlawful
> detainment taking place?
A religious organization claims that its non-religious employees
should not be treated the way other organizations' employees are. Why?
spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 8, 9:32 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Religious organizations can exclude certain treatments from its
>>>personnel in positions where they must adhere to their set of beliefs.
>>>Not every jamoke that they hire will qualify as such an exception.
>>dix, you moron, how exactly does the religious organization prevent
>>the employee from getting treatment? Is there some form of unlawful
>>detainment taking place?
>A religious organization claims that its non-religious employees
>should not be treated the way other organizations' employees are. Why?
They can CLAIM whatever they like. How do they prevent treatment from
taking place, moron?
> On Aug 8, 6:11 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Does Wheaton College control all the doctors and pharmacies?
> The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is cost-sharing. Bringing
> women's health care under the Affordable Care Act facilitates cost-
> sharing. There is no treatment that every person will need in the
> course of a lifetime, so deal with it.
Huh? I thought the purpose of ACA was to make affordable health care available to everyone, *reduce* costs, improve care quality, enhance disease prevention and strengthen the health care workforce.
Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
On Aug 9, 5:57 am, barbie gee <boo...@nosespam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is cost-sharing. Bringing
> > women's health care under the Affordable Care Act facilitates cost-
> > sharing. There is no treatment that every person will need in the
> > course of a lifetime, so deal with it. As with any medication, studies
> > have shown that the more the co-pay, the more women will give up using
> > contraception.
Nearns J. Health insurance coverage and prescription contraceptive use
among young women at risk for unintended pregnancy. Contraception.
2009;79(2):105-110.
On Aug 9, 7:39 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 11:12 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 6:11 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >> Does Wheaton College control all the doctors and pharmacies?
> > The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is cost-sharing. Bringing
> > women's health care under the Affordable Care Act facilitates cost-
> > sharing. There is no treatment that every person will need in the
> > course of a lifetime, so deal with it.
> Huh? I thought the purpose of ACA was to make affordable health care
> available to everyone, *reduce* costs, improve care quality, enhance
> disease prevention and strengthen the health care workforce.
I was up too late last night. Cost sharing means co-payments. Risk
pooling by putting everyone in the pool lowers health care costs.
> Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is
> not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have
> to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that
> some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for
> things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep
> dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim
> of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
Adam's argument is that anyone denied coverage by their employer can
pay for it out of the salary provided by their employer, so what's the
big deal?
What if the employee wants a tubal ligation? She should just pony up
out of her own pocket? What if she already has seven kids?
What if the employee has an ectopic pregnancy? Some employers believe
removing that would be an immoral abortion, and she should simply die.
Should she pay for that out of pocket? A similar thing happened in
Arizona not long ago, and the nun who approved the operation was
excommunicated.
spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 9, 7:39 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
>>Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is
>>not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have
>>to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that
>>some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for
>>things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep
>>dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim
>>of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
>Adam's argument is that anyone denied coverage by their employer can
>pay for it out of the salary provided by their employer, so what's the
>big deal?
Don't set up a straw man, you fucking piece of shit, dix.
YOUR argument is that employer-paid health insurance can be used to
impose religious beliefs on employees. I was disagreeing that any
employer exercises any such control over employees through the health plan.
The employee remains an adult reponsible for her own life and capable of
making her own decisions.
Morning-after pill is cheap and affordable as it's given on a one-time basis.
It doesn't matter if it's covered or not. There's no reason for this to be
an issue at work.
The rest of dix's quote was disgusting, rambling spew, nothing to do with
the stupidity of the position he took earlier. dix, you are a vile person.
On Aug 9, 9:16 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 9, 7:39 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is
> >>not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have
> >>to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that
> >>some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for
> >>things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep
> >>dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim
> >>of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
> >Adam's argument is that anyone denied coverage by their employer can
> >pay for it out of the salary provided by their employer, so what's the
> >big deal?
> Don't set up a straw man, you fucking piece of shit, dix.
Please, summarize your position.
> YOUR argument is that employer-paid health insurance can be used to
> impose religious beliefs on employees. I was disagreeing that any
> employer exercises any such control over employees through the health plan.
> The employee remains an adult reponsible for her own life and capable of
> making her own decisions.
OK, the employer merely says "If you have sufficient resources you
don't have to live by my moral code."
> Morning-after pill is cheap and affordable as it's given on a one-time basis.
> It doesn't matter if it's covered or not. There's no reason for this to be
> an issue at work.
As part of a faith-based belief that contraception = abortion =
murdering babies, yes, this is an issue.
> The rest of dix's quote was disgusting, rambling spew, nothing to do with
> the stupidity of the position he took earlier. dix, you are a vile person.
