Why are Democrats so anti- science ? by AURaptor

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Does no one else see that supporting either side potentially undermines a right if that side wins, and that it could bite you all in the ass later?

It denies one side the "right" to tell the other they must live by their morality. To which I say - GOOD!

...Not that I can see? I see it as an intervention in the kinds of insurance that certain groups can choose to provide. The problem arises when non-believers maybe go to that school, or are employed by that church, but this problem is easily solved if you make insurance an individually chosen thing, no say from either the company, government, or any religions.

The problem that rights are being undermined has not been contradicted by your assertion. Rather, your contribution seems to confirm it.

Why should I cheer rights being undermined for anyone? I don't like christianity either, but I don't want to see christians deprived of rights to practice how they see fit, and run their organizations how they see fit. All we need to do is tweak the laws to protect people who are impacted by that. Attacking the organizations won't work, because you can't force people to understand science and see reason.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 10:02 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

What if a group of Muslims marched on the Washington Mall in protest of the stigma and oppression their group is subjected to, and held a pray in, kneeling and bowing to the east at certain times of the day?

Two words, pressure hoses. Then we fine them. Then we explain that if they don't want any stigma, they can stop behaving like backwards savages worshipping a dusty old book about whatever POS religiousity it is that's forcing them to their knees like terrified dogs in public.
Then fine them again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 10:03 AM

...^Can't tell if joking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 10:17 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
...^Can't tell if joking.

Mostly not serious, but really, I have a hard time caring about religious beliefs that people NEED to throw out there as part of who they are... I believe a lot of strange stuff, but that's between me & my gray matter. I have work & hobbies, and therefore no time to be parading my beliefs about for all to see so I can have a 'cause' to fight for when people inevitably goof on me & my personal nonsense choices.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 10:40 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"You have an elite group on the right, wealthy, with a power base and support and influence, who are supporting right for religions."

They are supporting the 'right' for their religious beliefs to be enforced on non-believers: To deny non-Catholics and non-Fundamentalists contraception coverage - or to deny non-Jehovah’s Witnesses blood transfusions, or non-Christian Scientists any medical care at all - because they themselves find it immoral. No one is telling them they have to do these things in their personal lives, or pay for it out of their pockets, all they have to do is 'allow' non-believers the freedom to access it.

Why do you have a problem with that?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 10:54 AM

They have a right to run their organization according to their belief set, and it's the choice of individuals whether to participate in or interact with their organizations.

That's why to get around this, we should also let people choose their own insurance.

Alternatively, we could lift some of the restrictions on federal insurance coverage, but I suspect that option would run into a lot more resistance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:00 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"They have a right to run their organization ..."

So you think employers/ management should have non-work rights over their employees' lives as a condition of employment/ education - as a 'right' to running the organization? Should an employer / manager be able to tell their employees/ students they can't drink? Can't eat pork? Must wear a veil? Must be circumcised?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:01 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"You have an elite group on the right, wealthy, with a power base and support and influence, who are supporting right for religions."

They are supporting the 'right' for their religious beliefs to be enforced on non-believers: To deny non-Catholics and non-Fundamentalists contraception coverage - or to deny non-Jehovah’s Witnesses blood transfusions, or non-Christian Scientists any medical care at all - because they themselves find it immoral.

Exactly! And to that, I say - screw them. They do not get to dictate morality to others, period.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"They have a right to run their organization ..."

So you think employers/ management should have non-work rights over their employees' lives as a condition of employment/ education - as a 'right' to running the organization? Should an employer / manager be able to tell their employees/ students they can't drink? Can't eat pork? Must wear a veil? Must be circumcised?

They already do. It's discrimination, to be sure, but many companies have a standards of behaviour policy, and hire based on education or appearance, and both of those would be very difficult practices to weed out. The best restitution people have when they've been wronged by such company policies is to sue.

Alternatively you could try to reorganize the entire socio-economic system... Though I suspect afterwards organizations would still crop right back up centering around groups of people with similar beliefs.

