UDPride Discussion Forums    
     

Go Back   UDPride Discussion Forums > OFF TOPIC DISCUSSION > Off Topic Gibberish

» Log in
User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
» Featured Ads
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-09-2012, 08:19 PM
TD Flyer TD Flyer is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 258
Thanks: 320
Thanked 128 Times in 35 Posts
TD Flyer has a spectacular aura aboutTD Flyer has a spectacular aura aboutTD Flyer has a spectacular aura about
contraceptive insurance coverage

Xavier has recently announced that they no longer offer insurance coverage for sterilizations and contraceptives, except for cases of medical necessity for non-contraceptive purpose. Good for them, supporting the bishops. Does anybody know for sure what Coverage UD has?
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to TD Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
DetroitFlyer (04-09-2012), Mich Flyer (04-11-2012)
Sponsor
  #2  
Old 04-09-2012, 09:28 PM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
UD covers birth control in DIRECT violation of the Bishop's position.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to DetroitFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-10-2012)
  #3  
Old 04-09-2012, 09:55 PM
TD Flyer TD Flyer is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 258
Thanks: 320
Thanked 128 Times in 35 Posts
TD Flyer has a spectacular aura aboutTD Flyer has a spectacular aura aboutTD Flyer has a spectacular aura about
DF, do you know this with certainly, or just what you heard? If UD insurance does cover conception, I plan to write to express my disagreement, for whatever that is worth.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-09-2012, 10:00 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Good....

Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
UD covers birth control in DIRECT violation of the Bishop's position.
....for UD!
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UACFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
Glen Clark (04-10-2012)
  #5  
Old 04-10-2012, 08:31 AM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
A fact

Originally Posted by TD Flyer View Post
DF, do you know this with certainly, or just what you heard? If UD insurance does cover conception, I plan to write to express my disagreement, for whatever that is worth.
I spoke with the Rector at UD a few weeks ago after this information was published in the DDN. His answer to me was that UD's insurance company could not differentiate between medically necessary uses of birth control medication and uses simply for birth control. So.... The decision was made to keep the insurance. Frankly, I find this excuse to be quite lame. Other Catholic schools have figured out a way to remain in compliance with Church teachings. It is mind boggling to me that a school that brags about being a top 10 CATHOLIC university is not leading by example by following Church teachings. It makes me vary sad that those that run UD have made such a error and worse yet, have failed to correct it! The excuse I got was that now they do not want to change their insurance because they are waiting to see what happens with Obamacare.... I was told that if they change now, they also have to comply with the provisions of Obamacare right away instead of having the one year grace period so generously granted by the regime for CATHOLIC institutions to figure out a way to violate their faith. I strongly encourage you to write and call UD and let them know your thoughts. I have not gone as far as Dr. Dan yet, but I am on the verge of contacting him directly. This is a significant black mark on UD and will remain so until corrected. The fact that Xavier has corrected their issues while UD sits on its collective hands makes me sick physically and spiritually....
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to DetroitFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-10-2012)
  #6  
Old 04-10-2012, 08:38 AM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Angry Sad and wrong headed comment in every regard

Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
....for UD!
Way off base. Like it or not, UD is in fact a Catholic University and as such they like EVERY Catholic are bound by Church teachings. If you personally want to claim you are Catholic while not following Church teachings then you alone have to answer for those sins. A top 10 Catholic University has no business being in DIRECT violation of Church teachings. There absolutely is a higher standard. It is a sad day for UD when the sin has been exposed and very little if anything is being done to correct the problem. It is past time for the Bishops to crank up the pressure on UD. Look, at the end of the day if you do not like UD being CATHOLIC, stop supporting the school and go support one of your liberal, east coast, private universities or any state U in the land.
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to DetroitFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-10-2012), UD Sam (04-10-2012)
  #7  
Old 04-10-2012, 09:20 AM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,641
Thanks: 22
Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,195 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Like everyone who is self insured UD uses a health I sura ce company to process claims. The claims administrator says there is no way they can tell what is being prescribed for medical necessity and what is being prescribed for contraception. Most Catholic hospitals are in the same position. There are more than a few diocese that have the same issue. The same drug may be prescribed to one person and be ok because it is medically necessary and not to another. Birth control drugs have other purposes besides contraception.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UDDoug For This Totally Excellent Post:
IAFlyer (04-10-2012)
  #8  
Old 04-10-2012, 09:54 AM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
And yet

Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
Like everyone who is self insured UD uses a health I sura ce company to process claims. The claims administrator says there is no way they can tell what is being prescribed for medical necessity and what is being prescribed for contraception. Most Catholic hospitals are in the same position. There are more than a few diocese that have the same issue. The same drug may be prescribed to one person and be ok because it is medically necessary and not to another. Birth control drugs have other purposes besides contraception.
Posted via Mobile Device
it has been reported that Xavier has a solution....
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to DetroitFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-10-2012)
  #9  
Old 04-10-2012, 10:32 AM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
Contraceptive medicines do indeed have medical applications other than birth control, but Obamacare mandates more than just coverage of contraceptives (but even that is done for the purpose of ensuring "reproductive rights"), it also requires that abortifactants (i.e. the morning after pill) be covered as well as sterilization procedures. Whether you agree that health insurance coverage of these provisions is beneficial or not, that coverage is not "free" and can't be "free"...someone (or everyone) has to pay for it. Moreover, a mandate that these provisions be covered by insurance provided to employees by religious organizations where it is fundamentally against those institutions core beliefs and tenets is antithetical to our Constitution and is a gross overreach and a further encroachment on individual liberties by the Government. If the Government has no compunction to fight religious institutions on issues fundamentally against their tenets, what if anything will deter it from other mandates involving individual citizens? Be careful what you wish for or are willing to "applaud" when the Feds get involved.
Reply With Quote
5 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Bat'71 For This Totally Excellent Post:
DetroitFlyer (04-10-2012), Mich Flyer (04-11-2012), rollo (04-11-2012), TD Flyer (04-10-2012), UD Sam (04-10-2012)
  #10  
Old 04-10-2012, 10:40 AM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Matters little,...in fact, not at all...

Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
Way off base. Like it or not, UD is in fact a Catholic University and as such they like EVERY Catholic are bound by Church teachings. If you personally want to claim you are Catholic while not following Church teachings then you alone have to answer for those sins. A top 10 Catholic University has no business being in DIRECT violation of Church teachings. There absolutely is a higher standard. It is a sad day for UD when the sin has been exposed and very little if anything is being done to correct the problem. It is past time for the Bishops to crank up the pressure on UD. Look, at the end of the day if you do not like UD being CATHOLIC, stop supporting the school and go support one of your liberal, east coast, private universities or any state U in the land.
Being a Catholic or not being a Catholic simply doesn't matter.

The vast majority of the turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East is based on the absurd beliefs that it matters whether or not one is a Suni, a Shiite, an Alawi, etc.

No thinking person believes that it matters whether a person is Catholic, Luthern, Methodist. Baptist, etc. The differences in doctrine among these and other similar groups are absolute chicken sh*t compared to the big picture.

Re contraception, the position held by the protestant sects of the Christian faith just reflect the fact that they have grown up faster than the Catholic church. Even at that you'd be hard pressed to find a Catholic priest that will look a couple in the eye and tell them they are committing sin by using chemical means of family planning.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-10-2012, 12:50 PM
UDBaby UDBaby is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LINY
Posts: 1,781
Thanks: 1,096
Thanked 1,173 Times in 555 Posts
UDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Even at that you'd be hard pressed to find a Catholic priest that will look a couple in the eye and tell them they are committing sin by using chemical means of family planning.
Not to mention the fact that pre-Cana and other pre wedding cosulations within many parishes are handled by lay Deacons, many of whom are married and MANY of whom do, did, and will continue to use contraception as part of their their family planning.

I wonder.....should Deacons who use contraception be removed from serving the church and parishoners?....unless of course this will be one of many "teachings" that eventually evolves and is no longer considered a "sin" and those that committed this "sin' will have the stain removed by some wave of the hand from an enlightened bishop in grand act of retroactive absolution?
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UDBaby For This Totally Excellent Post:
UACFlyer (04-10-2012)
  #12  
Old 04-10-2012, 02:07 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
The issue should not be whether or not one agrees with the personal use of contraceptives (or whether or not it's a sin), the issue centers upon whether or not the Federal Government has the authority vested in it to dictate what must be covered by health insurance programs offered by religious organizations to their employees, even when those mandates are antithetical to the core tenets or teachings of that religion. This is almost unprecedented in the history of our republic...there is no vital national interest served by this obvious overreach and it sets a very dangerous precedent. The observation that "most people" use contraceptives, even those in the Church, and therefore it should be okay (and by the way, it's a nice little perk to have) is not relevant to what is being proposed by the Government...this is an obvious encroachment on the First Amendment, period. It doesn't matter whether it's "free" (it most certainly is not) or who's ox is being gored and whether "one" agrees with it or not; the next time the Government Pooh-Bahs whimsically decides on something, "one" may not be so lucky. This is an issue that the current Administration wanted to pick a fight over and now it's been dissembled to appear like it's a "right" that's being denied people by intransigent religious zealots in a "war on women". It'd be almost funny if the stakes weren't so high.
Reply With Quote
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Bat'71 For This Totally Excellent Post:
DGO67 (04-11-2012), TD Flyer (04-10-2012), UD Sam (04-10-2012)
  #13  
Old 04-10-2012, 02:25 PM
Glen Clark Glen Clark is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Between Kroger & Esther Price
Posts: 3,712
Thanks: 3,245
Thanked 2,275 Times in 1,065 Posts
Glen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by TD Flyer View Post
Xavier has recently announced that they no longer offer insurance coverage for sterilizations and contraceptives . . . Good for them, supporting the bishops. . .
Originally Posted by Bat'71 View Post
The issue should not be whether or not one agrees with the personal use of contraceptives (or whether or not it's a sin), the issue centers upon whether or not the Federal Government has the authority vested in it to dictate what must be covered by health insurance programs offered by religious organizations to their employees . . .
Seems we have two different issues here . . .

BTW - the Xavier decision is already caused a general outcry within the University: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/ap/financi...ol-rule/nMTrx/
They will most certainly lose support (and possibly employees) if they don't reverse their decision, and they will also lose support if they do reverse their decision.
Playing politics often invokes the rule of unintended consequences.

___________________
If all were of the same religious opinion, there would be no religion.
- Swami Vivekannanda
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-10-2012, 02:40 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Ask yourself this Bat, answer honestly,...

Originally Posted by Bat'71 View Post
The issue should not be whether or not one agrees with the personal use of contraceptives (or whether or not it's a sin), the issue centers upon whether or not the Federal Government has the authority vested in it to dictate what must be covered by health insurance programs offered by religious organizations to their employees, even when those mandates are antithetical to the core tenets or teachings of that religion. This is almost unprecedented in the history of our republic...there is no vital national interest served by this obvious overreach and it sets a very dangerous precedent. The observation that "most people" use contraceptives, even those in the Church, and therefore it should be okay (and by the way, it's a nice little perk to have) is not relevant to what is being proposed by the Government...this is an obvious encroachment on the First Amendment, period. It doesn't matter whether it's "free" (it most certainly is not) or who's ox is being gored and whether "one" agrees with it or not; the next time the Government Pooh-Bahs whimsically decides on something, "one" may not be so lucky. This is an issue that the current Administration wanted to pick a fight over and now it's been dissembled to appear like it's a "right" that's being denied people by intransigent religious zealots in a "war on women". It'd be almost funny if the stakes weren't so high.
If Paul Ryan's health care plan, or some derivative thereof, had been passed by the Congress,.....and the plan really and truly brought the growth of government health care expenditures into line with economic growth,...and that plan had an insurance madate in it,....would you be opposed to it?....would 26 states have challenged it leading to the supreme court case?

Would conservatives and Republicans be so opposed to an insurance mandate? Of course not. I, for one, would be dancing in the streets.

The true opposition to the plan is not the insurance mandate. It's because the plan is so bad and will exacerbate the cost growth problem. By fighting Obamacare's mandate there is a chance that this terrible law will be stuck down.

As for the oh-so-obvious overreach of government.....the insurance mandate pales in comparison to the government forcing its cititizens to fork over a portion of their pay each year to support no end of programs that they oppose......or its forcing its citizens to put on a uniform and fight in a war they may think is absurd, as was the case when the draft was in effect.

It's not about the insurance mandate...it's about a very bad law with costs deliberately hidden that will make our health care cost growth even worse than it is today.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UACFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
rollo (04-11-2012)
  #15  
Old 04-10-2012, 03:00 PM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Once Again...

Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Being a Catholic or not being a Catholic simply doesn't matter.

The vast majority of the turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East is based on the absurd beliefs that it matters whether or not one is a Suni, a Shiite, an Alawi, etc.

No thinking person believes that it matters whether a person is Catholic, Luthern, Methodist. Baptist, etc. The differences in doctrine among these and other similar groups are absolute chicken sh*t compared to the big picture.