They're all examples of a family of procedures that violate employers'
religious beliefs, and thus the employee would have to pay out of
whatever savings she had.
> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 7:39 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is
>>> not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have
>>> to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that
>>> some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for
>>> things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep
>>> dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim
>>> of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
>> Adam's argument is that anyone denied coverage by their employer can
>> pay for it out of the salary provided by their employer, so what's the
>> big deal?
> Don't set up a straw man, you fucking piece of shit, dix.
> YOUR argument is that employer-paid health insurance can be used to
> impose religious beliefs on employees. I was disagreeing that any
> employer exercises any such control over employees through the health plan.
> The employee remains an adult reponsible for her own life and capable of
> making her own decisions.
When was the last time you set up a health insurance plan for employees?
> Morning-after pill is cheap and affordable as it's given on a one-time basis.
> It doesn't matter if it's covered or not. There's no reason for this to be
> an issue at work.
Really? REALLY?
Adam, you're coming across as big of a pig as Dix is here with that statement.
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:45:02 -0500, Michele Goudie wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 11:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 9, 7:39 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is
>>>> not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have
>>>> to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that
>>>> some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for
>>>> things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep
>>>> dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim
>>>> of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
>>> Adam's argument is that anyone denied coverage by their employer can
>>> pay for it out of the salary provided by their employer, so what's the
>>> big deal?
>> Don't set up a straw man, you fucking piece of shit, dix.
>> YOUR argument is that employer-paid health insurance can be used to
>> impose religious beliefs on employees. I was disagreeing that any
>> employer exercises any such control over employees through the health plan.
>> The employee remains an adult reponsible for her own life and capable of
>> making her own decisions.
> When was the last time you set up a health insurance plan for employees?
>> Morning-after pill is cheap and affordable as it's given on a one-time basis.
>> It doesn't matter if it's covered or not. There's no reason for this to be
>> an issue at work.
> Really? REALLY?
> Adam, you're coming across as big of a pig as Dix is here with that > statement.
I'm wondering if he would be okay with someone employed by The Church of
Christ, Scientist, having a health plan handed to them that pays for
nothing but healing prayer consultants.
> On Aug 9, 7:39 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 8/8/2012 11:12 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>>> On Aug 8, 6:11 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> Does Wheaton College control all the doctors and pharmacies?
>>> The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is cost-sharing. Bringing
>>> women's health care under the Affordable Care Act facilitates cost-
>>> sharing. There is no treatment that every person will need in the
>>> course of a lifetime, so deal with it.
>> Huh? I thought the purpose of ACA was to make affordable health care
>> available to everyone, *reduce* costs, improve care quality, enhance
>> disease prevention and strengthen the health care workforce.
> I was up too late last night. Cost sharing means co-payments. Risk
> pooling by putting everyone in the pool lowers health care costs.
Same thing isn't it?
>> Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is
>> not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have
>> to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that
>> some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for
>> things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep
>> dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim
>> of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
> Adam's argument is that anyone denied coverage by their employer can
> pay for it out of the salary provided by their employer, so what's the
> big deal?
I don't think that's the argument, but he seems to have had too much coffee today and I could be wrong. I believe the argument is that the employer shouldn't be forced to pay for services that are against their religious beliefs. The employee is free to seek care elsewhere and find alternative help in paying for said care.
> What if the employee wants a tubal ligation? She should just pony up
> out of her own pocket? What if she already has seven kids?
> What if the employee has an ectopic pregnancy? Some employers believe
> removing that would be an immoral abortion, and she should simply die.
> Should she pay for that out of pocket? A similar thing happened in
> Arizona not long ago, and the nun who approved the operation was
> excommunicated.
Your examples actually give credence to the position you seem against. The fact that there *are* moral, ethical, and religious issues that should be given consideration. First you argue that by not covering contraception and abortion, religious beliefs are being forced onto patients. Now you seem to be giving examples where a patient is forcing their beliefs on the health care provider in order to obtain services which the provider must use their resources on for payment.
Some of these issues need to be settled by courts, as in life and death situations. Your examples are certainly more specific than than the generalized issue of either pro or against contraception or abortion, and in that regard are not a fair comparison.
You would think the more difficult the issue, the easier the answer would be. As in religious organizations believing abortion is killing and not wanting to pay for them. However, that doesn't seem to be always true.
Let me give you an example. Say we have a Jewish man who finds his soul mate after much searching. They marry and have their first child. Not being political in nature, the couple doesn't realize the pols have decided for some reason to go along with San Francisco's idea of eliminating circumcision. They eliminate any payment for it in the ACA deeming it an unnecessary procedure The couple set up and pay for a big party on the 8th day. Then they call the rabbi and a mohel, who is a trained and certified pediatrician, does the procedure. He sends a bill and they find out that even though their religion has required this for thousands of years, it is not covered.