Basically I'm not sure this is a fight that can be won, so to prevent undermining rights on both sides you have to find a third option. There are easy solutions, and there are solutions that would require you to fundamentally change society.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"You have an elite group on the right, wealthy, with a power base and support and influence, who are supporting right for religions."

They are supporting the 'right' for their religious beliefs to be enforced on non-believers: To deny non-Catholics and non-Fundamentalists contraception coverage - or to deny non-Jehovah’s Witnesses blood transfusions, or non-Christian Scientists any medical care at all - because they themselves find it immoral.

Exactly! And to that, I say - screw them. They do not get to dictate morality to others, period.

They aren't - provided we offer alternative insurance to the people in their employ that want insurance coverage the organization won't provide.

But by telling them they have to cover contraception, or blood transfusions, you are asserting your (science based) morality on them.

Ultimately individuals have chosen to go work for these organizations and go to these schools, and both the organizations and the schools have a right to set down standards of behaviour, provided they are a private entity. Those involved with the organization should consider in advance both any applicable restrictions, and what the dealbreakers are. You don't go to BYU expecting to have keggers every weekend.

Is there something both of you dislike about my suggestion to have individual choice for insurance that is not tied up in employment?

This seems like an obvious solution to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:14 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

This is where I think France does it right - when you live in France you follow the non-religious CIVIL laws of society. That means no genital mutilation of girls.

What about genital mutilation of boys?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Maybe, though I disagree with France's way of doing things. As an atheist, them outlawing overt expressions of religion is as offensive to me as how the US tries to pass laws undermining the practice of science.

I'm not sure why politically I should choose one side or another. Both methods strike me as oppressive.

And so, my response to this thread. Telling religious organizations they have to get insurance that covered contraceptives to me seems a kind of oppression, and telling women they can't have insurance covering contraceptives seems kind of oppressive. I see no benefit or advantage in taking the side of one uncompromising oppressive solution or another.

I think this whole argument would really be solved by opening up the market for individuals to buy their own medical insurance, regardless of who they work for. (Presuming a system that involves medical insurance - since I hate medical insurance and would rather come up with something else).

That would be a single-payer system, where your employer has no say in your insurance at all, because it's paid for with your tax dollars.

There may be quite a few responses coming, and someone else may have already brought this up, but I'm catching up, and responding as I read.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Rationalization is endless. Just because it's YOUR deeply felt rationalization doesn't make it a rule that all must follow.

It also doesn't make it rational.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Rationalization is endless. Just because it's YOUR deeply felt rationalization doesn't make it a rule that all must follow.

It also doesn't make it rational.

Never said it was. Just that private religious organizations have a right to set down rules by which they run.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't draw lines. I have personal beliefs about the distastefulness of some beliefs and practices, but I don't feel I can interfere, nor do I feel I can support laws that do so, or that those laws would be effective.

Suppose someone's religious beliefs requires the sacrifice of virgins. Do you still not draw a line, or interfere, or support laws outlawing virgin sacrifice?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't draw lines. I have personal beliefs about the distastefulness of some beliefs and practices, but I don't feel I can interfere, nor do I feel I can support laws that do so, or that those laws would be effective.

Suppose someone's religious beliefs requires the sacrifice of virgins. Do you still not draw a line, or interfere, or support laws outlawing virgin sacrifice?

Society would intervene due to laws about murder, but I hold no ethical judgements about consensual virgin sacrifice, or cannibalism, or anything of the sort. I am not the ethics police - I can't bust into a church and yell at the worshipers that communion is people, symbolic people.

If they're kidnapping non-members off the street who didn't agree and were subjected to these rites, I would get involved in an effort to stop them and bring them to justice.

On a slightly related note, I consider Sharia law barbaric as well, but when the Taliban offered to collect Osama Bin Laden and put him on trial according to Sharia law, I had no problems with that whatsoever. Sharia Law was the jurisdiction under which Osama bin Laden recognized himself, and the outcome was more likely to be considered fair by the international community than any trial we could have conducted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:40 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"But by telling them they have to cover contraception ..."