Re contraception, the position held by the protestant sects of the Christian faith just reflect the fact that they have grown up faster than the Catholic church. Even at that you'd be hard pressed to find a Catholic priest that will look a couple in the eye and tell them they are committing sin by using chemical means of family planning.
you are way off base.... It absolutely does matter. UD is a CATHOLIC university. Of this there is absolutely no doubt. The next absolutely undeniable fact is that UD is bound by Catholic Church teachings. This is simply fact. You may not like it or agree, but that does not change the facts of the situation. No problem finding a Catholic priest in my neck of the woods that will tell you to comply with Church teachings. Look, absolutely no one is forced to be Catholic. If you do not believe in the teachings of the Church go and join one of them there Protestant churches that has grown up so much faster than the Catholic church. It is you soul, your choice, your consequences. Don't tell me, however, that the teachings of my faith do not matter, are not important, and simply the work of a small mind.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to DetroitFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-10-2012)
  #16  
Old 04-10-2012, 03:12 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Fundamental teachings of your faith do matter....

Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
you are way off base.... It absolutely does matter. UD is a CATHOLIC university. Of this there is absolutely no doubt. The next absolutely undeniable fact is that UD is bound by Catholic Church teachings. This is simply fact. You may not like it or agree, but that does not change the facts of the situation. No problem finding a Catholic priest in my neck of the woods that will tell you to comply with Church teachings. Look, absolutely no one is forced to be Catholic. If you do not believe in the teachings of the Church go and join one of them there Protestant churches that has grown up so much faster than the Catholic church. It is you soul, your choice, your consequences. Don't tell me, however, that the teachings of my faith do not matter, are not important, and simply the work of a small mind.

.....the teachings of your faith as a Christian. that is.

The second order differences that exist among the various denominations of Christianity are totally without significance. Whether you practive your Christian faith as a Luthern, Catholic or whatever matters not at all.

That is exactly what I am telling you. I fully agree with you however,...the choice among denominations is entirely yours.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-10-2012, 03:25 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 2,967
Thanks: 3,716
Thanked 897 Times in 523 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
Way off base. Like it or not, UD is in fact a Catholic University and as such they like EVERY Catholic are bound by Church teachings. If you personally want to claim you are Catholic while not following Church teachings then you alone have to answer for those sins. A top 10 Catholic University has no business being in DIRECT violation of Church teachings. There absolutely is a higher standard. It is a sad day for UD when the sin has been exposed and very little if anything is being done to correct the problem. It is past time for the Bishops to crank up the pressure on UD. Look, at the end of the day if you do not like UD being CATHOLIC, stop supporting the school and go support one of your liberal, east coast, private universities or any state U in the land.
Technically, all Catholics are supposed to be bound by the teachings of the church. However, 98% of American Catholics use or have used birth control at some point. It is clear that most American Catholics find at least one teaching to be irrelevant. I am not saying they are right, but it isn't even close in this regard.

The Catholic Church/Pope has been wrong before (indulgences, for example).

I believe the source of the faith should be found in the bible (not the Pope). You'd be hard-pressed to find a biblical teaching that would easily support the birth-control stance - especially in an over-populated world.
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to IAFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
UACFlyer (04-10-2012), UDBaby (04-10-2012)
  #18  
Old 04-10-2012, 03:38 PM
UD Sam UD Sam is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North of Dayton
Posts: 1,290
Thanks: 7,315
Thanked 1,053 Times in 472 Posts
UD Sam has a reputation beyond reputeUD Sam has a reputation beyond reputeUD Sam has a reputation beyond reputeUD Sam has a reputation beyond reputeUD Sam has a reputation beyond reputeUD Sam has a reputation beyond reputeUD Sam has a reputation beyond reputeUD Sam has a reputation beyond reputeUD Sam has a reputation beyond reputeUD Sam has a reputation beyond reputeUD Sam has a reputation beyond repute
IMO, if a woman chooses to use birth control pills or the day after pill to prevent pregnancy, that is a personal choice and is not health related.

The cost of birth control pills varies, but in many cases the cost is $60/month. If insurance companies are forced to cover birth control pills, the cost for the average woman trying to prevent pregnancy for 30 years would be $21,600. And this coverage would also be available to women on Medicaid.

With the cost of health insurance having increased by almost double digits each of the past 10 years, many employers have had to either require an employee to pay more of the cost...or, in the case of small companies who couldn't afford it, health insurance had to be dropped.

So I wonder why our president is pushing the requirement to cover birth control expenses when it will increase the cost of insurance that has already skyrocketed....and birth control is a personal choice. Maybe we should also demand that the government pay for an annual vacation to a beach resort because that would reduce our stress and make us healther (and stress does affect health).

Last edited by UD Sam; 04-14-2012 at 05:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UD Sam For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-10-2012)
  #19  
Old 04-10-2012, 03:51 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
Part and parcel of the insurance mandate is that it is a big part of a "very bad law" that not only deliberately hides costs and does not bend the cost curve downward, but it is unfathomable to comprehend; it's 2,700 pages of legalese that no one fully understands, including those that voted for it. Most of what's in this monstrosity is still to be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services; that's how this whole contraceptive issue got going. HHS will determine exactly what will be covered by insurance and who will need to provide it/get it; health panels will be set up to determine what treatments will be available and for what particular patients. The first target in all of this has been religious entities (and the Catholic Church in particular); if the Government succeeds in running roughshod over the objections of religious institutions, there's no telling what will stop it short of the Supreme Court declaring the law unconstitutional.

Yes, the health care industry in the U.S. does need to be fixed, costs are out of control and people do need to be able to access coverage. The model is broken. However, stretching the "Commerce Clause" to accommodate the individual mandate is a farce and is a recipe for a dictatorial central government IMO.

Government meddling in the health care sector since WWII has skewed the market for insurance coverage away from individual plans toward group policies, while Medicare/Medicaid price controls have shifted costs away from the public sector onto the private market and individuals. Meanwhile, the number of medical schools have been restricted, while law schools have blossomed and tort reform goes nowhere. A serious plan to return market forces to the health care industry is required to fix this dilemma and further Government intrusion will likely only make matters worse. There aren't many things the Government does as well as the private sector and to think that it can succeed in the health care arena (about 16% of the economy) is a bridge too far, I'm afraid. Something along the lines of Paul Ryan's plan, with input from health care experts and others would seem to have a chance at success, rather than this amalgamation of hidden mandates and unconstrained costs that no one can possibly understand.
Reply With Quote
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Bat'71 For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-10-2012), UACFlyer (04-10-2012), UD Sam (04-10-2012)
  #20  
Old 04-10-2012, 04:08 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Pregnancy is a health issue, a societal issue worldwide..

Originally Posted by UD Sam View Post
IMO, if a woman chooses to use birth control pills or the day after pill to prevent pregnancy, that is a personal choice and is not health related.

The cost of birth control pills varies, but in many cases the cost is $60/month. If insurance companies are forced to cover birth control pills, the cost for the average woman trying to prevent pregnancy for 30 years would be $21,600. And this coverage would also be available to women on Medicaid.

With the cost of health insurance having increased by almost double digits during the past 10 years, many employers have had to either require an employee to pay more of the cost...or, in the case of small companies who couldn't afford it, health insurance had to be dropped.

So I wonder why our president is pushing the requirement to cover birth control expenses when it will increase the cost of insurance that has already skyrocketed....and birth control is a personal choice. Maybe we should also demand that the government pay for an annual vacation to a beach resort because that would reduce our stress and make us healther (and stress does affect health).
Figures released to today show that U.S. teen pregnancies are the lowest in 70 years...a good thing.....surely contraception is a factor.

Smoking is a personal choice too that is very much health related.

Some goofy Christian denominations believe use of pharmaceuticals and/or other tools of modern medicine is wrong...and occasionally risk the lives of their children so as to adhere to the "teachings" of their faith.

Well over half the world's population live under ever-worsening conditions that would be unimaginable to Americans. The primary reason for their plight is the fact that their population is increasing faster than their economy (i.e., their ability to produce food.) Absent population control, that situation will never, ever change.

Arguments against one of man's greatest triumphs, his ability to control population growth, are no more sensible than the reasoning behind refusal to use modern meds as a means to cure illness.

If anything, Catholics should be embarrassed that their church, that does so much good in the world, remains as a primary obstacle to improving the lives of the majority that still live under deplorable conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-10-2012, 04:35 PM
UDBaby UDBaby is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LINY
Posts: 1,781
Thanks: 1,096
Thanked 1,173 Times in 555 Posts
UDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by IAFlyer View Post
Technically, all Catholics are supposed to be bound by the teachings of the church. However, 98% of American Catholics use or have used birth control at some point. It is clear that most American Catholics find at least one teaching to be irrelevant. I am not saying they are right, but it isn't even close in this regard.

The Catholic Church/Pope has been wrong before (indulgences, for example).

I believe the source of the faith should be found in the bible (not the Pope). You'd be hard-pressed to find a biblical teaching that would easily support the birth-control stance - especially in an over-populated world.
To say nothing of the fact that abortion is at the lowest rate in quite some time due primarily to the wide availability of contraception...a point I made in another thread a while ago....

And to your point Bat.....states have been dealing with this issue long before it became part of Obamacare...please refer to an earlier post in which I also highlighted the ongoing debate on a state level about this aspect of healthcare coverage AND a part of insurance coverage that many CONSERVATIVE GOVs signed into law....and which has been challenged in the courts with some states winning execptions and others not........

This is another of those supposedly "freedom killing" laws/policies that didn't sprout the day after President Obama took office...though some would have us believe that....and others on this board choose to conveniently ignore....

Both sides of the issue can be argued with equally valid points, evidence, and precedent...provided of course that we can actually wade through the piles in order to get to the facts....

Please....those of you that feel that the foundations of St. Peter's Bascilica are about to crumble, show me evidence of your protest and Pride're posts when Ohio and other states signed healthcare bills that included contraceptive services into law dating back to 2000ish.....or is there another agenda behind your inability to grasp the history of this debate?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-10-2012, 05:05 PM
Chris R's Avatar
Chris R Chris R is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 8,182
Thanks: 620
Thanked 5,670 Times in 1,911 Posts
Chris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond repute
At the end of the day, most religious followers cherrypick the scriptures for their own self-fulfilling reasons by adopting the passages they like and ignoring the ones they dont. I suppose religious institutions like UD are not dis-similar in that regard and are probably a closer reflection on their constituents then we initially suspect. There is enough dam[n]ation in the teachings of every catholic church to expel nearly every follower -- even the most righteous.

I'm not advocating or condemning UD's stance on covering contraception on their insurance policies. Im just suggesting that those within their flock -- those working at UD, teaching at UD, and proselytizing at UD -- are probably far closer to living their lives under the pretenses of the insurance policy UD offers and not the actual teachings of the church.

The Bible says a lot. Much of it odd and head-scratching. Some of it violent and down-right weird. You could put 100 Catholics in the same room and get 100 different interpretations of the scripture, not unlike any religion.

So I can appreciate UDs difficult position in trying to work under the pretense of a Catholic institution when most of the self-labeled Catholics within the university are Catholic in name only. How more un-Catholic can you get by using contraception? Its one of their main tenets. Its like calling yourself a White Sox fan and walking around with a Cubs hat on. You may be a lot of things, but Catholic you are not.

But this is the norm in religion and I'm not attempting to single out Catholicism. Everybody plays the charade.
__________________

C. M. Rieman | Publisher | 937.361.4630 | Get the latest here:

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-10-2012, 05:59 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,641
Thanks: 22
Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,195 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
There is a huge difference between the members of a religous faith choosing to follow the laws of their faith. It is another for a government to force religous institutions to violate their teachings. And it is yet something else for a religous affiliated organization to decide that for competitive or other pragmatic reasons they will offer benefits that don't comply with their beliefs. Personally I am pragmatic but bieve the gov should back off. Let the catholic institutions make their decisions and lie in the economic/religous bed they make.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to UDDoug For This Totally Excellent Post:
Bat'71 (04-10-2012), IAFlyer (04-11-2012), TD Flyer (04-12-2012)
  #24  
Old 04-10-2012, 06:15 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
Well, for all those that think Government knows best, you'll get the "pleasure" of living under a more active Big Brother should the Supreme Court uphold the Obamacare law and all it's little codicils that most don't even know about yet. Once it's fully implemented, you better pray it's what you think it is, because we'll all be stuck with it. It's a heck of a lot easier to change a state law or policy than it is a national program. Moreover, if the Government can use the Commerce Clause to restructure an entire industry (good or bad), I can't wait to see what else it will use it for to extend it's grasp and it's power. If you don't like what the Catholic Church teaches or all of its quirks as it pertains to individual behavior (as I quite often don't) that doesn't mean it's okay for the Government to come in and dictate terms to it on issues of faith or practice especially as it pertains to health insurance (or anything else for that matter.) A compliant public that looks the other way when the Government initially overreaches into areas beyond it's enumerated powers may be in for a rude awakening when the issue isn't one that most agree with. IMO, we're opening a Pandora's box here that could serve as a basis for a further erosion in individual liberties.
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Bat'71 For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-12-2012), UD Sam (04-10-2012)
  #25  
Old 04-10-2012, 06:39 PM
Chris R's Avatar
Chris R Chris R is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 8,182
Thanks: 620
Thanked 5,670 Times in 1,911 Posts
Chris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond repute
Im not arguing that UD doesnt have the right to do whatever they want. In fact, Im not even that interested in what they do. Im merely suggesting their current posture is in lockstep with most of their Catholic followers -- even if their Catholic followers choose to romance themselves as more righteous Catholics than they really are and live in the denial of their own Catholic misgivings.
__________________

C. M. Rieman | Publisher | 937.361.4630 | Get the latest here:

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-10-2012, 08:57 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
UD is not just for Catholics.....