Should his employer who also is a Jew be able to include this coverage in his companies plan? Or, should he be forced to not include the coverage because of this regulated affordability brought on by this new "cost-sharing" you speak of? Even worse in his mind, while he can't cover the circumcision, he is now forced to pay for abortions of what his religion has taught him to be a viable life.
Michele Goudie <dont.e...@trythisathome.com> wrote:
>On 8/9/2012 11:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Aug 9, 7:39 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is
>>>>not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have
>>>>to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that
>>>>some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for
>>>>things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep
>>>>dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim
>>>>of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
>>>Adam's argument is that anyone denied coverage by their employer can
>>>pay for it out of the salary provided by their employer, so what's the
>>>big deal?
>>Don't set up a straw man, you fucking piece of shit, dix.
>>YOUR argument is that employer-paid health insurance can be used to
>>impose religious beliefs on employees. I was disagreeing that any
>>employer exercises any such control over employees through the health plan.
>>The employee remains an adult reponsible for her own life and capable of
>>making her own decisions.
>When was the last time you set up a health insurance plan for employees?
Totally irrelevant
>>Morning-after pill is cheap and affordable as it's given on a one-time basis.
>>It doesn't matter if it's covered or not. There's no reason for this to be
>>an issue at work.
>Really? REALLY?
>Adam, you're coming across as big of a pig as Dix is here with that >statement.
You're an intelligent woman. I expect better than a cheap shot from you.
The claim is that the employer can impose religious beliefs on an
employee based on what services the health plan covers. If a woman needs
a morning-after pill, she's not going to be detered from obtaining it
just because it's not covered by her health plan. If that's an imposition
of religion on an employee, it would be a failed attempt.
That you believe a woman wouldn't obtain cheap and affordable treatment she
requires if it's not covered by her health plan is rather paternalistic
on your part. You don't think women can take responsible care for their
own health, even when at odds with their employer? You're the one being
condescending here.
For a lot of reasons, there's no actual substance to Wheaton College's
lawsuit against the Obama administration. It's not going to make or break
any employer's health plan, and given what we've been discussing, won't
make or break any woman's decision on how to deal with the consequences
of possible pregnancy from unwanted sex.
It wasn't even a legitimate religious belief, since 1) they were covering
it and 2) it's not a religious belief to claim that taking a drug to
prevent pregnancy after possible conception is any kind of abortion.
Deliberate misstatements of facts of biology aren't religious beliefs.
sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
>On 8/9/2012 10:24 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>>On Aug 9, 7:39 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>On 8/8/2012 11:12 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>>>>On Aug 8, 6:11 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>Does Wheaton College control all the doctors and pharmacies?
>>>>The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is cost-sharing. Bringing
>>>>women's health care under the Affordable Care Act facilitates cost-
>>>>sharing. There is no treatment that every person will need in the
>>>>course of a lifetime, so deal with it.
>>>Huh? I thought the purpose of ACA was to make affordable health care
>>>available to everyone, *reduce* costs, improve care quality, enhance
>>>disease prevention and strengthen the health care workforce.
>>I was up too late last night. Cost sharing means co-payments. Risk
>>pooling by putting everyone in the pool lowers health care costs.
>Same thing isn't it?
Actually, cost sharing raises the out of pocket costs for those who
consume less than average levels of health care.
>>>Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is
>>>not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have
>>>to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that
>>>some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for
>>>things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep
>>>dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim
>>>of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
>>Adam's argument is that anyone denied coverage by their employer can
>>pay for it out of the salary provided by their employer, so what's the
>>big deal?
>I don't think that's the argument, but he seems to have had too much >coffee today and I could be wrong. I believe the argument is that the >employer shouldn't be forced to pay for services that are against their >religious beliefs. The employee is free to seek care elsewhere and find >alternative help in paying for said care.
No, the argument is that the employer isn't imposing religious beliefs on
an employee by not covering emergency contraception because the woman who
requires emergency contraception hasn't been prevented from obtaining it.
dix has been stupidly claiming that no woman would buy any medical services
not covered by the health plan even if she can afford it, and therefore,
a religious belief has been imposed upon her.
>You would think the more difficult the issue, the easier the answer >would be. As in religious organizations believing abortion is killing >and not wanting to pay for them. However, that doesn't seem to be >always true.
In this case, the employer claims falsely that it opposes abortion and
that it opposes emergency contraception as it's a form of abortion.
You can't make off the wall false claims, then insist that it's religious
doctrine that one is entitled to follow.
