Something I found on the net...

[Beorning]

The money of the Catholic Church is going toward a government mandate whereby everyone has equal coverage for all their medical needs and procedures.  Everyone is equal under the law with no exceptions.  Yet if an exception is made for a group and then precedence set, then everyone has to start selecting.  People are then left out of having their procedures and medical needs unaddressed.  My beliefs are not respected because their beliefs are to be respected.  My government has failed to address my beliefs (in favor of theirs) and has failed to address my physical needs (in favor of their beliefs).  Whereas the nuns are not going to lose any medical benefits, not going to lose any ability to voice or advocate their beliefs and not going to lose anything from their religious practice. 

The State owes protection and security to its citizens.  People’s freedom is at the luxury of the common good as has been set down many times.  Freedom of Speech is constrained by emergency situations and does not extend to cover unsafe practices.  Religious freedom is suspended when the welfare of a child is at stake for instance or when an emergency occurs.  (Yes for anybody reading a Jehovah’s Witness can be forced to take blood during an emergency).  For a long time the government did include restrictions on the rights of women until popular opinion and research showed that those restrictions were not for the common good.

Okay, when you put it this way, it makes sense.

Hmmm. My problem is, you're a reasonable and nice individual and when you put your view this way, I'm tempted to agree with you. But then, I can read the nuns' opinion - and they are reasonable and nice individuals, too. And their point of view makes sense, too! I'm tempted to agree with it, too!

Basically, there's no good solution of this situation: in any case, someone's rights are going to get disrespected. It makes me think this whole "democracy" idea is just unworkable...

[Ephiral]

Okay, when you put it this way, it makes sense.

Hmmm. My problem is, you're a reasonable and nice individual and when you put your view this way, I'm tempted to agree with you. But then, I can read the nuns' opinion - and they are reasonable and nice individuals, too. And their point of view makes sense, too! I'm tempted to agree with it, too!

Basically, there's no good solution of this situation: in any case, someone's rights are going to get disrespected. It makes me think this whole "democracy" idea is just unworkable...

There might not be a perfect solution, but there's certainly a least-harm one. Which option here will cause the least real, tangible harm to real people?

[Love And Submission]

Again the problem here is that you're just focused on abortion. The reason these nuns are wrong is found in the example of other religious group.
Jewish AND Muslim people  fund the FDA to check the quality of pork products despite the fact they don't eat pork.
People who get speeding tickets pay speeding tickets that fund the police  officers that gave them speeding tickets.
Hell , Why should we pay for toll boths that force us to pay tolls?  We're paying people to charge us money for using the highway that we paid for in the first place.


I'll agree with these nuns when they start fighting tollbooths and parking tickets.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Last time the issue of JWs and blood transfusion came up, someone sent me a journal article about the use of saline to increase fluid volume as an alternative. 

(Don't Christian Scientists make use of other potentially covered services, like the use of chiropractors? or is that out as well?)

Normal Saline, D5 1/2NS and Lactated Ringers can all be used to increase fluid volume.  This can be done to replenish lost blood, but when too much blood then they are at a significant deficit for hemoglobin.  Hemoglobin carries oxygen.  Without enough hemoglobin to supply oxygen to tissue the cells will die as they cannot make energy.  So while replacement fluids can be used to an extent, blood transfusions are optimal in cases of low hemoglobin.  Now what can be done if a Jehovah's Witness is awake and consent is the blood can be administered as platelettes (sp?) and plasma.  Apparently the stipulation is "whole blood."  By separating the whole blood into components there is a work around solution. 

Off topic I know, but just thought it was interesting enough to say.

[RubySlippers]

I would keep this simple the nuns have every right no to use any medical services offered they on the other hand want to force their belief on others if they opt out of paying for health coverage for say an atheist like myself who doesn't share those beliefs they are basically taking away my options.

[Beorning]

Alright, thanks for all the input. It clarified some things to me...

[meikle]

But why not allow for the existence of insurance providers who do not provide abortions etc.? That way, the people who oppose abortions would not be forced to finance them...

I don't know, this kind of situation is a bit saddening to me. I can perfectly imagine that someone might be deeply religious, take these vows related to the sanctity of life... and then, blam! That person is forced to pay for abortions. I can imagine this could be very heartbreaking...

I believe that it is wrong to treat people with broken bones or bacteria-borne disease, as all life, especially bacterial life, is sacred.  So I don't have to pay for antibiotics or casts or braces, right?