But that's not what’s being done. That is a fundamentally flawed assumption in your argument. BTW - this is a point I have made more than once. I don't know why you keep missing it.

"... or blood transfusions ..."

And this is where you'd lose the argument. You are now arguing employers literally have the right of life and death over an employee as a condition of employment, simply as part of their 'right' to run their organization in a way that enforces their religion on others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:45 AM

Quote:
But that's not what’s being done. That is a fundamentally flawed assumption in your argument. BTW - this is a point I have made more than once. I don't know why you keep missing it.

You will have to elaborate, because I don't follow. The religious organizations have insurance coverage. They chose certain insurance companies that don't cover contraception in accordance to their overarching religious beliefs. The employees have to choose between insurance companies that don't cover contraception. You want to make laws telling the organizations that they have to chose insurance companies that cover contraception, meaning you want laws telling them they have to provide contraception to their employees. That is my understanding of the argument.

And it's readily apparent to me that the problem doesn't lie with the religious organization, it lies with whatever law forces people to get their insurance through their employer.

My solution was to give individuals the ability to choose their own insurance. There are numerous benefits to this outcome, one of which is a quick and easy solution to the problem at hand.

You don't like this option? Or you're just arguing that you dislike religious organizations, on which we can both agree, and agree about whether they can force citizens or the government to ascribe to their beliefs, but disagree about whether government or private citizens can force them to do anything?

Quote:
You are now arguing employers literally have the right of life and death over an employee as a condition of employment, simply as part of their 'right' to run their organization in a way that enforces their religion on others.

Actually no. That would only be the case if I was arguing that one employer had a right to enforce their religious views on all other employers.

Except in the case of employment contracts, which most of the mentioned religions don't allow, employees don't have to WORK there if the employer might jeopardize their lives. But as with non-religious employers where there are sometimes risks to health, life and limb, such as in construction, or in hazardous waste handling or OSHA regulated factories, there are inherent risks to working in any given organization.

If an employee with knowledge in advance chose to work for an organization that denied them coverage for something they knew might be an issue, that's a choice the employee made. It's a risk they took. If they didn't know in advance, or thought their treatment was discriminatory, they can sue. That's how the system works.

The problem, as I said, is with dumb rules about how insurance is handled. You can fix it pretty easily for everyone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 11:58 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"What about genital mutilation of boys?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

Prevalence of circumcision

Europe
Less than 20% ... France

Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine] and the United Kingdom.

It looks like it's allowed according to religious and cultural beliefs but not routine. Circumcision in boys is quite a bit less deforming that genital mutilation in girls where the clitoris is removed entirely, as well as the minor and/ or parts of the major labia. Afterward the carved-out parts are then sewn together, leading to blocked urethras, scarring and deeply traumatic births later in life.

Whether or not male circumcision is MEDICALLY justifiable is hotly debated, with statistical pluses and minuses that seem equal in either direction at this point.

Given that there's no clear MEDICAL benefit for it as a routine preventative measure, it should probably be outlawed in France unless it's for treatment of a specific medical condition. There do appear to be specific medical conditions where it is a useful procedure. The fact that it's still allowed for religious reasons is an oversight that should be corrected.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Except in the case of employment contracts, which most of the mentioned religions don't allow, employees don't have to WORK there if the employer might jeopardize their lives.

But doesn't that stance invalidate all worker protection rights, beyond health insurance coverage?

I don't disagree with you, btw, that independent single-payer insurance might be an easier solution in this case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 12:05 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Byte

The insurance that's being paid for by the religious employer doesn't cover contraception. HOWEVER, it's offered by the insurance company as a FREE option (which the insurance company pays for out of its revenues) if the employee/ student elects to have it. Therefore, the organization isn't paying for contraception.

"Actually no. That would only be the case if I was arguing that one employer had a right to enforce their religious views on all other employers."