>Let me give you an example. Say we have a Jewish man who finds his soul >mate after much searching. They marry and have their first child. Not >being political in nature, the couple doesn't realize the pols have >decided for some reason to go along with San Francisco's idea of >eliminating circumcision. They eliminate any payment for it in the ACA >deeming it an unnecessary procedure The couple set up and pay for a big >party on the 8th day. Then they call the rabbi and a mohel, who is a >trained and certified pediatrician, does the procedure. He sends a bill >and they find out that even though their religion has required this for >thousands of years, it is not covered.
>Should his employer who also is a Jew be able to include this coverage >in his companies plan? Or, should he be forced to not include the >coverage because of this regulated affordability brought on by this new >"cost-sharing" you speak of? Even worse in his mind, while he can't >cover the circumcision, he is now forced to pay for abortions of what >his religion has taught him to be a viable life.
>It's a mess!
I don't think it's a mess. I've never heard of anyone being able to
charge the cost of a religious ceremony to a health plan, which would be
outrageous. But if the employer wants to cover it, he sure as hell can't
legally claim it's part of the health plan. The cost should be considered
earned income and payroll taxes should apply.
> It wasn't even a legitimate religious belief, since 1) they were covering
> it and 2) it's not a religious belief to claim that taking a drug to
> prevent pregnancy after possible conception is any kind of abortion.
> Deliberate misstatements of facts of biology aren't religious beliefs.
try explaining that to the nutsos (eg santorum) who think griswold v
connecticut needs to be overturned
Geoff Gass <g...@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>It wasn't even a legitimate religious belief, since 1) they were covering
>>it and 2) it's not a religious belief to claim that taking a drug to
>>prevent pregnancy after possible conception is any kind of abortion.
>>Deliberate misstatements of facts of biology aren't religious beliefs.
>try explaining that to the nutsos (eg santorum) who think griswold v
>connecticut needs to be overturned
I leave it to dix to straighten out the errors of fact of his fellow
Christians. It's not a job I want to take on.
> Michele Goudie <dont.e...@trythisathome.com> wrote:
>> On 8/9/2012 11:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 9, 7:39 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>> Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is
>>>>> not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have
>>>>> to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that
>>>>> some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for
>>>>> things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep
>>>>> dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim
>>>>> of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
>>>> Adam's argument is that anyone denied coverage by their employer can
>>>> pay for it out of the salary provided by their employer, so what's the
>>>> big deal?
>>> Don't set up a straw man, you fucking piece of shit, dix.
>>> YOUR argument is that employer-paid health insurance can be used to
>>> impose religious beliefs on employees. I was disagreeing that any
>>> employer exercises any such control over employees through the health plan.
>>> The employee remains an adult reponsible for her own life and capable of
>>> making her own decisions.
>> When was the last time you set up a health insurance plan for employees?
> Totally irrelevant
>>> Morning-after pill is cheap and affordable as it's given on a one-time basis.
>>> It doesn't matter if it's covered or not. There's no reason for this to be
>>> an issue at work.
>> Really? REALLY?
>> Adam, you're coming across as big of a pig as Dix is here with that
>> statement.
> You're an intelligent woman. I expect better than a cheap shot from you.
> The claim is that the employer can impose religious beliefs on an
> employee based on what services the health plan covers. If a woman needs
> a morning-after pill, she's not going to be detered from obtaining it
> just because it's not covered by her health plan. If that's an imposition
> of religion on an employee, it would be a failed attempt.
> That you believe a woman wouldn't obtain cheap and affordable treatment she
> requires if it's not covered by her health plan is rather paternalistic
> on your part. You don't think women can take responsible care for their
> own health, even when at odds with their employer? You're the one being
> condescending here.
I never said that. You're the one who's making an ass-u-mption here.
This is the point you're missing -- it all comes down to cost. A lot of women go without because they can't afford it on their own, or don't have access to a reasonably priced clinic a la Planned parenthood. It's something like $75 for an annual checkup at PP without health insurance, and way more than that at a standard OB/GYN clinic.
In order to GET onto BC, a woman has to have a pelvic exam first. Then she has to go get the BC, which is not cheap for some, either.
I was recently following a post about a discussion about Plan B. Going up to the counter at CVS or Walgreen's put her $50 out of pocket. One dose of Plan B costs more than a one month pack of some birth control products. There's always PP, which can be anywhere from $10 to $70 for the Plan B, but again, not every woman has a clinic nearby, or wants to patronize PP. I dunno about you, but to me, paying $50 over a broken condom is a chunk out of anyone's wallet.
Health insurance made the cost of birth control more manageable, and the ACA finally made it so that there's no copay for women's needs such as BC on August 1st. However, that's only in the case of women who already have insurance.
Yes, this is from HuffPo, but the writer puts out solid information about what the latest change to women's health care via the ACA means.