Originally Posted by Bat'71 View Post
Well, for all those that think Government knows best, you'll get the "pleasure" of living under a more active Big Brother should the Supreme Court uphold the Obamacare law and all it's little codicils that most don't even know about yet. Once it's fully implemented, you better pray it's what you think it is, because we'll all be stuck with it. It's a heck of a lot easier to change a state law or policy than it is a national program. Moreover, if the Government can use the Commerce Clause to restructure an entire industry (good or bad), I can't wait to see what else it will use it for to extend it's grasp and it's power. If you don't like what the Catholic Church teaches or all of its quirks as it pertains to individual behavior (as I quite often don't) that doesn't mean it's okay for the Government to come in and dictate terms to it on issues of faith or practice especially as it pertains to health insurance (or anything else for that matter.) A compliant public that looks the other way when the Government initially overreaches into areas beyond it's enumerated powers may be in for a rude awakening when the issue isn't one that most agree with. IMO, we're opening a Pandora's box here that could serve as a basis for a further erosion in individual liberties.
Bat, UD has an insurance plan for its employees. Many of those employees are not Catholic....could be 25% or more. How is that to be handled? Is the insurance coverage for non-Catholic employees going to be different than for Catholic employees? When hiring will UD make a prospective new employee designate his/her religion for insurance purposes?

I doubt if an insurance company would stucture a plan based on religion. If that is correct, does UD then say to its non-Catholic hires...."Don't forget, if you work here there are meds that you may need/want that are not covered by our insurance plan"?

Seems to me that this could get messy in a hurry.

And, Bat, you never answered my question. I'll repeat it: If a plan like Ryan's or something similar was passed into law...and that plan "solved" the country's health-care cost-growth problem....one of the most important issues ever to face the country....and a critical element of that plan was an insurance mandate, would you oppose the plan because of that?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-10-2012, 09:15 PM
AC91's Avatar
AC91 AC91 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 1,751
Thanks: 1,971
Thanked 887 Times in 404 Posts
AC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond repute
I wonder if we should be opposed to UD offering spousal benefits to people who have been divorced without annullment and then remarried? Isn't that technically going against the teachings of the church as well?
__________________
"And the men who hold high places // Must be the ones who start // To mould a new reality // Closer to the Heart"
- N.Peart/Rush/Closer to the Heart
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to AC91 For This Totally Excellent Post:
UACFlyer (04-10-2012)
  #28  
Old 04-10-2012, 09:25 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Not a peep,....

......that's would you would be hearing from the Catholic church re the mandate if Obamacare: 1) was widely hailed as a bi-partisan plan; 2) was widely recognized as solving one of the most, if not the most, important national problems of our time; 3) was not challenged by the states or anyone else, since all recognized the national value of the plan.

The church would not be uttering a word except for the fact that half the country, at least, is screaming bloody murder about Obamacare, which surely makes a very bad problem even worse.

It's that fact that gives the Church the cover it needs to howl. No organization knows politics better than the Catholic church....and if the Church knew that it was holding a losing hand there would be silence.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-10-2012, 10:00 PM
UDBaby UDBaby is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LINY
Posts: 1,781
Thanks: 1,096
Thanked 1,173 Times in 555 Posts
UDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Bat'71 View Post
It's a heck of a lot easier to change a state law or policy than it is a national program. Moreover, if the Government can use the Commerce Clause to restructure an entire industry (good or bad), I can't wait to see what else it will use it for to extend it's grasp and it's power.
Oh I see...so you were ok with the state of Ohio passing a law requiring that contraceptive services be provided by CERTAIN religious institutions in their health benefits programs (the crux of the arguments and appeals is the nature of the religious institution, what they do, who they employ and who they service....i.e. Catholic hospital vs. a church) but NOW that the federal government is following the lead of a majority of states and the gov's in those states it's a big problem that threatens our freedom and democracy? Just want to make sure I'm getting this right...It was ok for the state of Ohio but not the federal government? Just checking........

The grasp and power of government is the issue...oh I see. Much better that we are left to the grasp and power of the insurance companies and the carpetbagging *****s that usher-in the legislation to make their grasp on power legitimate and somehow more democratic?

Very little about "Obamacare" has to do with government takeover of power but it certainly sounds more dire and works better in the "be afraid...be very afraid" narrative.....

Tell me again why it's ok for the state of Ohio to tell UD to provide contraceptive care under their healthcare plan but not for the federal govenment?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-10-2012, 10:57 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
The U.S. Constitution is the issue, Baby...

Originally Posted by UDBaby View Post
Oh I see...so you were ok with the state of Ohio passing a law requiring that contraceptive services be provided by CERTAIN religious institutions in their health benefits programs (the crux of the arguments and appeals is the nature of the religious institution, what they do, who they employ and who they service....i.e. Catholic hospital vs. a church) but NOW that the federal government is following the lead of a majority of states and the gov's in those states it's a big problem that threatens our freedom and democracy? Just want to make sure I'm getting this right...It was ok for the state of Ohio but not the federal government? Just checking........

The grasp and power of government is the issue...oh I see. Much better that we are left to the grasp and power of the insurance companies and the carpetbagging *****s that usher-in the legislation to make their grasp on power legitimate and somehow more democratic?

Very little about "Obamacare" has to do with government takeover of power but it certainly sounds more dire and works better in the "be afraid...be very afraid" narrative.....

Tell me again why it's ok for the state of Ohio to tell UD to provide contraceptive care under their healthcare plan but not for the federal govenment?
Your logic is flawless, in my opinion. But, the issue can be traced to the U.S. constitution and our federalist system. There are many things that it's OK for a state to do, but would be unconstitutional for the federal government to do.

The beef re the insurance mandate is that it violates the commerce clause of the Constitution. Whether it does or not,..the justices will decide (in fact, they have decided but won't tell us until June),...if there was not such widespread objection to Obamacare the justices would find a way to explain why the mandate does not violate the constitution. They may anyway.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UACFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
IAFlyer (04-11-2012)
  #31  
Old 04-11-2012, 08:22 AM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Thumbs down Complete drivel....

Originally Posted by AC91 View Post
I wonder if we should be opposed to UD offering spousal benefits to people who have been divorced without annullment and then remarried? Isn't that technically going against the teachings of the church as well?
This is the kind of nonsense that Catholic bashers, "inside" or outside the Church throw out to support non-existent arguments. PLEASE show me where the Catholic Bishops or the Vatican has clearly stated that Catholic institutions cannot offer benefits to divorced people.... I'm waiting.... Yeah, I did not think so.... My guess is that you personally do not even understand the Church's teachings on marriage or divorce. In fact, most of the bashers here are simply folks that seem to have some axe to grind with the Church and spout off at the mouth with utter nonsense that is COMPLETELY unsupported by Church doctrine. It is sad that these folks are far too lazy to put the effort into understanding Church teachings. What is even sadder is that many of these folks actually claim to be Catholic. Frankly, the nonsense spouted by Catholic bashers on this thread has no bearing on UD Policies. The bottom line is that UD is Catholic, has always been Catholic and most likely will always remain Catholic. As such, UD is bound by Church teachings. You personally do not have to like it.... If it bothers you so much, go find some liberal private or state u to support and walk away from UD. Coming here and bashing my, (and clearly the University of Dayton’s), faith just points out how ignorant clueless and you are.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-11-2012, 08:33 AM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Just do not get it....

Originally Posted by IAFlyer View Post
Technically, all Catholics are supposed to be bound by the teachings of the church. However, 98% of American Catholics use or have used birth control at some point. It is clear that most American Catholics find at least one teaching to be irrelevant. I am not saying they are right, but it isn't even close in this regard.

The Catholic Church/Pope has been wrong before (indulgences, for example).

I believe the source of the faith should be found in the bible (not the Pope). You'd be hard-pressed to find a biblical teaching that would easily support the birth-control stance - especially in an over-populated world.
If you somehow choose to justify your own sinful behavior by citing mistakes that HUMANS, prone to sin, within the Catholic Church, made centuries ago, then you are absolutely not understanding what it means to be Catholic. Guess what? HUMANS TODAY within the Catholic Church still sin. News flash.... HUMANS ARE NOT PERFECT!! I also challenge you to support the BS that 98% of Catholics use birth control. My guess is that you picked that up from the liberal, anti-Catholic, media and are simply restating it as fact. It is simply amazing to me that as Catholics we simply put up with this type of Catholic bashing. UD was founded by Catholics, UD is now Catholic, and UD will most likely always be Catholic. As such, regardless of what sinful humans choose to do, UD has been and most likely always will be bound by Church teachings. One of which is to not use, (or support the use of), artificial means of birth control.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-11-2012, 09:10 AM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
UDBaby, quite frankly, I don't see the logic in your argument; you're arguing against a position that I don't hold. You start out by making certain assumptions and then premise your position on the supposition that I, and others, who have a problem with Obamacare's mandate, would have no problem with a similar law if passed by a State (in this case Ohio.) Well, let me say right off the bat (no pun intended) that you are absolutely, categorically wrong in your premise. Your statement that "Very little about Obamacare has anything to do with government takeover of power..." also couldn't be more wrong; it's ALL about power and I'm sorry you can't see that. It would be just as unconstitutional for a state to require this type of contraceptive coverage as it would be the Federal Government. To the degree the Church didn't fight other efforts that mandated contraceptive coverage (in the broadest use of that term) in individual states, that's a burden that falls on the Church; most citizens don't know about that aspect (I, for one, surely didn't.) In regard to mandatory coverage or availability of health insurance, that's another issue that is well within the purview of individual states but is still problematic from a Federal Government perspective. That's not to say that the Feds can't have a positive impact in broadening coverage availability to individual citizens, but the method utilized in Obamacare is a blunt instrument that has serious constitutional repercussions that needs to be addressed. Just because people are against Obamacare, doesn't mean that the status-quo is acceptable; as mentioned earlier, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. This isn't a Democrat/Republican issue, it's an issue that needs consensus and needs to be addressed within the confines and strictures of the Constitution.

Why does anyone think it's within the natural order of things for the government to mandate every aspect of what's included in a health insurance policy? Why is there an assumption that since UD has non-Catholic employees, it should offer different health care policies based on their individual beliefs? Health insurance policy coverage varies widely from company to company and from firm to firm; this has always been the case. Across a broad spectrum of industries, as well as in State and local governments, health insurance policies come in all different shapes and sizes: some are more inclusive than others; some have higher deductibles than others; some provide for catastrophic care; some provide for regular vision or dental preventative care, some don't; and, some have prescription drug coverage in varying degrees, and some don't. Quite often, health insurance coverage is a heated issue in labor union negotiations with management. Why is it that with Government it's one size fits all? As a matter of fact, why does health care have to be provided by an employer and why is it not transportable once an employee changes jobs. This is a feature of the health insurance market that developed during WWII as a means of employers to get around wage and price controls that were implemented by the Government at that time. It has helped skew the health insurance market ever since.

Needless to say, health insurance is a complicated issue that cannot be adequately addressed in "sound bites" and is too easily demagogued. Yes, I agree the insurance companies (and how they treat patient claims) quite often s**k, but please don't assume that under Obamacare the Government bureaucrat handling your case in the future will be any more efficient or arbitrary than insurance company representatives. At least now, there is a process to fight capricious, arbitrary decisions by your insurance company...when the Government's in charge, who do you go to? How efficient do you think the Government will be in running the health care industry; I'll give you a hint...take a look at Amtrak, the Post Office, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the DODs procurement practices...it aint pretty.

*Detroit Flyer makes a number of valid points. It's quite interesting how the controversy concerning the Obamacare mandates has been artfully shifted from the encroachment of the Federal Government impinging on religious freedoms to one that paints the Catholic Church as the enemy of the people; this is de rigueur in totalitarian regimes around the world. In this Thread alone, many of the most heated arguments have Catholics arguing with Catholics over what is appropriate for the Church to teach and what doctrines should be acceptable to enlightened 21st Century man. While I have mentioned (though not enumerated)my own disagreements with the Church's positions on a whole host of issues, I do not question the legitimacy of the Church to have those positions nor do I think it appropriate for the Government to take actions that are antithetical to those positions.

Last edited by Bat'71; 04-11-2012 at 09:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Bat'71 For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-11-2012)
  #34  
Old 04-11-2012, 09:14 AM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,641
Thanks: 22
Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,195 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
I don't like state mandates any more than federal mandates. My wife and I are well past childbearing years I would prefer to buy a plan that fit my needs better than be forced to subsidize contraceptive care for those of child bearing age. That would be more likely to occur with mandates. But I also recognize that states have rights to do things the federal government does not. In fact the constitution specifically enumerates what the Feds can do and leaves everything else to the states. If you don't like that then work to revisit the decisions of Jefferson and Madison.

There are two (probably more) issues here. One is role of federal government and mandating something. That raises more than commerce clause issues when it interfers with practice of religion. The compromise to have insurers pay is no compromise when substantially all the affected organizations are self insured. The insurance company doesn't pay anything. The organization does.