Honestly, this just reminds me of the whole, "My religion features human sacrifice, so murder laws trample my freedom of religion" thing.  Freedom of religion isn't the freedom to ignore laws you disagree with.

[Beorning]

Honestly, this just reminds me of the whole, "My religion features human sacrifice, so murder laws trample my freedom of religion" thing.  Freedom of religion isn't the freedom to ignore laws you disagree with.

This kind of argument actually swings both ways. What if *the law* demands human sacrifice and your religion forbids it? Should you be punished for not following the law?

Using a more realistic example: imagine that there's still conscription going on in your country, i.e. every man at certain age is required to take part in military service. Now, imagine you're a strict pacifist, like the quakers. Should you be punished for declining to take part in the military service?

[Oniya]

In the 1960's, when people were getting drafted for the Vietnam and Korean wars, there was a status called 'Conscientious Objector'.  Basically, if you qualified for that (Quakers did) they would give you a desk job if your draft number came up.

[Ack Arg]

You don't get to opt out of the responsibilities of living in a modern society and claim all the perks. It's really that simple.

Ah, but one of the responsibilities of living in a modern society is to follow your conscience and to things like perform acts of protest and civil disobedience.

As it happens, abortion is not distinct from murder, there's no hard rule we've got about it that isn't arbitrary. I think Doug Stanhope was the one that put it this way for rape babies: "So he's out cause his father's an asshole?" Combine that with the number performed and a hard conviction about human life and I fully expect some kind of protest.

Then again, maybe the nuns just needed a hobby. I would have recommended finger painting.

Beorning:
Ya don't have to be a pacifist to refuse military service. You might not want to be in a dangerous worksite (see depleated uranium rounds.) You might not think a particular war is just. You might say it's incompatible to take orders and be morally or legally responsible for your actions.

It may be a matter of your reasons.

And you might not be content to be paying taxes, let alone doing a deskjob. Then again, maybe you're supposed to join and change the institution or situation by being involved on the inside.

Where are them thar fingerpaints again?

[Beorning]

In the 1960's, when people were getting drafted for the Vietnam and Korean wars, there was a status called 'Conscientious Objector'.  Basically, if you qualified for that (Quakers did) they would give you a desk job if your draft number came up.

Exactly. So, it *is* possible for the government to modify the policy because of religious beliefs of a group of people...

[Oniya]

Only, if you read the article I linked to, it extended to far more than the Quakers, or even strictly religious criteria.  You could be an atheist and still be a conscientious objector.  Also, you still had to 'serve' in some capacity (the same way that the nuns still have to pay for their insurance).  Some people were assigned to work crews in the national forests, for example.

[Ephiral]

Ah, but one of the responsibilities of living in a modern society is to follow your conscience and to things like perform acts of protest and civil disobedience.

And part of civil disobedience is accepting that you are in fact in violation of the law and will suffer the consequences.

As it happens, abortion is not distinct from murder, there's no hard rule we've got about it that isn't arbitrary. I think Doug Stanhope was the one that put it this way for rape babies: "So he's out cause his father's an asshole?" Combine that with the number performed and a hard conviction about human life and I fully expect some kind of protest.

You can leave me out of your "we". Non-arbitrary rule: Every person should have bodily autonomy. You do not get to dictate what somebody else can and cannot do with their body.

[Valthazar]

No, they're just doing everything in their power to reduce funding and support for an already massively underprovided vital service. Completely different.

I don't think this is the case at all.  They are simply objecting the fact that the federal government is coercing a private insurance company to offer certain medical services.  No one is forcing any citizen in the US to purchase this particular private insurance - that is the beauty of an economy that allows choice.  Also, no one is forcing anyone to work for the Church.

There are plenty of insurance providers that offer these particular medical services if a woman wants them.  No one is forcing a woman to work for the Church, so I am confused why so many of you are getting so defensive over this.  This is the United States, where people are free to create companies and offer products that they desire.

[Beorning]

Only, if you read the article I linked to, it extended to far more than the Quakers, or even strictly religious criteria.  You could be an atheist and still be a conscientious objector.  Also, you still had to 'serve' in some capacity (the same way that the nuns still have to pay for their insurance).  Some people were assigned to work crews in the national forests, for example.