> For a lot of reasons, there's no actual substance to Wheaton College's
> lawsuit against the Obama administration. It's not going to make or break
> any employer's health plan, and given what we've been discussing, won't
> make or break any woman's decision on how to deal with the consequences
> of possible pregnancy from unwanted sex.
> It wasn't even a legitimate religious belief, since 1) they were covering
> it and 2) it's not a religious belief to claim that taking a drug to
> prevent pregnancy after possible conception is any kind of abortion.
> Deliberate misstatements of facts of biology aren't religious beliefs.
Michele Goudie <dont.e...@trythisathome.com> wrote:
>On 8/9/2012 3:43 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Michele Goudie <dont.e...@trythisathome.com> wrote:
>>>On 8/9/2012 11:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Aug 9, 7:39 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is
>>>>>>not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have
>>>>>>to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that
>>>>>>some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for
>>>>>>things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep
>>>>>>dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim
>>>>>>of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
>>>>>Adam's argument is that anyone denied coverage by their employer can
>>>>>pay for it out of the salary provided by their employer, so what's the
>>>>>big deal?
>>>>Don't set up a straw man, you fucking piece of shit, dix.
>>>>YOUR argument is that employer-paid health insurance can be used to
>>>>impose religious beliefs on employees. I was disagreeing that any
>>>>employer exercises any such control over employees through the health plan.
>>>>The employee remains an adult reponsible for her own life and capable of
>>>>making her own decisions.
>>>When was the last time you set up a health insurance plan for employees?
>>Totally irrelevant
>>>>Morning-after pill is cheap and affordable as it's given on a
>one-time basis.
>>>>It doesn't matter if it's covered or not. There's no reason for this to be
>>>>an issue at work.
>>>Really? REALLY?
>>>Adam, you're coming across as big of a pig as Dix is here with that
>>>statement.
>>You're an intelligent woman. I expect better than a cheap shot from you.
>>The claim is that the employer can impose religious beliefs on an
>>employee based on what services the health plan covers. If a woman needs
>>a morning-after pill, she's not going to be detered from obtaining it
>>just because it's not covered by her health plan. If that's an imposition
>>of religion on an employee, it would be a failed attempt.
>>That you believe a woman wouldn't obtain cheap and affordable treatment she
>>requires if it's not covered by her health plan is rather paternalistic
>>on your part. You don't think women can take responsible care for their
>>own health, even when at odds with their employer? You're the one being
>>condescending here.
>I never said that. You're the one who's making an ass-u-mption here.
>This is the point you're missing -- it all comes down to cost. A lot of >women go without because they can't afford it on their own, or don't >have access to a reasonably priced clinic a la Planned parenthood. It's >something like $75 for an annual checkup at PP without health insurance, >and way more than that at a standard OB/GYN clinic.
We're discussing women with full-time jobs who have employer-paid health
insurance plans that perhaps don't cover every single health need they
have. So these are women with jobs that pay a whole lot more than minimum
wage. I suppose there may be a few full-time jobs that pay minimum wage
or not much better that offer employer-paid health insurance, but that's
too rare to bother discussing.
So these hypothetical women can't afford annual checkups and annual
gynecological exams and birth control, not even emergency contraception?
Give me a break.
>In order to GET onto BC, a woman has to have a pelvic exam first. Then >she has to go get the BC, which is not cheap for some, either.
We weren't discussing women taking birth control. We were discussing
something very specific: dix's stupid remark that Wheaton College doesn't
want to provide emergency contraception through its health plan as a
matter of imposing religious beliefs on its female employees. I'm making
the assumption that a woman who requires emergency contraception isn't
on birth control, for if she had the Pill available to her, she can take
an overdose for emergency contraceptive purposes.
She can afford to pay for emergency contraception, which is something
purchased on a one-time basis. Therefore, any attempt of Wheaton College
to impose religious beliefs on its female employees would fail. Therefore,
it's utterly stupid to believe that the health plan could successfully
impose religion (should the employer happen to believe it is imposing
religion).
You're assuming that women with full time jobs that include health insurance
are too poor to pay for a one-time treatment if it shouldn't happen to
be covered for whatever reason?
What the hell, Michele?
>I was recently following a post about a discussion about Plan B. Going >up to the counter at CVS or Walgreen's put her $50 out of pocket. One >dose of Plan B costs more than a one month pack of some birth control >products. There's always PP, which can be anywhere from $10 to $70 for >the Plan B, but again, not every woman has a clinic nearby, or wants to >patronize PP. I dunno about you, but to me, paying $50 over a broken >condom is a chunk out of anyone's wallet.
Versus having the fucking kid?
We're talking about a full-grown woman with a full-time job with decent pay.
She can take responsibility for her own contraception, regardless of what
the employer-paid health plan provides.