The second is UD's role as a Catholic institution. Like it or not they are. And they should observe the doctrines or quit referring to themselves as a Catholic, Marianist university. You can disagree withthe stance of the Church on this or any other issue. Many Catholics do. That doesn't give the institution the right to violate directives from the bishop. UD is making a choice in deciding whether to offer the benefits or not. They do so to remain competitive with other employers or they choose to be a Catholic institution. They can't have it both ways.

And no, they don't offer the benefits to non Catholics. As a Catholic instituion they offer them to no one. They live with the economic and competitive comsequenses. If they dint like the result they work within the church to change the stance of the church. Or they just say they area nonaffiliated private university, like Butler.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to UDDoug For This Totally Excellent Post:
Bat'71 (04-11-2012), TD Flyer (04-11-2012)
  #35  
Old 04-11-2012, 09:53 AM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,218
Thanks: 221
Thanked 1,237 Times in 591 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Politics never surprises me, but always amazes me.

I've said this in another thread, but these sweeping champions of healthcare reform haven't reformed jack squat. I'm talking about a macro scale here. I'm not going to downplay the teachings of the church and the importance of those teachings to certain people within the church. Nationwide, though, this new legislation really doesn't change ANYTHING.

I believe 26 states, including Ohio, already had laws in place that addressed contraception in healthcare coverage. Of the 24 that didn't, access to contraception isn't exactly difficult or expensive to come by. I live in a state where there is no such law, but there are health centers that will give certain forms of contraception away for free. Any doctor will prescribe it to basically anyone who asks for it, and it doesn't cost the individual THAT much. So, my question to several people in my neck of the woods is why people are suddenly so worked up and excited about this new mandate, when they can basically (well not basically, ACTUALLY) get it for free as it stands now anyway??

As has been pointed out, many Catholic schools and institutions within the 26 states were already providing this coverage. When I was at UD, it was provided. No one was mad about it. No staunch Catholics were up in arms about it. Now they are, but in reality nothing has really changed. That does not surprise me, but it does amaze me. UD and XU have been doing their thing for decades, the new legislation wouldn't directly effect either institution, yet everyone is up in arms about it even though it changes nothing. UD Baby's point is a fair one. If it's that sacred to people because of the teachings of the Church (and I can understand why it would be) why weren't those people angry about anything until now??

To me, honestly, it's not that important either way. I don't know how I feel about health care reform. I think we need reform, but I'm not sure I trust the suits in Washington to reform it effectively. This makes me even more convinced of that. To me, this is like being promised sweeping changes to my auto insurance, yet only being given free oil changes. It's nice, but that isn't what I need out of my auto insurance, and it doesn't give me anything that I couldn't have already gotten in the first place. Don't call yourself a sweeping champion of reform if that's the extent of your reform.

I guess that's what amazes me...

To those that are for health care reform, why are you so satisfiled with so little??

To those that are against this legislation, why weren't you mad about catholic institutions providing contraceptions until now??

People on both sides are suddenly all fired up over something that just six months ago they weren't even conscious of.

It makes me think everyone is out of touch, and that's disturbing. Most people don't knwo what's going on in the middle east. If you gave most people a blank map of the middle east, they'd be unable to fill in the blanks. We're too busy worrying about contraception. The economy, the rising price of education, and foreign policy are things that I care about a hundred times more than this, yet no one is talking about it. The cynic in me thinks that maybe that was the entire motiviation behind this in the first place.

For the record, I have no problems with most forms of birth control, but I am against forcing religious institutions to provide it if they don't want to, especially since it isn't a primary health concern. Having said that, it's hard for me to get fired up when places like X, UD, and many others were already providing this kind of coverage in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-11-2012, 10:06 AM
TD Flyer TD Flyer is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 258
Thanks: 320
Thanked 128 Times in 35 Posts
TD Flyer has a spectacular aura aboutTD Flyer has a spectacular aura aboutTD Flyer has a spectacular aura about
In starting this tread, you know my position on the university’s decision to include contraception pills in its health coverage. Some of our esteemed posters are not in agreement with me. Here are summaries of the reasons supporting the university and my response on each.

• Claims administrators say there is no way they can tell what is prescribed for medical necessity and what is prescribed for contraception. The answer is simple, just have the doctor prescribe it. Universities say there is no way they can exclude this coverage. That is garbage. My second career was in financial planning with a high percentage of my income came from the group insurance. They can exclude any coverage as long it would not be in violation of state law. The proof is Xavier has done it.
• The differences in doctrine between Catholic and Protestant groups is absolute chicken sh*t compared to the big picture. The bishops have the responsibility to lead their flock on all matters, large and small. The end does not justify the means.
• Protestant sects have grown up faster than the Catholic Church. Many Protestant churches continue to modify their beliefs, sometimes to satisfy their constituents. The Catholic Church does not.
• Many deacons use contraceptives. Probably true. That is their business. I will not judge them, and neither are the bishops. But that is an irrelevant argument.
• Xavier’s decision has alumni complaining. Percentage wise is minuscule. If employees complain, they can accept the decision of the employer or resign. How different from many other decisions employers make that employees do not agree with?
• The Catholic Church/Pope has been wrong before. Who hasn’t been wrong? If we have been wrong on a parenting issue, does that negate our responsibility?
• Source of the Catholic faith is found in the bible, not the pope. That is the Protestant view. The Catholic doctrine is our faith comes from both the bible and tradition ( teachings from the papacy). Their should be no question that Christ wanted successors to St Peter.
• Cost of birth control pills can be $60 per month. Ms Fluke testified in congress (under oath) that her cost was $100 per month. The pills can be purchased at a number of national companies for $9 per month. She either perjured herself or needs to be informed how to shop.
• Hard pressed to find a biblical teaching to support birth control. Nope, nothing about birth control pills. But google bible birth control and you will numerous passages about birth control and spilling of the seed.
• Catholics should be embarrassed that their church remains a primary obstacle to improve the lives of the majority that live under deplorable conditions. The church has a long history of helping the underprivileged and does not need to make apologies. I am proud of the many ways that the church as helped in this regard. And the end does not justify the means.
• You could put 100 Catholics in the same room and get 100 different answers on interpretation of the scriptures, not unlike any religion. True with Protestant sects, but the Catholic Church rejects that concept, and is in my opinion overwhelming supported by the practicing Catholic population.
• Non-Catholic employees of the University would create a problem. No, they would be treated the same as Catholic employees.
• Should UD offer insurance coverage to employee’s spouses when they do not have a valid marriage? Absolutely. That information can not be asked on a job application form, and the university would generally not know. Even if they did know, they could not legally deny coverage nor be of the opinion they are in violation of any Catholic doctrine.


This thread has gone well beyond my original subjective asking about UD’s Health coverage. But make no mistake about it. The issue isn’t really about birth control pills. It is abortion. For all Catholics, we need to be firm on this issue. There is no room for compromise.

Last edited by TD Flyer; 04-11-2012 at 12:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to TD Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
DetroitFlyer (04-11-2012)
  #37  
Old 04-11-2012, 11:13 AM
UDBaby UDBaby is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LINY
Posts: 1,781
Thanks: 1,096
Thanked 1,173 Times in 555 Posts
UDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
I also challenge you to support the BS that 98% of Catholics use birth control. My guess is that you picked that up from the liberal, anti-Catholic, media and are simply restating it as fact. It is simply amazing to me that as Catholics we simply put up with this type of Catholic bashing.
Well, let me ask you this....since you will dismiss all supporting evidence, empirical or otherwise (I had a good laugh when you hurled the "liberal media" crappolla at the Romney people during the Michigan primary. I thought that bullet was only meant for the real enemies...didn't realize you guys prey on each other too!...but thanks)........

...can you produce any facts or surveys or even your own propaganda that disproves or runs counter to the overwhelming data that supports the claim that most people of faith use contraceptives? Go ahead, I'll listen, because no matter what I or anyone else posts about it, you'll say its Catholic bashing lies..you choose to believe what you want no matter how solid the evidence is that you might be wrong....

"Totalitarian systems usually start as propaganda movements that ostensibly teach people to 'believe what they want' but that opening gambit is a ruse. This insistance on the primacy of personal opinion, regardless of facts, destabilizes and destroys the primacy of all fact. This process leads inevitably to the big lie. Facts are useful only if they bolster the message."

UAC...I understand the larger issue of state vs. federal power now before the court and as noted in my posts, I think there are vaild points to be made on both sides of the issue. I just feel compelled (as you might've noticed) to point out a few underlying FACTS regarding the history of the issue, especially when so many conveniently choose to ignore the fact that
* the mandate (the crux of the case before the court) was not an Obama initiative but one made by many states and conservatives long before Obama was sworn in as Pres....
* that if so many people are up in arms about the federal gov't trying to mandate contraceptive services be part of all healthcare plans...Why weren't these same now vocal people/groups as up in arms about it when many states mandated the same thing over the course of the last 10+ years? (though I could speculate as to why.....)

States rights vs. federal power is certainly an issue, but please explain to me how and why the zealots feel that it was ok for the state to mandate that UD provide these services and not the federal government. And if it wasn't ok, why isn't the background of this issue presented as part of any of these threads?

As I said, I understand the arguments on both sides, but don't try to tell me (not you UAC in particular) that this attack on the church just started with Obamacare....
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-11-2012, 11:19 AM
Chris R's Avatar
Chris R Chris R is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 8,182
Thanks: 620
Thanked 5,670 Times in 1,911 Posts
Chris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond repute
How can not buying something be commerce? If I walk into Lowes and buy nothing, did commerce take place?
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-11-2012, 11:32 AM
UDBaby UDBaby is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LINY
Posts: 1,781
Thanks: 1,096
Thanked 1,173 Times in 555 Posts
UDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Bat'71 View Post
UDBaby, quite frankly, I don't see the logic in your argument; you're arguing against a position that I don't hold. You start out by making certain assumptions and then premise your position on the supposition that I, and others, who have a problem with Obamacare's mandate, would have no problem with a similar law if passed by a State (in this case Ohio.) Well, let me say right off the bat (no pun intended) that you are absolutely, categorically wrong in your premise.
Bat...thanks for taking the time to reply and I do understand and appreciate most of what you wrote...BUT...my biggest problem with the whole thread and ferocity of the case being made today is that you still don't seem to get the fact that it isn't a matter of "if passed by a State (in this case Ohio.)" but the FACT that Ohio and many others have passed these laws and have done so while governed (in many cases) by very conservative gov's!

Please see XBrew's post on the matter...AND...please forgive me but it is a little frustrating because I detailed the same in an earlier post on another thread with specific reference to Ohio and the exceptions sought by states since these laws passed (NY my home state in particular)....

So, you not knowing that, or reading it and then dismissing the fact that this isn't primarily an Obama initiative led me to believe that many people are simply using this issue as part of a larger agenda to discredit the President about a policy already advocated and adopted by legislators that you might like a little better....If I was wrong about that and you just weren't as aware of the history of the policy I apologize.

As I have said in every one of these threads, these cases come before the courts all the time and in this matter it's an interesting debate. BUT the Obama Administration didn't start the suppossed mandate that the Church follow policy that runs counter to church teachings...they may be following the lead of those that in your opinion did mandate this, but they didn't start it.

Whether it's the realm of the state vs. the feds is another issue, but that isn't what is being argued in this thread. This thread purports that to some extent the UD contraception issue is just coming about now under Obamacare, most aspects of which have yet to be enacted.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-11-2012, 12:34 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
Among other things, Xubrew makes two important observations concerning this "controversy". The first issue is: why weren't people angry about Catholic institutions paying for contraceptives prior to enactment of Obamacare? Part of the reason for this IMO are: many people were not aware of what was covered or not covered by the health plans at major Catholic institutions to begin with...it only came to light after the issue arose because of Obamacare; Obamacare is about more than mere contraceptives...it includes sterilizations and abortifactants; and, Obamacare forces all religious institutions to cover birth control (in all it's many facets) regardless of objections on religious grounds. It should be noted that just because some Catholic institutions covered contraceptives in their health care policies prior to the Obamacare mandate doesn't mean that the Church's formal position on this issue is compromised, it isn't. The second point that stood out to me is: people on both sides of this issue are fired up over something that six months ago they weren't even aware existed. The Obamacare bill is 2,700 pages in length and most people (including those that voted for it) don't know what's in it. Moreover many of the key provisions of the Act have yet to be determined and are subject to the sole discretion of the Secretary of HHS. Remember, when the Obamacare bill was being debated, it wound up passing by the slimmest of margins in the House and Senate, with key votes for the bill hinging on the assurances from the Obama Administration that nothing in the bill would require funding for abortions; well, in retrospect I guess, to paraphrase a former leader and guiding light of the Democratic Party, "I guess it's all in depends on what your definition of abortion is." This ruling by HHS requiring that all religious institutions cover "contraceptives" was not an issue six months ago, because there hadn't been any clue that this was in the cards, so to speak. Do any Posters think that if this provision were spelled out in the bill itself that it would have passed? So it appears that this "issue" was injected into the political arena at this time by the Obama Administration in order to have a political issue that would appeal to women and progressives in order to set up a fight with a Catholic Church that has lost a lot of its moral suasion due to past scandals.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 04-11-2012, 12:53 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
C'mon, Bat,...