Oh, of course. But, overall, that situation shows that it is possible for government to take people's beliefs (religious or otherwise) into account. Meanwhile, the tone of our discussion in this topic seems to be "The nuns are troubled by the new law? Tough luck, they need to shut up and obey".

Non-arbitrary rule: Every person should have bodily autonomy. You do not get to dictate what somebody else can and cannot do with their body.

*resists pointing out the obvious hole in that rule to avoid creating another abortion discussion*

[Ephiral]

I don't think this is the case at all.  They are simply objecting the fact that the federal government is coercing a private insurance company to offer certain medical services.  No one is forcing any citizen in the US to purchase this particular private insurance - that is the beauty of an economy that allows choice.  Also, no one is forcing anyone to work for the Church.

Even if this were the case - again, you're ignoring the fact that any exemption sets a precedent, and insurance companies have a strong incentive not to provide services - they'd still be on the wrong side of this argument. The entire reason this reform happened is because insurance companies needed to be coerced in order to reliably provide any services at all.

There are plenty of insurance providers that offer these particular medical services if a woman wants them.  No one is forcing a woman to work for the Church, so I am confused why so many of you are getting so defensive over this.  This is the United States, where people are free to create companies and offer products that they desire.

There are plenty of companies that provide this service! Because the law requires them to. This is the United States, where we already have years of data on exactly how much service insurance companies will provide (as little as possible) for what price (as high as possible).

[RubySlippers]

In the 1960's, when people were getting drafted for the Vietnam and Korean wars, there was a status called 'Conscientious Objector'.  Basically, if you qualified for that (Quakers did) they would give you a desk job if your draft number came up.

Fine but why do the religious like a Quaker get an assumed out of such an obligation and the atheist objector would have to jump through hoops since they are not religious. And its not all the same Mohammad Ali had to serve or go to jail. I would take religion out and go on the persons wishes and beliefs.

My family had this happen my uncle was drafted during the Vietnam War and applied for CO status as an atheist, he was smart and fit and boxed as a sport and refused to fight and went to Boot and refused to touch or use a weapon and ended up in jail but he didn't want to kill anyone and ended up in the Stockade a lot over two years, They finally let him go for insubordination and with a dishonorable discharge not as a CO.

So I have little sympathy for special breaks for a religion since a frock or collar doesn't make you better than anyone else.

[ofDelusions]

There are plenty of insurance providers that offer these particular medical services if a woman wants them.  No one is forcing a woman to work for the Church, so I am confused why so many of you are getting so defensive over this.  This is the United States, where people are free to create companies and offer products that they desire.

And no one is forcing anyone to go into Insurance business but if they do they are expected to follow certain rules. Just like banks have rules about what kinds of loans they can offer etc.

[Ephiral]

Fine but why do the religious like a Quaker get an assumed out of such an obligation and the atheist objector would have to jump through hoops since they are not religious. And its not all the same Mohammad Ali had to serve or go to jail. I would take religion out and go on the persons wishes and beliefs.

In theory, because not all atheists are avowed pacifists. Which is fine. In practice, because there's a huge goddamn bias against atheists in the US military. Which is not.

[ofDelusions]

I don't know if its same in US, but in Finland the reason groups like Jehowah's witnesses are exempt from conscription is because army found that throwing every JW of certain age to Jail every year was too costly.

Still sucks though.

[Valthazar]

Even if this were the case - again, you're ignoring the fact that any exemption sets a precedent, and insurance companies have a strong incentive not to provide services - they'd still be on the wrong side of this argument. The entire reason this reform happened is because insurance companies needed to be coerced in order to reliably provide any services at all.

I'm confused by your statement that the Church's private insurance exempting abortion would set a precedent - for whom?  If, as you suggest, there is a growing demand in the US population for health insurance that provide abortion and women's health services, then business owners will identify this as a growing market that is asking to be tapped.  I disagree with your statement that there is a growing shift towards reducing services, but even if that was the case, it would lay the foundation for entrepreneurs in the health industry to offer insurance plans that cater to this very same population demanding women's health services.  That is just money waiting to be tapped into.  Individuals who may currently be on private insurance plans not providing abortion and women's health services would immediately switch over, and if the demand is there, there is much profit to be had.

There are plenty of companies that provide this service! Because the law requires them to. This is the United States, where we already have years of data on exactly how much service insurance companies will provide (as little as possible) for what price (as high as possible).