> Michele Goudie <dont.e...@trythisathome.com> wrote:
> >On 8/9/2012 3:43 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>Michele Goudie <dont.e...@trythisathome.com> wrote:
> >>>On 8/9/2012 11:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>>>spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>On Aug 9, 7:39 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>Cost sharing is a means to an end, with the end being the ACA. It is
> >>>>>>not the purpose. Thus we have the moral and ethical decisions that have
> >>>>>>to be made. I can understand how people can disagree with the idea that
> >>>>>>some organizations have the right to and would not like to pay for
> >>>>>>things like abortion, but I don't understand how you seem to keep
> >>>>>>dismissing Adam's argument with this one size fits all theory and claim
> >>>>>>of forced beliefs. You're not being honest.
> >>>>>Adam's argument is that anyone denied coverage by their employer can
> >>>>>pay for it out of the salary provided by their employer, so what's the
> >>>>>big deal?
> >>>>Don't set up a straw man, you fucking piece of shit, dix.
> >>>>YOUR argument is that employer-paid health insurance can be used to
> >>>>impose religious beliefs on employees. I was disagreeing that any
> >>>>employer exercises any such control over employees through the health plan.
> >>>>The employee remains an adult reponsible for her own life and capable of
> >>>>making her own decisions.
> >>>When was the last time you set up a health insurance plan for employees?
> >>Totally irrelevant
> >>>>Morning-after pill is cheap and affordable as it's given on a
> >one-time basis.
> >>>>It doesn't matter if it's covered or not. There's no reason for this to be
> >>>>an issue at work.
> >>>Really? REALLY?
> >>>Adam, you're coming across as big of a pig as Dix is here with that
> >>>statement.
> >>You're an intelligent woman. I expect better than a cheap shot from you.
> >>The claim is that the employer can impose religious beliefs on an
> >>employee based on what services the health plan covers. If a woman needs
> >>a morning-after pill, she's not going to be detered from obtaining it
> >>just because it's not covered by her health plan. If that's an imposition
> >>of religion on an employee, it would be a failed attempt.
> >>That you believe a woman wouldn't obtain cheap and affordable treatment she
> >>requires if it's not covered by her health plan is rather paternalistic
> >>on your part. You don't think women can take responsible care for their
> >>own health, even when at odds with their employer? You're the one being
> >>condescending here.
> >I never said that. You're the one who's making an ass-u-mption here.
> >This is the point you're missing -- it all comes down to cost. A lot of
> >women go without because they can't afford it on their own, or don't
> >have access to a reasonably priced clinic a la Planned parenthood. It's
> >something like $75 for an annual checkup at PP without health insurance,
> >and way more than that at a standard OB/GYN clinic.
> We're discussing women with full-time jobs who have employer-paid health
> insurance plans that perhaps don't cover every single health need they
> have. So these are women with jobs that pay a whole lot more than minimum
> wage. I suppose there may be a few full-time jobs that pay minimum wage
> or not much better that offer employer-paid health insurance, but that's
> too rare to bother discussing.
> So these hypothetical women can't afford annual checkups and annual
> gynecological exams and birth control, not even emergency contraception?
> Give me a break.
> >In order to GET onto BC, a woman has to have a pelvic exam first. Then
> >she has to go get the BC, which is not cheap for some, either.
> We weren't discussing women taking birth control. We were discussing
> something very specific: dix's stupid remark that Wheaton College doesn't
> want to provide emergency contraception through its health plan as a
> matter of imposing religious beliefs on its female employees. I'm making
> the assumption that a woman who requires emergency contraception isn't
> on birth control, for if she had the Pill available to her, she can take
> an overdose for emergency contraceptive purposes.
> She can afford to pay for emergency contraception, which is something
> purchased on a one-time basis. Therefore, any attempt of Wheaton College
> to impose religious beliefs on its female employees would fail. Therefore,
> it's utterly stupid to believe that the health plan could successfully
> impose religion (should the employer happen to believe it is imposing
> religion).
> You're assuming that women with full time jobs that include health insurance
> are too poor to pay for a one-time treatment if it shouldn't happen to
> be covered for whatever reason?
> What the hell, Michele?
> >I was recently following a post about a discussion about Plan B. Going
> >up to the counter at CVS or Walgreen's put her $50 out of pocket. One
> >dose of Plan B costs more than a one month pack of some birth control
> >products. There's always PP, which can be anywhere from $10 to $70 for
> >the Plan B, but again, not every woman has a clinic nearby, or wants to
> >patronize PP. I dunno about you, but to me, paying $50 over a broken
> >condom is a chunk out of anyone's wallet.
> Versus having the fucking kid?
> We're talking about a full-grown woman with a full-time job with decent pay.