Originally Posted by Bat'71 View Post
So it appears that this "issue" was injected into the political arena at this time by the Obama Administration in order to have a political issue that would appeal to women and progressives in order to set up a fight with a Catholic Church that has lost a lot of its moral suasion due to past scandals.
Do you really think that Obama wanted to "set up a fight" with 25% of the voters during an election year"?
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UACFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
AC91 (04-11-2012)
  #42  
Old 04-11-2012, 01:12 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
UDBaby, despite how it may have sounded, I am not against Obamacare because it stemmed from the Obama Administration. In so far as any individual State solutions mandate contraceptive coverage in health insurance coverage provided by religious institutions, I would expect these to be challenged as an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment provisions on religious freedoms. No matter one's personal opinions on any number of the Church's teachings or core positions, it is a dangerous precedent to countenance any Government interference in Church Doctrine or how it perceives and carries out it's mission.

What is most frustrating IMO is that much of the consternation and anger over Obamacare was needlessly fomented. There was a political consensus forming that our health care system was in urgent need of an overhaul and a real chance to implement a bipartisan solution to the health care problems confronting our country. However, this opportunity seems to have been frittered away by ideological intransigence that was fostered by one Party having control of both Houses of the Legislative Branch and control of the Executive. Many people that disagree with Obamacare have very legitimate, non-partisan reasons to worry about a Federal Government power grab here...it would be the same concern if this were to be perpetrated by a staunchly conservative government.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-11-2012, 01:33 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
Yes, UAC, I do think there was a calculated political gambit to take on the Catholic Church by the Obama Administration. Just look at this Board and this Thread for confirmation of that. Catholics are not a homogenous block that follow Church teaching in lock step. As I admitted, I have my own disagreements with the Church on a number of issues, and I don't think I'm alone on that score. In a society that has become more secular and permissive in what is considered acceptable social behavior, the Church has taken on the aura of an old fuddy-duddy, governed by a class of old, white European men who seem impervious to many of the issues of importance to modern women. The Church is also probably more vulnerable today to challenges to it's authority given the horrendous scandals that have come to light over the past twenty years. So, yeah, I think there was absolutely a political calculation in all of this...don't you? Do you think that with a Presidential election six/seven months away that this new HHS proviso just popped up without any political calculations as to the impact on the electorate? Somehow, I don't t-h-i-n-k so.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-11-2012, 01:58 PM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
98% Really?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/whi...n-a-****ed-lie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...zTDR_blog.html

http://www.creativeminorityreport.co...on-for-98.html

Just as I fully expected, no one has stepped up to support the 98% number. Gee what a shocker. It is simply far easier to bash the Church with a number that conveniently fits your own personal agenda....

The articles linked above at least bring some perspective to the claim of 98%.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-11-2012, 02:03 PM
UDEE79's Avatar
UDEE79 UDEE79 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Beavercreek Ohio
Posts: 1,860
Thanks: 1,394
Thanked 1,140 Times in 428 Posts
UDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Chris R View Post
How can not buying something be commerce? If I walk into Lowes and buy nothing, did commerce take place?
Posted via Mobile Device
Wickard v Filburn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

The Government said he could only grow so much wheat. He grew extra wheat and was going to feed the excess to his livestock. He lost his case because NOT buying the feed from another farmer was engaging in interstate commerce. So essentially all human activity is interstate commerce.

Local connection: Filburn (actual name was "Filbrun") lived in Dayton and his land and the rest of the land in his family became the site of the Salem Mall.
__________________
It's a great day to be a Flyer
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-11-2012, 02:06 PM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Just as I fully expected....

Originally Posted by UDBaby View Post
Well, let me ask you this....since you will dismiss all supporting evidence, empirical or otherwise (I had a good laugh when you hurled the "liberal media" crappolla at the Romney people during the Michigan primary. I thought that bullet was only meant for the real enemies...didn't realize you guys prey on each other too!...but thanks)........

...can you produce any facts or surveys or even your own propaganda that disproves or runs counter to the overwhelming data that supports the claim that most people of faith use contraceptives? Go ahead, I'll listen, because no matter what I or anyone else posts about it, you'll say its Catholic bashing lies..you choose to believe what you want no matter how solid the evidence is that you might be wrong....

"Totalitarian systems usually start as propaganda movements that ostensibly teach people to 'believe what they want' but that opening gambit is a ruse. This insistance on the primacy of personal opinion, regardless of facts, destabilizes and destroys the primacy of all fact. This process leads inevitably to the big lie. Facts are useful only if they bolster the message."

UAC...I understand the larger issue of state vs. federal power now before the court and as noted in my posts, I think there are vaild points to be made on both sides of the issue. I just feel compelled (as you might've noticed) to point out a few underlying FACTS regarding the history of the issue, especially when so many conveniently choose to ignore the fact that
* the mandate (the crux of the case before the court) was not an Obama initiative but one made by many states and conservatives long before Obama was sworn in as Pres....
* that if so many people are up in arms about the federal gov't trying to mandate contraceptive services be part of all healthcare plans...Why weren't these same now vocal people/groups as up in arms about it when many states mandated the same thing over the course of the last 10+ years? (though I could speculate as to why.....)

States rights vs. federal power is certainly an issue, but please explain to me how and why the zealots feel that it was ok for the state to mandate that UD provide these services and not the federal government. And if it wasn't ok, why isn't the background of this issue presented as part of any of these threads?

As I said, I understand the arguments on both sides, but don't try to tell me (not you UAC in particular) that this attack on the church just started with Obamacare....
you bring ZERO facts to the table. If not for me you would probably not even know where the 98% number came from in the first place. In fact, it is comical that you claim that solid evidence has been presented to back the 98% number, yet you FAIL to present any of it. Absolutely nothing. As for "liberals" they can be found anywhere, party does not matter. Same for "conservatives".
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-11-2012, 02:16 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 2,967
Thanks: 3,716
Thanked 897 Times in 523 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
If you somehow choose to justify your own sinful behavior by citing mistakes that HUMANS, prone to sin, within the Catholic Church, made centuries ago, then you are absolutely not understanding what it means to be Catholic. Guess what? HUMANS TODAY within the Catholic Church still sin. News flash.... HUMANS ARE NOT PERFECT!! I also challenge you to support the BS that 98% of Catholics use birth control. My guess is that you picked that up from the liberal, anti-Catholic, media and are simply restating it as fact. It is simply amazing to me that as Catholics we simply put up with this type of Catholic bashing. UD was founded by Catholics, UD is now Catholic, and UD will most likely always be Catholic. As such, regardless of what sinful humans choose to do, UD has been and most likely always will be bound by Church teachings. One of which is to not use, (or support the use of), artificial means of birth control.
We do have areas of agreement DF - all of us are sinful and fall short. The cross is where we are given freedom/forgiveness for that fact.

This is also a key point. We are all subject to man-made laws (govt) and we believers are all subject to God's law (Bible). I am assuming that we agree to this point, but you can tell me if that is not the case.

Catholic Doctrine is man-made (Pope) law. The question to ask is: Does the man-made law contradict God's law? If so, it is incumbent on the believers to point that out. Martin Luther did just that with the indulgences and was excommunicated. Do I think that the birth control stance is necessarily at odds with the Bible? Probably not, but it isn't readily supported either, so it becomes a matter of debate.

Regarding the 98% number -- it was misrepresented. Here is the proper interpretation:

“Data shows that 98 percent of sexually experienced women of child-bearing age and who identify themselves as Catholic have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives.”

sexually experienced = they had sex at least once.

That number would be less than 98% of all Catholic women, but would still be a significant majority.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-11-2012, 02:22 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,218
Thanks: 221
Thanked 1,237 Times in 591 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Do you really think that Obama wanted to "set up a fight" with 25% of the voters during an election year"?
Actually, since most of those who are speaking out against this with a high level of ferocity didn't like him in the first place, it's not a bad idea. With that kind of ferocity, the harsh critics are going to make more enemies than friends.

As far as the 98% goes, I don't know how you even begin to conduct a quantitative study on something like that, but my own personal experience actually tells me that figure is low. I'm being serious. My immediate and extended family is Catholic, I grew up on a city that was predominatly Catholic, and I went Catholic institutions all the way through graduate school. I know hundreds of people that are Catholic (or, to be completely fair, CALL themselves Catholic). Of all those people, I know six, just six, that do not use birth control.

So, to me, the 98% estimate is very believable. I don't see it as being all that relevant. I'm just saying that sounds about right. I don't think it is a slanted or agenda driven figure. I also don't think it's THAT relevant. As I understand it, the gripe most people have is that the Church is being forced to go against its teachings. The gripe isn't that people who claim to be Catholic aren't abiding by the teachings. Even if they're not, I still don't see what that really has to do with anything.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-11-2012, 02:26 PM
rollo's Avatar
rollo rollo is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pumping Iron at the RoyalRecPlex
Posts: 6,405
Thanks: 5,371
Thanked 4,027 Times in 2,033 Posts
rollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond repute
Italy's birth rate...

...at 1.23 children per woman is the second lowest in the Western world.


And according to this article ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1031/1224306806888.html ) "A majority of Italian Catholics long ago chose to ignore the church’s teaching on contraception and abortion..."

If Italian Catholics are are turning away from Catholic teachings, who's to say American Catholics can't?
__________________
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-11-2012, 02:47 PM
Chris R's Avatar
Chris R Chris R is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 8,182
Thanks: 620
Thanked 5,670 Times in 1,911 Posts
Chris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDEE79 View Post
Wickard v Filburn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

The Government said he could only grow so much wheat. He grew extra wheat and was going to feed the excess to his livestock. He lost his case because NOT buying the feed from another farmer was engaging in interstate commerce. So essentially all human activity is interstate commerce.

Local connection: Filburn (actual name was "Filbrun") lived in Dayton and his land and the rest of the land in his family became the site of the Salem Mall.
That is messed up. Why isn't breathing commerce? Why couldnt Govt force me to buy a Ford then?
__________________

C. M. Rieman | Publisher | 937.361.4630 | Get the latest here:

Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-11-2012, 03:31 PM
UDBaby UDBaby is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LINY
Posts: 1,781
Thanks: 1,096
Thanked 1,173 Times in 555 Posts
UDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
you bring ZERO facts to the table. If not for me you would probably not even know where the 98% number came from in the first place. In fact, it is comical that you claim that solid evidence has been presented to back the 98% number, yet you FAIL to present any of it. Absolutely nothing. As for "liberals" they can be found anywhere, party does not matter. Same for "conservatives".
Religion and contraceptive use among all women
Most sexually active women who do not want to become
pregnant—whether unmarried, currently married or previously
married—practice contraception. The large majority
use highly effective methods. This is true for women of all
religious denominations, including Catholics, despite the
Church’s formal opposition to contraceptive methods other
than natural family planning.
■ Among all women who have had sex, 99% have
ever used a contraceptive method other than natural
family planning. This figure is virtually the same,
98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women.
■ The overwhelming majority of sexually active
women of all denominations who do not want to
become pregnant are using a contraceptive method
(Figure 3, page 6). Moreover, 69% are using highly
effective methods: sterilization (33%), the pill or
another hormonal method (31%), or the IUD (5%).
■ Only 2% of Catholic women rely on natural family
planning; even among Catholic women who attend
church once a month or more, only 2% rely on this
method (not shown). Sixty-eight percent of Catholic
women use highly effective methods: sterilization
(32%, including 24% using female sterilization,) the
pill or another hormonal method (31%) and the IUD
(5%).
■ Protestant women are more likely than Catholics
to use highly effective contraceptive methods, with
73% of Mainline Protestants and 74% of Evangelicals
currently using sterilization, hormonal methods
or IUDs.*
■ More than four in 10 Evangelicals rely on male or
female sterilization, a figure that is higher than
among the other religious groups.
■ Attendance at religious services and importance of
religion to daily life are largely unrelated to use of
highly effective contraceptive methods.
■ On average, 11% of women at risk for unintended
pregnancy are not using contraceptives, and levels
of nonuse do not differ by religious affiliations, frequency
of attendance or importance of religion.


http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Relig...eptive-Use.pdf

ok...now it's your turn to tell me why the Guttmacher Institute and their study is a left wing, liberal bunch of Catholic bashers who have distorted the facts and that their study is complete BS.....

Facts mean nothing to you when they fly in the face of your ideology and the agenda of your ideology....

Did you honestly think that people just made this **** up?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-11-2012, 03:36 PM
UDBaby UDBaby is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LINY
Posts: 1,781
Thanks: 1,096
Thanked 1,173 Times in 555 Posts
UDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
you bring ZERO facts to the table. If not for me you would probably not even know where the 98% number came from in the first place.
Yea, you're right. I didn't know anything about it. You are a veritable oracle of delphi.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-11-2012, 03:57 PM
AustinFlyer's Avatar
AustinFlyer AustinFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 755
Thanks: 359
Thanked 138 Times in 73 Posts
AustinFlyer is just really niceAustinFlyer is just really niceAustinFlyer is just really niceAustinFlyer is just really niceAustinFlyer is just really nice
Originally Posted by UDEE79 View Post
Wickard v Filburn
[URL]Local connection: Filburn (actual name was "Filbrun") lived in Dayton and his land and the rest of the land in his family became the site of the Salem Mall.
That's interesting. I grew up close to the Salem Mall, and one of our neighborhood streets was Filbrun, although I think most people pronounced it "Filburn".
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-11-2012, 04:37 PM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Are you serious?