But then, it's so much cheaper to not cover medical care at all. What's to keep a business, or school, or organization to CLAIM religious objection in order to save money? And what's to keep that from becoming the norm so that one employer is like any other?

That's why I think there should be no rationalizations allowed - they can be fabricated and manipulated ad infinitum. And seriously, if you look around the globe and through human history they have been.

Yes, single payer would have been better. It's what we were promised would take the place of the other previous promise which was government healthcare.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 12:06 PM

Quote:
But doesn't that stance invalidate all worker protection rights, beyond health insurance coverage?

I think that's what worker strikes are for.

I would have no problem with workers striking about risks in company policy, negotiating changes with the employer, or even if all of that eventually led to the creation of new laws about worker safety and healthcare.

Although, I admit this would be a bit trickier striking with a religious organization, because they might think the rules are divinely inspired.

On the other hand, except for the catholic church, it seems to me many churches are becoming more lax about women priests and women's issues. So maybe this may still be a viable option when the time is right. Maybe even the catholic church will become amenable. Until then, fix the health care system as a go around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 12:14 PM

PENQUIN11

After reading this thread, I have decided that this is what happens when the government grows to the point that it gets way too involved in its citizens lives. Honestly, if someone is super hell-bent to chop off their penis (exaggeration, I know) I don't see why the government should care at all. Who cares if its for a religious reason or not? As long as it does not negatively impact the lives of fellow citizens or the citizens who decide to partake within it who cares? Its their penis, not the governments!

The same goes for contraceptives or such. I agree with Byemite entirely that people should be able to chose their own healthcare independent of the one provided by their employers. Moreover, if someone wishes to express their "pro-life" belief by finding a policy that does not pay for contraceptives than good for them- and really the same goes for private corporations- whereas I don't expect a Catholic organization to provide contraception coverage in their base plan- as long as there is an additional and affordable option for the employee of those organizations to add it on to their plan.

"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Byte

The insurance that's being paid for by the employer doesn't cover contraception. HOWEVER, it's offered by the insurance company as a FREE option (which the insurance company pays for out of its revenues) if the employee/ student elects to have it. Therefore, the organization isn't paying for contraception.

Okay, then... students/workers with the religious organization do have access to elective free contraceptive coverage...

Are they getting dismissed or ejected from campus for taking that elective?

In that case, I say sue. The employee thinks the company has wronged them and certain compensation may be entitled.

Quote:
But then, it's so much cheaper to not cover medical care at all. What's to keep a business, or school, or organization to CLAIM religious objection in order to save money? And what's to keep that from becoming the norm so that one employer is like any other?

Because of the workers. We didn't get regulation on businesses until workers stood up about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
But doesn't that stance invalidate all worker protection rights, beyond health insurance coverage?

I think that's what worker strikes are for.

I would have no problem with workers striking about risks in company policy, negotiating changes with the employer, or even if all of that eventually led to the creation of laws about worker safety and healthcare.

That necessarily depends on employees having real bargaining power, of course, rendering them very vulnerable in case of high unemployment. But theoretically you would be okay with a scenario where strike action led to legislation requiring religious employers to provide full health insurance even against their religious principles?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 12:30 PM

Quote:
That necessarily depends on employees having real bargaining power, of course, rendering them very vulnerable in case of high unemployment. But theoretically you would be okay with a scenario where strike action led to legislation requiring religious employers to provide full health insurance even against their religious principles?

Tricky. That gets into the viability of democracy as a system - which as I mentioned I think it has it's flaws.

But if a majority of workers went on strike for contraceptive coverage, that might suggest support within the company for contraceptive coverage. And even before legislation was introduced, a religious employer might have to compromise with the workers, perhaps with some kind of opt-in or opt-out program to allow for individual interpretations of belief within their organization.

Come to think of it, I might be okay with that as a solution in general, and with laws protecting against discrimination against opt-in or opt-out workers. Then they'd have more legal basis to sue, while the company at large could mostly maintain it's policies around the exceptions.