> She can take responsibility for her own contraception, regardless of what
> the employer-paid health plan provides.
spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Alan's male privilege is showing.
You're being almost as paternalistic as Michele was. You think no woman
is strong enough to resist religious indoctrination, and Michele thinks
working women are all poor.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 03:49:25 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Alan's male privilege is showing.
> You're being almost as paternalistic as Michele was. You think no woman
> is strong enough to resist religious indoctrination, and Michele thinks
> working women are all poor.
You're being a staggering shitbird.
There is no reason _ANY_ health plan shouldn't cover contraceptives,
emergency or otherwise. Unwanted pregnancies generate a staggering amount
of rollover health and financial impacts onto society. Wheaton College had
absolutely no fucking issue with these regulations until the right wing
decided to politicize this issue.
If you think Wheaton's arguments against providing this in their basic
health care plans is acceptable, you're a goddamned cretin.
>> You're being almost as paternalistic as Michele was. You think no woman
>> is strong enough to resist religious indoctrination, and Michele thinks
>> working women are all poor.
> You're being a staggering shitbird.
> There is no reason _ANY_ health plan shouldn't cover contraceptives,
> emergency or otherwise. Unwanted pregnancies generate a staggering amount
> of rollover health and financial impacts onto society. Wheaton College had
> absolutely no fucking issue with these regulations until the right wing
> decided to politicize this issue.
> If you think Wheaton's arguments against providing this in their basic
> health care plans is acceptable, you're a goddamned cretin.
I'm amused at his calling me paternalistic and claiming that working women have plenty of money to throw at their health care.
I guess it's a fair turnabout that BC/BS stopped covering Viagra.
smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 03:49:25 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Alan's male privilege is showing.
>>You're being almost as paternalistic as Michele was. You think no woman
>>is strong enough to resist religious indoctrination, and Michele thinks
>>working women are all poor.
>You're being a staggering shitbird. >There is no reason _ANY_ health plan shouldn't cover contraceptives,
>emergency or otherwise. Unwanted pregnancies generate a staggering amount
>of rollover health and financial impacts onto society. Wheaton College had
>absolutely no fucking issue with these regulations until the right wing
>decided to politicize this issue.
Douchebag, what a health plan should or shouldn't include WASN'T any point
of discussion. dix's comment was that the college was imposing religious
beliefs on employees through the health plan.
Since a female Wheaton College can afford emergency contraception as
needed, even though Wheaton College wants to drop it from the health plan,
has religion been imposed on that woman given that the treatment she seeks
is readily available to her?
You're a fucking imbecile, considering you're agreeing with dix.
Uh, Wheaton College included it in its health plan, which is why they the
Obama administration didn't exempt them, which I had commented on repeatedly.
>If you think Wheaton's arguments against providing this in their basic
>health care plans is acceptable, you're a goddamned cretin.
I haven't addressed the college's arguments. I was addressing dix's stupidity,
and now yours.
If you think women are so adle-brained that they've had religion imposed
upon them for something they aren't restricted from doing, you are
hideously condescending.
Michele Goudie <dont.e...@trythisathome.com> wrote:
>I'm amused at his calling me paternalistic and claiming that working >women have plenty of money to throw at their health care.
I called you paternalistic because you don't believe a working woman would
take any responsibility for her health care if she has to pay small amounts
out of pocket.
>I guess it's a fair turnabout that BC/BS stopped covering Viagra.
That's hardly the same issue. For what it's worth, I don't think Congress
or any law should mandate particulars of health coverage, and I sure as
hell don't think Viagra is basic health coverage.
What else do you want charged to an employer's health plan, the bar tab
from picking up sexual partners? How did people have sex in the old days
before their employer's benefits administrator became a third party
participant?
barbie gee <boo...@nosespam.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, sticks wrote:
>> On 8/7/2012 11:22 PM, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
>>> barbie gee <boo...@nosespam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> spamtrap1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 6, 10:42 pm, Jean <goterm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wheaton College, an evangelical liberal arts school in
>>>>>>> Illinois, asked a Washington, D.C. federal court on
>>>>>>> Wednesday for an emergency injunction against the Obama
>>>>>>> administration's contraception coverage mandate because the
>>>>>>> rule forces the school to cover emergency contraception,
>>>>>>> which it believes causes abortions, or pay immediate fines.
>>>>>>> But Wheaton's health plan already covered emergency
>>>>>>> contraception when the mandate was announced, a spokesperson
>>>>>>> for its legal team told The Huffington Post, and tried to
>>>>>>> scramble to get rid of that coverage in order to qualify for
>>>>>>> the one-year reprieve President Barack Obama put in place
>>>>>>> for religious institutions that have moral objections to
>>>>>>> contraception.