Originally Posted by UDBaby View Post
Religion and contraceptive use among all women
Most sexually active women who do not want to become
pregnant—whether unmarried, currently married or previously
married—practice contraception. The large majority
use highly effective methods. This is true for women of all
religious denominations, including Catholics, despite the
Church’s formal opposition to contraceptive methods other
than natural family planning.
■ Among all women who have had sex, 99% have
ever used a contraceptive method other than natural
family planning. This figure is virtually the same,
98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women.
■ The overwhelming majority of sexually active
women of all denominations who do not want to
become pregnant are using a contraceptive method
(Figure 3, page 6). Moreover, 69% are using highly
effective methods: sterilization (33%), the pill or
another hormonal method (31%), or the IUD (5%).
■ Only 2% of Catholic women rely on natural family
planning; even among Catholic women who attend
church once a month or more, only 2% rely on this
method (not shown). Sixty-eight percent of Catholic
women use highly effective methods: sterilization
(32%, including 24% using female sterilization,) the
pill or another hormonal method (31%) and the IUD
(5%).
■ Protestant women are more likely than Catholics
to use highly effective contraceptive methods, with
73% of Mainline Protestants and 74% of Evangelicals
currently using sterilization, hormonal methods
or IUDs.*
■ More than four in 10 Evangelicals rely on male or
female sterilization, a figure that is higher than
among the other religious groups.
■ Attendance at religious services and importance of
religion to daily life are largely unrelated to use of
highly effective contraceptive methods.
■ On average, 11% of women at risk for unintended
pregnancy are not using contraceptives, and levels
of nonuse do not differ by religious affiliations, frequency
of attendance or importance of religion.


http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Relig...eptive-Use.pdf

ok...now it's your turn to tell me why the Guttmacher Institute and their study is a left wing, liberal bunch of Catholic bashers who have distorted the facts and that their study is complete BS.....

Facts mean nothing to you when they fly in the face of your ideology and the agenda of your ideology....

Did you honestly think that people just made this **** up?
What exactly is the agenda of the Guttmacher Institute? Did you even read the articles I linked for you? I'm guessing the answer is no, otherwise you would not have referenced this source.... Frankly, you yourself described this source about as accurately as it could be described, and I quote :"their study is a left wing, liberal bunch of Catholic bashers who have distorted the facts and that their study is complete BS....." I could not have said it better myself. Thanks! Are you going to quote Hitler next?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-11-2012, 04:53 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 2,967
Thanks: 3,716
Thanked 897 Times in 523 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
What exactly is the agenda of the Guttmacher Institute? Did you even read the articles I linked for you? I'm guessing the answer is no, otherwise you would not have referenced this source.... Frankly, you yourself described this source about as accurately as it could be described, and I quote :"their study is a left wing, liberal bunch of Catholic bashers who have distorted the facts and that their study is complete BS....." I could not have said it better myself. Thanks! Are you going to quote Hitler next?
The findings were definitely misrepresented in the media, but the data is not manufactured.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-11-2012, 05:42 PM
UDBaby UDBaby is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LINY
Posts: 1,781
Thanks: 1,096
Thanked 1,173 Times in 555 Posts
UDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
What exactly is the agenda of the Guttmacher Institute? Did you even read the articles I linked for you? I'm guessing the answer is no, otherwise you would not have referenced this source.... Frankly, you yourself described this source about as accurately as it could be described, and I quote :"their study is a left wing, liberal bunch of Catholic bashers who have distorted the facts and that their study is complete BS....." I could not have said it better myself. Thanks! Are you going to quote Hitler next?
Well, if nothing else, you are indeed predictable. Something tells me that no matter the point of reference you will say that a fact is indeed a lie and that the lie is intended to undermine Catholics, or whatever other movement has herded you...please refer to my quote on an earlier post in this thread regading how facts aren't all that important when there is another agenda involved.....

Therefore let me ask you this as plainly as possible..(at the risk of continuing to distort the underlying theme of this post...my apologies.......

Are you going to sit there and tell/type me and the rest of the Pride'ers mucking through this thread that you actually don't believe that a vast majority of PRACTICING and non-practicing Catholics use contraceptives.
Argue the exact proportions if you will (I won't because it's futile), but go ahead, tell us that you believe that most practicing Catholics follow the exact teachings of the church on this??????
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-11-2012, 05:54 PM
AC91's Avatar
AC91 AC91 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 1,751
Thanks: 1,971
Thanked 887 Times in 404 Posts
AC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
This is the kind of nonsense that Catholic bashers, "inside" or outside the Church throw out to support non-existent arguments. PLEASE show me where the Catholic Bishops or the Vatican has clearly stated that Catholic institutions cannot offer benefits to divorced people.... I'm waiting.... Yeah, I did not think so.... My guess is that you personally do not even understand the Church's teachings on marriage or divorce. In fact, most of the bashers here are simply folks that seem to have some axe to grind with the Church and spout off at the mouth with utter nonsense that is COMPLETELY unsupported by Church doctrine. It is sad that these folks are far too lazy to put the effort into understanding Church teachings. What is even sadder is that many of these folks actually claim to be Catholic. Frankly, the nonsense spouted by Catholic bashers on this thread has no bearing on UD Policies. The bottom line is that UD is Catholic, has always been Catholic and most likely will always remain Catholic. As such, UD is bound by Church teachings. You personally do not have to like it.... If it bothers you so much, go find some liberal private or state u to support and walk away from UD. Coming here and bashing my, (and clearly the University of Dayton’s), faith just points out how ignorant clueless and you are.
you know, i have no issue with your disagreeing with me or others. However, this blatant insinuation that I speak without thinking, experience, knowledge or understanding is downright insulting and wrong. I posed a question that I think is valid and, true to form, instead of dealing with the questions and the valid opinions of others you denigrate and simplemindedly refer to all those who dont see it your way as bashers. The greatest teaching and philosophy of christianity to me is "do to others as you would have them do to you." It is unfortunate that so many christians in my experience don't practice this one.
__________________
"And the men who hold high places // Must be the ones who start // To mould a new reality // Closer to the Heart"
- N.Peart/Rush/Closer to the Heart
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to AC91 For This Totally Excellent Post:
IAFlyer (04-11-2012), UDBaby (04-11-2012)
  #58  
Old 04-11-2012, 05:55 PM
UDBaby UDBaby is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LINY
Posts: 1,781
Thanks: 1,096
Thanked 1,173 Times in 555 Posts
UDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond reputeUDBaby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/whi...n-a-****ed-lie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...zTDR_blog.html

http://www.creativeminorityreport.co...on-for-98.html

Just as I fully expected, no one has stepped up to support the 98% number. Gee what a shocker. It is simply far easier to bash the Church with a number that conveniently fits your own personal agenda....

The articles linked above at least bring some perspective to the claim of 98%.
Now I know what smoking crack must be like.........I gotta put down the pipe. But one last toke.......

Let's see...correct me if I'm wrong but you're going to dismiss the results of this study because it didn't take into account the birth control methods of Catholic women that aren't sexually active, that have taken a vow never to have sex, and are too old to care about using any form of birth control what so ever?

You're saying that by limiting the study to sexually active women of child-bearing age the results are therefore invalid? Wow!
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UDBaby For This Totally Excellent Post:
IAFlyer (04-11-2012)
  #59  
Old 04-11-2012, 05:57 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
This type of internecine fighting is just what the politicians want to see and are counting on; divide and conquer. Most of these arguments have to do with Church teaching and whether or not Catholics (of varied stripes) agree with the Church's tenets or not. As has been previously noted, the out-of-pocket cost of birth control pills run anywhere from about $108 to $720 per year, depending upon who someone wants to quote (and in some instances, zero for the indigent at health clinics.) Is this really a pressing health care need or crisis...I think not. Heck, High Schools hand out prophylactics these days and any number of clinics provide "free" birth control. If this is all we have to worry about with Health Care in this country we have it made; unfortunately this is not the case. What we're arguing about here is small potatoes. The real issue IMO is the heavy hand of Government dictating that religious organizations have to either provide what's arbitrarily dictated by the Federal bureaucrats (whether it's in keeping with the tenets of the religion in question or not) or drop health care altogether and pay a penalty. Welcome to the Brave New World of Obamacare, boys and girls. I can't wait to see what other little goodies the Feds will be coming out with next, I hope everyone will be on board with the next surprise as Secretary Sebelius unveils more of her grand plan as the months roll on; next year should be a doozy!
Reply With Quote
4 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Bat'71 For This Totally Excellent Post:
Mich Flyer (04-11-2012), TD Flyer (04-12-2012), UD Sam (04-12-2012), xubrew (04-12-2012)
  #60  
Old 04-11-2012, 06:06 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 2,967
Thanks: 3,716
Thanked 897 Times in 523 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Bat'71 View Post
This type of internecine fighting is just what the politicians want to see and are counting on; divide and conquer. Most of these arguments have to do with Church teaching and whether or not Catholics (of varied stripes) agree with the Church's tenets or not. As has been previously noted, the out-of-pocket cost of birth control pills run anywhere from about $108 to $720 per year, depending upon who someone wants to quote (and in some instances, zero for the indigent at health clinics.) Is this really a pressing health care need or crisis...I think not. Heck, High Schools hand out prophylactics these days and any number of clinics provide "free" birth control. If this is all we have to worry about with Health Care in this country we have it made; unfortunately this is not the case. What we're arguing about here is small potatoes. The real issue IMO is the heavy hand of Government dictating that religious organizations have to either provide what's arbitrarily dictated by the Federal bureaucrats (whether it's in keeping with the tenets of the religion in question or not) or drop health care altogether and pay a penalty. Welcome to the Brave New World of Obamacare, boys and girls. I can't wait to see what other little goodies the Feds will be coming out with next, I hope everyone will be on board with the next surprise as Secretary Sebelius unveils more of her grand plan as the months roll on; next year should be a doozy!
Although I don't like the Obamacare program as it is constructed, we have major health care issues. That was not the basis of this thread however, so the discussion has been mostly on track with the original post.

Since we are diverging - 2 things are wrong with our health care system - it is too expensive and it isn't based on results (and the results are not good compared to the costs).

We need an overhaul that addresses both of these items - cost and results. It is not terribly difficult to resolve - there is at least one country's model we could follow - but it is politically charged/nearly political suicide.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to IAFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
UDEE79 (04-11-2012)
  #61  
Old 04-11-2012, 06:13 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,103
Thanks: 409
Thanked 425 Times in 271 Posts
Mich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
Like everyone who is self insured UD uses a health I sura ce company to process claims. The claims administrator says there is no way they can tell what is being prescribed for medical necessity and what is being prescribed for contraception. Most Catholic hospitals are in the same position. There are more than a few diocese that have the same issue. The same drug may be prescribed to one person and be ok because it is medically necessary and not to another. Birth control drugs have other purposes besides contraception.
Posted via Mobile Device

Unfortunately, they are covering sterilizations and the abortion pill RU486.
Good for Xavier. I hope Dayton follows their lead.

Government, under health care, please cover my costs to go to Kings Island. It is not disease related either.

Last edited by Mich Flyer; 04-11-2012 at 06:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Mich Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-11-2012)
  #62  
Old 04-11-2012, 06:53 PM
Glen Clark Glen Clark is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Between Kroger & Esther Price
Posts: 3,712
Thanks: 3,245
Thanked 2,275 Times in 1,065 Posts
Glen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond repute
Reuters Xavier article (published yesterday):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83215320120403

When I was a sixth grader in Manhattan Beach, California, the girl I played with across the street came up to me and said "I can't play with you anymore, I'm a Catholic and you're a Lutheran and you're going to Hell when you die." That's pretty much all the Catholic 'teachings' I've ever needed to know. In the broad panoply of human history - how many wars, how many deaths, have been committed in the name of God? The Buddha teaches a doctrine of compassion and 'do no harm' - a tall order but certainly a worthy task.

_______________________
Isn't it odd - the same people who claim 'big guvm'nt" is wholly incompetent in almost every endeavor
will entrust it with administering the death penalty?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-11-2012, 07:10 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,103
Thanks: 409
Thanked 425 Times in 271 Posts
Mich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to behold
[QUOTE=Glen Clark;265505]Reuters Xavier article (published yesterday):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83215320120403

When I was a sixth grader in Manhattan Beach, California, the girl I played with across the street came up to me and said "I can't play with you anymore, I'm a Catholic and you're a Lutheran and you're going to Hell when you die." That's pretty much all the Catholic 'teachings' I've ever needed to know.

Good grief, some little girl said this and you took it seriously. My family was Lutheran. I happen to be Catholic now, and no Catholic believes Lutherans are going to hell when they die.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Mich Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-11-2012)
  #64  
Old 04-11-2012, 07:39 PM
Glen Clark Glen Clark is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Between Kroger & Esther Price
Posts: 3,712
Thanks: 3,245
Thanked 2,275 Times in 1,065 Posts
Glen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Mich Flyer View Post
. . Good grief, some little girl said this and you took it seriously. My family was Lutheran. I happen to be Catholic now, and no Catholic believes Lutherans are going to hell when they die.
Great - another Catholic preaching at me . . .
(one from the state of my birth, no less).
Did I mention I was in sixth grade?

In my book, this would be a good thing:
"If all were of the same religious opinion, there would be no religion."
- Swami Vivekannanda
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-11-2012, 07:49 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,103
Thanks: 409
Thanked 425 Times in 271 Posts
Mich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by Glen Clark View Post
Great - another Catholic preaching at me . . .
(one from the state of my birth, no less).
Did I mention I was in sixth grade?