But I still kinda support a single payer system over that solution anyway, because a single payer system fixes a bunch of other problems as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 3:45 PM

I wonder if any of these religious organizations will be allowing male workers to have insurance which would cover vasectomies.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 4:52 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Should companies health insurance have to cover controception? I say no. Its been a while since we talked about this. But I still think it shouldn't be required unless a woman has a note from her doctor which states she needs it for things like her cycle etc. That way if she needs it for those purposes it must be covered (plus it gives women a loop hole, just make the doctor write the note and you're covered.)

If I ran the group home I want to run someday (everyone needs a big goal even if it won't really happen) I would definitely want to cover preventative controception (not the stuff you take afterwords though since I don't hold with that) in my employee insurance. I would also cover "getting fixed" because for some people that's a very good choice and I like encouraging good choices.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 5:01 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So you'd cover vasectomies and tubal ligation but not 'the pill' for pregnancy prevention. How about condoms, spermicide, diaphragms, cervical caps and sponges, IUDs, NuvaRings, and under-the skin implantable hormones?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 6:23 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

The pill is preventative, as are others on your list.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
The pill is preventative, as are others on your list.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

I'm not sure I take your meaning.

You'd cover people getting "fixed", but not the pill because it's preventative? Is that what I'm reading?

Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 7:42 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Read it again comrades, it says I will cover preventative controception, right there, look where I'm pointing.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:32 PM

Riona, I think you confused things by talking about what insurance companies should do (which you say they shouldn't cover contraception), versus that you'd cover contraception with your long term facility.

Although... I myself am wondering how this is reconciled. To administer medication to patients, wouldn't you have to be on an insurance program? Therefore to have available contraceptives for your people, wouldn't your insurance have to cover that?

I hate insurance companies anyway, but they've weaseled their way into being an essential part of the health care system (and keeping costs high). So far as that, if people want their insurance companies to cover contraceptives, they'll probably cajole the insurance companies to cover it or take their money elsewhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Read it again comrades, it says I will cover preventative controception, right there, look where I'm pointing.

Quote:
Riona, I think you confused things by talking about what insurance companies should do (which you say they shouldn't cover contraception), versus that you'd cover contraception with your long term facility.

Bingo. It led to some confusion.

Thanks for clarifying, Riona, and sorry I misunderstood your meaning.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:25 AM

Byte,
since you mentioned not liking health insurance as a concept (if I understood correctly!), a couple of times, what do you think a good alternative to health insurance would be? Or is it more the current condition of health insurance systems that you object to? (Which probably many people would agree with.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:10 AM

The problem with health insurance, in general, is that it's a middleman industry, the existence of which consequently drives up the prices of necessary medical treatments.

I'd be more tolerant of the health insurance industry if the influence and price gouging was of somewhat limited practice - I understand not everyone is going to be saving in advance to be able to afford a major medical procedure, and they can't charge 100 bucks and a chicken for heart surgery. So I get that it's a necessary evil. But they make a simple doctors visit where the guy doesn't even look at your for more than five minutes before pitching you out the door cost 600 bucks. A stay in the hospital for a day costs 1000 bucks, and it adds up if you have to be hospitalized for a couple weeks or a month. It's outrageous. They're all a bunch of vultures.

The spirit of health insurance is people pooling their money so someone can withdraw some of it when necessary to buy expensive medical treatment. Okay, fine. Then why not make it like a credit union or something?

I just figure there has to be a better way than this. Some way that the focus in the industry can be on service instead of profiting at the expense of people's lives and health.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I just figure there has to be a better way than this. Some way that the focus in the industry can be on service instead of profiting at the expense of people's lives and health.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The idea of medical care being for-profit generally seems strange to me. I agree with paying medical professionals well to reward them for long training and high-responsibility jobs but insurance for healthcare looking mainly to make a profit seems to be incentive for abuse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:02 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I said I don't think companies should be FORCED to cover birth control. I do however think its common sense for them to cover birth control. There's a difference between what I think should happen and what I think should be forced. I would cover it at my establishment. I hope that makes it clearer.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:08 PM