The law has never dictated what particular medical services an private insurance companies must provide in the past.  You need to realize that all companies are driven by profit incentives, and as a result, every medical service represents a unique market opportunity for an insurance company.  Again, if hypothetically you are suggesting that the net-sum of all private insurance companies are willfully deviating from women's health, reproductive services, and abortion (which is fundamentally untrue), then that presents a clear market-opportunity for a private insurance company to cater to the growing demand for that medical service (a new market opportunity).

None of what I have said is controversial, this is how the American economy functions based on supply and demand, and profit motivations.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The choice is an illusion though.  Essentially once a workplace can opt out of purchasing the more expensive insurance plan for their employees, the vast majority will make that choice due simply to economics.  The ability to offer an adequate necessity for a cheaper price is preferable to offering an unnecessarily larger plan at a more expensive rate.  Workplaces can satisfy government regulation for less.  Companies have done such things multiple times in the past over a wide range of issues from medical coverage to product safety.  The average American cannot afford to purchase health insurance not provided for by their employer.  The average American also cannot afford to be picky about their job.  If asked few Americans even consider benefits when applying for a job considering the offering of any insurance as a perk, not a necessity.  Only those at the upper echelon give such consideration.  Therefore the choice of an insurance company is an illusion.

Now not all companies will take that stance.  Some will indeed offer to cover such practices creating a market, but because of the increased expense for offering more services few employers will take up such a cause.  Some companies may indeed offer different plans whereby an employee can opt out of purchasing certain healthcare options (such as abortion, morning after pill or birth control).  This then means that women, the people primarily interested in this type of service, will pay an additional fee to receive coverage for their particular needs.  So a healthcare reform meant to give everyone equal medical treatment, coverage and ensure payment has now caused a divide and potentially done the opposite so far as women are concerned.

All because a group of people whose rights were not being infringed upon decided that their desire to not pay for a government mandate which included things they found objectionable was more important than a woman’s right to certain medical procedures and prescriptions allowed by law. 

[Valthazar]

Pumpkin Seeds, I see your perspective, but we can't have the best of everything.  There are certain advantages to living in a country such as Finland or England, where healthcare is essentially free (despite enormous taxes).  However, do you know how long it takes to see a doctor there, or how difficult it is to start a business there?  Someone who works their butt off in the United States through creativity can easily carve out a very success life for themselves.  This is the primary reason why the US is the most powerful nation in the world.  It is very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that everyone is entitled to certain benefits, and turn into any other ordinary country in the world. 

Perhaps I am in the minority here, but I firmly believe that even today, hard work can guarantee a secure life in the US - with healthcare coverage.  Americans, even today, like hearing success stories, and we reward that success through monetary means.  It is nice to know that having a unique vision, and working creatively to that endeavor can provide you with instant medical care, unlimited choices for healthcare, etc. 

But yes, I do agree that for the average person living in the US, things are not ideal.  I guess the reality is that the US is an amazing country for people with above average financial means.  Personally, I respond to that positively by seeing the benefits of such a system - that ambition and hard work yields immense benefits.

[Ephiral]

ValthazarElite, I can't argue with you on a theoretical level, but something is clearly wrong with your theory - because it does not describe what is happening in the real world. Denial of coverage for "pre-existing conditions" not only ballooned ridiculously in recent years - 20% of customers were paying their insurer for literally nothing - but was seen as a prime area of growth that leading providers were explicitly looking to expand. Why? Because finding excuses to deny coverage means that they get to take money without providing any service - it's almost pure profit. What does your economic theory tell you a company will do when provided with such an opportunity? Because saying "You don't have to provide women's health services" is exactly that.

As for precedent: I can't believe I have to explain this, but these nuns are hardly the only ones seeking such an exemption. As I understand it, the way law works in the US is that, if an exemption on religious grounds is found to be valid in one case, then it becomes very difficult to deny a religious exemption in any future cases. This is not about a single small group - this is about any company of any size that can possibly find an excuse to claim a religious exemption.

[ofDelusions]

Finlands problem with how long it takes to see a doctor is ENTIRELY separate issue caused by lack of doctors. Which in turn was caused BY the doctors who lobbyed decrease in how many students the Med schools would take each year in the nineties and then have stopped that from increasing.

And even then, anyone who has money can go to private doctors and not have to wait nearly at all. Its the poor who have that problem but atleast they (we) can get that care.

Our problem is NOT the public healthcare but the fac that doctors hold our entire society hostage.