In my book, this would be a good thing:
"If all were of the same religious opinion, there would be no religion."
- Swami Vivekannanda
Not preaching at you. Like I said, my relatives were Lutheran and at the time they did not like Catholics. But Catholics do not believe Lutherans go to hell when they die. Sorry, you had a bad experience.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-11-2012, 08:05 PM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Nice try basher

Originally Posted by AC91 View Post
you know, i have no issue with your disagreeing with me or others. However, this blatant insinuation that I speak without thinking, experience, knowledge or understanding is downright insulting and wrong. I posed a question that I think is valid and, true to form, instead of dealing with the questions and the valid opinions of others you denigrate and simplemindedly refer to all those who dont see it your way as bashers. The greatest teaching and philosophy of christianity to me is "do to others as you would have them do to you." It is unfortunate that so many christians in my experience don't practice this one.
If you think you can bash my faith and the University of Dayton's faith and get away with it uncontested, think again. Your "question" was nothing more than Catholic bashing. Here is a thought, follow your own favorite "greatest Christian teaching/philosophy" and do not bash my faith. Oh wait, that may not fit your personal agenda, I guess your great philosophy only applies when you feel like it....
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to DetroitFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-11-2012)
  #67  
Old 04-11-2012, 08:48 PM
UDEE79's Avatar
UDEE79 UDEE79 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Beavercreek Ohio
Posts: 1,860
Thanks: 1,394
Thanked 1,140 Times in 428 Posts
UDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Glen Clark View Post
When I was a sixth grader in Manhattan Beach, California, the girl I played with across the street came up to me and said "I can't play with you anymore, I'm a Catholic and you're a Lutheran and you're going to Hell when you die." That's pretty much all the Catholic 'teachings' I've ever needed to know. In the broad panoply of human history - how many wars, how many deaths, have been committed in the name of God? The Buddha teaches a doctrine of compassion and 'do no harm' - a tall order but certainly a worthy task.
Glen you don't think that it is official catholic teaching that Lutherans are going to hell, do you? I had an ancient "old school" nun in the third grade. This was the mid 60's. I distinctly remember Sr. Ann Monica saying that adherents to other religions also can get into heaven. In my 55 years I have never been taught that Lutherans or others are going to hell because of their religion. Therefore I do not believe that your neighbor was speaking "ex cathedra"
__________________
It's a great day to be a Flyer
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UDEE79 For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-11-2012)
  #68  
Old 04-11-2012, 09:16 PM
rollo's Avatar
rollo rollo is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pumping Iron at the RoyalRecPlex
Posts: 6,405
Thanks: 5,371
Thanked 4,027 Times in 2,033 Posts
rollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Glen Clark View Post
...you're going to Hell when you die."
Get over it Glen....I've been told I'm going to burn in hell by so many people in my life I can't even begin to count them, remember them or care what their religion was!
__________________
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to rollo For This Totally Excellent Post:
Bat'71 (04-12-2012), DetroitFlyer (04-12-2012), IAFlyer (04-13-2012)
  #69  
Old 04-12-2012, 12:56 AM
AC91's Avatar
AC91 AC91 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 1,751
Thanks: 1,971
Thanked 887 Times in 404 Posts
AC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond reputeAC91 has a reputation beyond repute
my mother is one of the best, most ardent, faithful and true catholics you will ever meet. I do not always see eye to eye with her and somethimes we do not ever resolve our differences of opinion. however, our discussions are ALWAYS enlightening, constructive and educational for both of us because we have a mutual respect for each other. She has never accused me of bashing catholicism as a faith as I would never do that. I question things she is not comfortable with and she makes arguements about her faith in a way that is respectful and poingnant. And she does not judge because she knows that judgement, to her, is done by someone alot more knowing and understanding than her at a time that the entirety of one's life and actions can be judged.

I have not bashed. I asked a question about another aspect of life catholic institutions have been forced to acknowledge with benefits despite that aspect being against what is recognized by the church. AM i mistaken that the church does not recognize second marriages after divorce with no annullment ends the first? If I am not mistaken, isn't it fair, in light of the issues some have taken with other civil mandates being imposed on religious groups, to question why catholic institutions would have to or choose to provide spousal benefits to those whom the church doesn't recognize as being married?
__________________
"And the men who hold high places // Must be the ones who start // To mould a new reality // Closer to the Heart"
- N.Peart/Rush/Closer to the Heart
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-12-2012, 02:07 AM
NCkevi's Avatar
NCkevi NCkevi is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,500
Thanks: 301
Thanked 2,038 Times in 859 Posts
NCkevi has a reputation beyond reputeNCkevi has a reputation beyond reputeNCkevi has a reputation beyond reputeNCkevi has a reputation beyond reputeNCkevi has a reputation beyond reputeNCkevi has a reputation beyond reputeNCkevi has a reputation beyond reputeNCkevi has a reputation beyond reputeNCkevi has a reputation beyond reputeNCkevi has a reputation beyond reputeNCkevi has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer
Look, at the end of the day if you do not like UD being CATHOLIC, stop supporting the school and go support one of your liberal, east coast, private universities or any state U in the land.
You seem to think Liberal is a bad word but many points argued for by The Church and The Conference of Catholic Bishops are in line with Liberal beliefs - I'm curious - do you support these with as much passion?

- requiring health care be provided to all Americans (Pope John XXIII, in his encyclical Peace on Earth listed health care among those basic rights which flow from the sanctity and dignity of human life)

- urging that the federal minimum wage be increased (letter to Congress, Feb. 2012)

- providing welfare: “We reiterate our call for a minimum national welfare benefit that will permit children and their parents to live in dignity. A decent society will not balance its budget on the backs of poor children.”

- being pro-workers and union: “the basic rights of workers must be respected–the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions…”

- opposing Arizona's anti-immigration law - Cardinal Roger Mahony called SB1070 “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law,” based on “totally flawed reasoning: that immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder, and consume public resources.”

- urging that illegal immigrants not be treated as criminals and that their contribution to this country be recognized.

http://charleshawkins.blogspot.com/2...political.html
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to NCkevi For This Totally Excellent Post:
Glen Clark (04-12-2012), UDBaby (04-12-2012)
  #71  
Old 04-12-2012, 10:23 AM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
NCkevie, you're Post was very helpful in providing examples of some of the positions I heartily disagree on with the Church and some of it's clergy. While these points do not hold the weight of ex cathedra proclamations by the Pope, they can be very disruptive and needlessly meddle in areas where the Church has no expertise. From immigration laws, minimum wage, unionization and welfare to health care policies the Church adds very little to constructive dialogue and some of the positions can have negative consequences. When it comes to areas within the Church's purview, all well and good...pronounce away; I acknowledge it's authority to do so, even though I disagree with some of those positions.

While it's obvious the church's position on birth control is the main crux of argument on this thread, it shouldn't be. I personally find the Church's position on contraceptives to be outdated, impractical and counterproductive when it comes to population control and the harm that can be done from unwanted pregnancies. However, it is well within the Church's rightful powers to take the position it does and it is beyond the pail for the Government (any government) to interfere with the Church's practice in this area. I am afraid that we are letting our personal preferences cloud the issue of whether or not the Federal Government is overstepping it's authority to ram this health care provision down the throats of religious organizations. IMO if the feds are successful in this endeavor, the power usurped could have some major negative consequences down the road and we may all come to rue the day that this occurred.
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Bat'71 For This Totally Excellent Post:
DetroitFlyer (04-12-2012), UD Sam (04-13-2012)
  #72  
Old 04-12-2012, 10:44 AM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
As always, Bat,..

Originally Posted by Bat'71 View Post
NCkevie, you're Post was very helpful in providing examples of some of the positions I heartily disagree on with the Church and some of it's clergy. While these points do not hold the weight of ex cathedra proclamations by the Pope, they can be very disruptive and needlessly meddle in areas where the Church has no expertise. From immigration laws, minimum wage, unionization and welfare to health care policies the Church adds very little to constructive dialogue and some of the positions can have negative consequences. When it comes to areas within the Church's purview, all well and good...pronounce away; I acknowledge it's authority to do so, even though I disagree with some of those positions.

While it's obvious the church's position on birth control is the main crux of argument on this thread, it shouldn't be. I personally find the Church's position on contraceptives to be outdated, impractical and counterproductive when it comes to population control and the harm that can be done from unwanted pregnancies. However, it is well within the Church's rightful powers to take the position it does and it is beyond the pail for the Government (any government) to interfere with the Church's practice in this area. I am afraid that we are letting our personal preferences cloud the issue of whether or not the Federal Government is overstepping it's authority to ram this health care provision down the throats of religious organizations. IMO if the feds are successful in this endeavor, the power usurped could have some major negative consequences down the road and we may all come to rue the day that this occurred.
....your position is very clearly stated.

But, uncharacteristic of you is the fact that you have avoided providing an answer to my question.

"Would you still be in opposition to the insurance mandate if it was part of a Ryan-like plan that actually solved the nation's health care problem. i.e., brought government health care spending into line with economic growth while providing for the health care needs of the nation"?

"Yes"..or..."no", Bat?
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-12-2012, 11:49 AM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,641
Thanks: 22
Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,195 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
I will say yes. An insurance mandate in my opinion violates the commerce clause and people should have the freedom to make a stupid decision. Health care is a screwed up mess but I don't favor a mandate to sure the cost distribution issue.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to UDDoug For This Totally Excellent Post:
DetroitFlyer (04-12-2012), TD Flyer (04-12-2012)
  #74  
Old 04-12-2012, 01:45 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
UAC, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my other posts, but the short answer to your question is no. A Federal mandate under the Commerce Clause, regardless of how benign it might be or how many goodies might be attached to it, would still be a clear violation of the Constitution, IMO. Once that occurs, it opens up the citizenry to all sorts of mischief and meddling from the Federal Government in the everyday lives of the people...in ways we can't even dream of today. The precedent that would be set, should this law pass Constitutional muster, would pretty much give the Federal Government (and unelected bureaucrats) carte blanche to dictate any manner of things that catches their fancy in the future. I also don't believe it is necessary for the Federal Government to have this power in order for it to fix the problem we face.

A good place to start, IMHO, would be for the Federal Government to use the Commerce Clause to remove State restrictions on who can market insurance products in the individual states (each state has its own Insurance Commissioner and they each have their own regulatory bodies with specific requirements for Companies underwriting individual policies in the respective state...this impedes commerce among the fifty states and needlessly drives up cost.) The Feds could set up it's own Insurance Commission to assure safety and soundness parameters and to oversee the suitability of products being marketed, the book of business underwritten, as well as the actuarial functions and investment suitability standards utilized by Insurance Companies (similar to what it does for the banking system through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the Federal Reserve.)

There are a whole host of practical measures that can be taken to bring market forces to bear on the cost side of the ledger, while on the availability side, the Feds could require the Industry to set up insurance pools (that would be subsidized) to provide basic coverage for those with preexisting conditions. Efforts to remove the employer as the primary source of insurance policy coverage would also go along way in forcing Insurance companies to actively pursue marketing health policies to individuals. The monies spent by Corporate or small business providers would be freed up to increase the salary of workers who could then shop around and determine the type of coverage they'd prefer (and the insurance policy would belong to the individual, increasing worker mobility.) There are numerous other things that can be done to bring the health insurance market into the 21st Century and unleash market forces, competition and individual participation to drive down costs, while increasing choice. Bringing some sanity to the medical malpractice arena (perhaps by setting up specialized courts to deal with these sensitive, esoteric issues), funding more medical schools (to increase the supply of doctors) and providing health care vouchers to the unemployed and indigent. Now, I don't propose to know a heck of a lot about all the nuances involved in all this and kinks will need to be worked out and settled in a bipartisan way, but to assume the only way to do this is through Federal mandates and diktats is disingenuous and IMO dangerous.

Unfortunately, people can be easily frightened over any major departure from the status quo and, as mentioned earlier, health care is an area that can be easily demagogued by politicians and others with a vested interest in the current system. It is simply wrong, however, to think that those who disagree with Obamacare are satisfied with health care and how it is delivered in this country; it's a disgrace. The system is broken, the finances are spiraling out of control and it is wholly unnecessary for any American to go without adequate, affordable health care. We absolutely can do better than we have done, but I don't believe Obamacare, or any other mandate, is the way to do it.

If you step back and look at it rationally, there don't appear to be major problems with the availability of car insurance, life insurance, and property/casualty insurance. However, those products are sold to the individual, with no third party providing the coverage. While these insurance products are sold in a relatively free market and are thus affordable by average citizens, , the price mechanism of these products would function better if each state didn't have it's own Insurance Commissioner fiefdom.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-12-2012, 02:10 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
A "clear" violation of the Constitution?

Bat, as you know, the constitutionality of the mandate is almost surely going to be decided 5-4, one way or the other.

That doesn't seem like a "clear" violation or vice versa. Rather, the constitutionality will be decided based on the interpretation of one man or woman.

That's our system...for better or worse.