>>>>>>> "In order to be eligible for the safe harbor, the
>>>>>>> institution has to certify that it has not covered
>>>>>>> contraceptives after February 10, 2012," said Emily Hardman,
>>>>>>> communications director for the Becket Fund for Religious
>>>>>>> Liberty.
>>>>>> I still don't see how an employer can impose its religious beliefs on
>>>>>> its employees. And emergency contraception is still contraception
>>>>>> whatever idiocy "Wheaton College" believes.
>>>>> It doesn't force a possibly fertilized woman to become pregnant,
>>>>> you blithering idiot. She can buy her own morning-after pill without
>>>>> seeking her employer's permission.
>>>> what I don't understand is how an employer can dictate what is and isn't
>>>> covered in a health plan in the first place.
>>> What part about cafeteria plans don't you understand. Employers get to >>> choose
>>> what they are going to pay to cover as part of rate control.
>>> As a state employee I know you simply expect taxpayers to pay for >>> everything
>>> and a fat pension too... thank you for your contribution to making the
>>> state insolvent...
>> Oh boy. jonny's being a cunt.
>so what else is new? the fact that he doesn't understand exactly who and >what made the state insolvent (not the pension plan or state employees, >other than legislators) says a lot. You need to ignore him, like most of >the rest of us do.
No, the unions and the contractors have taken the state for years, just as
they have done to 'The City that Works' since the early 80's.
Unions know politicians need votes and blackmail them for as much as they
can get, politicians never had the backbone to say no so they give in for
the endorsements.
Read a newspaper article in Markham Canada not too long ago about the U.S. repaving roads that don't need to be paved just to create jobs and funnel
money into unions because many of those contracts won't allow non-union
labor. Paving roads that don't need to be paved just drives up the deficit
worse.
Did you join UIC United Faculty Local 6456 yet so you can get a little bit more of the taxpayers dime? Just what the state needed was another union.
-- John Nelson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.orghttp://www.chicagofishing.org (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)
smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:11:54 -0500, sticks wrote:
>> On 8/7/2012 11:22 PM, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
>>> barbie gee <boo...@nosespam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> spamtrap1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 6, 10:42 pm, Jean <goterm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wheaton College, an evangelical liberal arts school in
>>>>>>> Illinois, asked a Washington, D.C. federal court on
>>>>>>> Wednesday for an emergency injunction against the Obama
>>>>>>> administration's contraception coverage mandate because the
>>>>>>> rule forces the school to cover emergency contraception,
>>>>>>> which it believes causes abortions, or pay immediate fines.
>>>>>>> But Wheaton's health plan already covered emergency
>>>>>>> contraception when the mandate was announced, a spokesperson
>>>>>>> for its legal team told The Huffington Post, and tried to
>>>>>>> scramble to get rid of that coverage in order to qualify for
>>>>>>> the one-year reprieve President Barack Obama put in place
>>>>>>> for religious institutions that have moral objections to
>>>>>>> contraception.
>>>>>>> "In order to be eligible for the safe harbor, the
>>>>>>> institution has to certify that it has not covered
>>>>>>> contraceptives after February 10, 2012," said Emily Hardman,
>>>>>>> communications director for the Becket Fund for Religious
>>>>>>> Liberty.
>>>>>> I still don't see how an employer can impose its religious beliefs on
>>>>>> its employees. And emergency contraception is still contraception
>>>>>> whatever idiocy "Wheaton College" believes.
>>>>> It doesn't force a possibly fertilized woman to become pregnant,
>>>>> you blithering idiot. She can buy her own morning-after pill without
>>>>> seeking her employer's permission.
>>>> what I don't understand is how an employer can dictate what is and isn't
>>>> covered in a health plan in the first place.
>>> What part about cafeteria plans don't you understand. Employers get to choose
>>> what they are going to pay to cover as part of rate control.
>>> As a state employee I know you simply expect taxpayers to pay for everything
>>> and a fat pension too... thank you for your contribution to making the
>>> state insolvent...
>> Oh boy. jonny's being a cunt.
>The increased scrutiny of the BSA due to recent revelations probably has
>him backed up like RonT's colon after a smoker weekend. Dude's going to be
>increasingly <snip>
Eh, not really guitar hero wannabe...
-- John Nelson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.orghttp://www.chicagofishing.org (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)
>barbie gee <boo...@nosespam.com> wrote:
>>what I don't understand is how an employer can dictate what is and isn't >>covered in a health plan in the first place.
>You'd rather it be Congress?
>Fuck employer-paid coverage. Everyone should be on his own plan.
If group plans didn't get such huge discounts, that could happen, but not the
way things are now...
-- John Nelson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.orghttp://www.chicagofishing.org (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)