(Maybe we'll be pleasantly surpised by a 6-3 vote...but I doubt it.)
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-12-2012, 02:43 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
UAC, I know what you mean...as an old saying goes, "even elephants can fly in a court room." I did qualify my remarks on the constitutionality issue, though, with an "IMO". Full disclosure: I am NOT a constitutional scholar (nor did I play one on TV.) On the other hand, considering that our President, who supposedly IS one, said that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn established law, who knows what weight that carries anymore anyway!
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-12-2012, 08:17 PM
rollo's Avatar
rollo rollo is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pumping Iron at the RoyalRecPlex
Posts: 6,405
Thanks: 5,371
Thanked 4,027 Times in 2,033 Posts
rollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond repute
*ultimatum

3 months after the birth of our 3rd kid my wife game me the option* to either get snipped or never have sex again....ever.

48 hours later my one-eyed purple throbber lost a friend.

If I have to burn in he11 because of this, my wife has made darn sure that it'll be worth it!

Long live the both of us birth control practicing sinners!!!!!!
__________________
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-12-2012, 09:49 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Life, auto, property insurance...

Originally Posted by Bat'71 View Post
If you step back and look at it rationally, there don't appear to be major problems with the availability of car insurance, life insurance, and property/casualty insurance. However, those products are sold to the individual, with no third party providing the coverage. While these insurance products are sold in a relatively free market and are thus affordable by average citizens, , the price mechanism of these products would function better if each state didn't have it's own Insurance Commissioner fiefdom.

Bat, there are problems with other forms of insurance.

Many people have little or no life insurance.....that has little societal impact.

Over 90% of small businesses that have a fire never reopen because they have insufficient property insurance. My barber's son, a smart guy, recently lost his house to a fire and was woefully underinsured. How can that be? Don't banks require a homeowner to carry adequate insurance?

Over the past 50 years I have been involved in four fender-benders that were the fault of the other driver.....no injuries, fortunately. In not one of those accidents did the other driver have insurance. Not one! And in my state you can't register a car without insurance...and even then the amount required is ridiculously low.

So how do the guys without auto insurance drive registered cars? Many steal the stickers from the plates of others. That became such a common occurence that the State dropped the stickers and went to a decal inside the windshield. Bright move! Then the windshields were broken to get the decals. Now no evidence of visible evidence of registration is required.

OK, that's life, fire and auto....and many get away without having insurance or too little. It's common. But, the societal impact is not great. Those same people will choose not to carry health insurance, knowing that they will receive all the care they ever need,...for free. If they are "mandated" to buy insurance they will be fined.....$1260 is it? And they will not pay the fine. How will the penalty be collected? Will the Govt go after wages? Even if they do, the penalty is very small relative to the cost of health care.

No government can force its citizens to be responsible.

Maybe an approach could be like this: No insurance mandate. If you're sick you go to the ER and are treated...and you are billed. Unless/until the bill is paid you can't borrow a dime for anything else, i.e., no mortgages, no credit cards, no equiy loans of any kind. You'll receive all the health care you and your family needs...but your ability to function in modern society will be made so difficult that it will be clear that buying health insurance is the best investment a person can make.

One of the troubles/problems now is that there are few if any consequences for financial irresponsibility in the U.S. Some Priders may not know that the U.S. is one of few (maybe the only) country that permits walking away from an underwater mortgage...even wealthy people are allowed to do it. In other countries, Canada, for example, the bank can take the clothes off your back and the food from your table...all your assets are at risk if you default on a mortgage. It's worth noting that Canada has not suffered a housing crisis....and Canadian banks did not suffer a financial crisis.

(I'm not suggesting that I think Canada's approach to health care is a good one.)
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-12-2012, 10:35 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,103
Thanks: 409
Thanked 425 Times in 271 Posts
Mich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to behold
Mandate

Here is what the Catholic Bishops said about this today.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-...andate-and-ot/

Do not comply.

Last edited by Mich Flyer; 04-12-2012 at 10:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Mich Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
Bat'71 (04-13-2012), DetroitFlyer (04-13-2012), TD Flyer (04-13-2012)
  #80  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:35 AM
DetroitFlyer's Avatar
DetroitFlyer DetroitFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,460
Thanks: 2,619
Thanked 1,215 Times in 682 Posts
DetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeDetroitFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Well Stated....

Originally Posted by Mich Flyer View Post
Here is what the Catholic Bishops said about this today.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-...andate-and-ot/

Do not comply.
I wonder if Dr. Dan got the memo?
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:46 AM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,641
Thanks: 22
Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,195 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Bat, there are problems with other forms of insurance.

Many people have little or no life insurance.....that has little societal impact
I think we underestimate the impact of inadequate life insurance on society. I've seen too many families wiped out by the death of the primary earner, and what happens to the children and surviving spouse when their life style is forced to change - including going on public assistance. Children are forced to move, abandon friends, don't receive the counseling they need and often don't become the productive young adults they may have been. Life insurance doesn't fix all of those ills, but it cures the ones caused by lack of money.

I know that's not your point, in fact it may make your point. There are lots of societal issues caused by lack of personal repsonsiblity for one's self and their family, and poor financial choices. Yet we don't legislate most of those, and when we do (auto insurance) the solution often fails. Just like I expect the enacted solution to fail - way more companies and individuals are going to choose to pay the fine and not obtain insurance. It's in their best interest financially to do so.

And like many things, we can't discuss the issue rationally. Health care turns into a demagogued issue surrounding insurance, not access, cost, quality of care and the cost/benefit thereof. The US doesn't have much of an access issue, unlike some other countries. It's unclear to me if there is or is not a quality of care issue. We do have a cost and cost/benefit issue. Yet little of the discussion concerns either of those.

Now back to the regularly scheduled discusion of contraceptives (and who should pay for them since that isn't an access issue either).

Last edited by UDDoug; 04-13-2012 at 10:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UDDoug For This Totally Excellent Post:
UACFlyer (04-13-2012)
  #82  
Old 04-13-2012, 10:28 AM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,103
Thanks: 409
Thanked 425 Times in 271 Posts
Mich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to behold
Our First Most Cherished Liberty

Here is where the Bishops are coming from on this issue.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...ed-liberty.cfm
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 04-13-2012, 11:35 AM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
UAC, the problems you flagged in regard to other insurance products and the irresponsibility of some people will, unfortunately I'm afraid, always be with us. The key feature, however, is that those insurance products are available to everyone and unless someone is totally reckless or has a past history of irresponsible behavior, those products are affordable (states, however, for the most part, have set up insurance pools to cover even the worst of drivers or have "pools" for property/casualty homeowners coverage in flood-prone areas); that is not typically the case for health insurance. However, to assume that a Federal mandate for people to carry health insurance will cure this problem (at least as far as it pertains to health care) is somewhat (no offense) naive. The same people that drive without auto insurance will live without health insurance. Look at it this way: if individual states can't fully force local citizens to have adequate auto liability insurance do you really think the Feds can force those same people to carry health insurance? You said it yourself: "No government can force it's citizens to be responsible". As far as mortgage insurance is concerned, banks (or lien holders) only require insurance to cover the amount of the mortgage, nothing more, and that's it as it should be. My goodness, we're all supposed to be adults here, to expect a nanny to prod one into getting adequate insurance is really an abdication of responsibility that is becoming to widespread among the populace; this is what gives rise to the call for Big Brother to do more and more.

The main issues with health care in this country, IMO, are cost, access and the availability/affordability of health insurance. Too many people that want to purchase health insurance in this country are either denied coverage by health insurance providers (for any number of reasons) or they can't afford it when it is available. Many Insurance Companies will not write individual health policies (they focus on Group Plans) so competition in this area is low and most insurance brokers won't deal with the "product" because commission rates are much lower than other insurance products and there are only a limited number of companies that offer coverage. When you add it all up, not only does it make it difficult for an individual to find health insurance, but quite often when it is available, it's unaffordable to most.

A major stumbling block in effectively dealing with the health care/health insurance issue is that the problems are manifold and complex and not easily prone to short, pithy solutions. This is complicated by the fact that many participants in the industry (and politicians), while acknowledging the problems with it, have grown comfortable with the status quo and have a vested interest in maintaining it. Because of this, unfortunately, any solutions can be demagogued in such a way as to scare serious people away from actually making proposals to deal with the problems. That's why politicians, when it comes to Medicare/Medicaid have been "kicking the can down the road" for the past twenty or thirty years. For a prime example, look how Paul Ryan has been villainized for having the temerity to offer solutions that don't involve the Government taking control of the health care industry (one ad has him pushing Granny off a cliff...geeesh!)

It really is impossible to cover all the issues surrounding our health care system in 200 words or less, so I do apologize for this long-winded response. One item, however may crystallize how screwed up and dysfunctional our system (and the price mechanism is): there are myriad pricing schemes in place for the same service provided by the same providers and it is all contingent upon who the ultimate payee is going to be (i.e., the individual patient, a private insurance plan, or Medicare/Medicaid.) Prescription drugs, doctor visits, medical procedures, x-rays, MRIs, CT Scans, Hospital Stays, etc., etc. etc. all charge differently for the same service depending upon who pays. God forbid if you don't have insurance though, because a hospital stay or a basic procedure can "cost" the patient as much as a nice house (or a mansion) in a nice neighborhood. However, that same procedure or hospital stay will "cost" the insurance provider a fraction of the cost billed an individual and that "cost" will be even less for those on Medicare/Medicaid. The "amusing" thing about all this is that the service providers (i.e. the physicians, pharmacists, hospitals, etc.) can't explain why this is the case and quite often don't know what the individual charges are. When the price mechanism is this screwed up, you know that the system is not only broken, but you've got a monumental SNAFU on your hands and guess what...our Government is behind a good deal of it.


P.S. The fact that people without health insurance have their needs taken care of through visits to Hospital Emergency Rooms or occasionally through local clinics, really doesn't provide adequate "access" to health care for the uninsured. The fact that many people are forced to seek care in these locals helps drive up costs for all others, results in overcrowding and is inadequate in serving the needs of the poor. Preventative medicine, inoculations, and early detection of diseases that can prove fatal if not treated early enough are problems that often are not solved by this "access"; nor are people adequately served in getting the proper medication through these services. Given all that's been covered in this Post, don't get he wrong idea that more Government involvement is the "solution"...it's a main cause of the problem.

Last edited by Bat'71; 04-13-2012 at 11:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 04-13-2012, 12:02 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
True, but,...

Originally Posted by Bat'71 View Post
UAC, the problems you flagged in regard to other insurance products and the irresponsibility of some people will, unfortunately I'm afraid, always be with us. The key feature, however, is that those insurance products are available to everyone and unless someone is totally reckless or has a past history of irresponsible behavior, those products are affordable (states, however, for the most part, have set up insurance pools to cover even the worst of drivers or have "pools" for property/casualty homeowners coverage in flood-prone areas); that is not typically the case for health insurance. However, to assume that a Federal mandate for people to carry health insurance will cure this problem (at least as far as it pertains to health care) is somewhat (no offense) naive. The same people that drive without auto insurance will live without health insurance. Look at it this way: if individual states can't fully force local citizens to have adequate auto liability insurance do you really think the Feds can force those same people to carry health insurance? You said it yourself: "No government can force it's citizens to be responsible". As far as mortgage insurance is concerned, banks (or lien holders) only require insurance to cover the amount of the mortgage, nothing more, and that's it as it should be. My goodness, we're all supposed to be adults here, to expect a nanny to prod one into getting adequate insurance is really an abdication of responsibility that is becoming to widespread among the populace; this is what gives rise to the call for Big Brother to do more and more.

The main issues with health care in this country, IMO, are cost, access and the availability/affordability of health insurance. Too many people that want to purchase health insurance in this country are either denied coverage by health insurance providers (for any number of reasons) or they can't afford it when it is available. Many Insurance Companies will not write individual health policies (they focus on Group Plans) so competition in this area is low and most insurance brokers won't deal with the "product" because commission rates are much lower than other insurance products and there are only a limited number of companies that offer coverage. When you add it all up, not only does it make it difficult for an individual to find health insurance, but quite often when it is available, it's unaffordable to most.

A major stumbling block in effectively dealing with the health care/health insurance issue is that the problems are manifold and complex and not easily prone to short, pithy solutions. This is complicated by the fact that many participants in the industry (and politicians), while acknowledging the problems with it, have grown comfortable with the status quo and have a vested interest in maintaining it. Because of this, unfortunately, any solutions can be demagogued in such a way as to scare serious people away from actually making proposals to deal with the problems. That's why politicians, when it comes to Medicare/Medicaid have been "kicking the can down the road" for the past twenty or thirty years. For a prime example, look how Paul Ryan has been villainized for having the temerity to offer solutions that don't involve the Government taking control of the health care industry (one ad has him pushing Granny off a cliff...geeesh!)

It really is impossible to cover all the issues surrounding our health care system in 200 words or less, so I do apologize for this long-winded response. One item, however may crystallize how screwed up and dysfunctional our system (and the price mechanism is): there are myriad pricing schemes in place for the same service provided by the same providers and it is all contingent upon who the ultimate payee is going to be (i.e., the individual patient, a private insurance plan, or Medicare/Medicaid.) Prescription drugs, doctor visits, medical procedures, x-rays, MRIs, CT Scans, Hospital Stays, etc., etc. etc. all charge differently for the same service depending upon who pays. God forbid if you don't have insurance though, because a hospital stay or a basic procedure can "cost" the patient as much as a nice house (or a mansion) in a nice neighborhood. However, that same procedure or hospital stay will "cost" the insurance provider a fraction of the cost billed an individual and that "cost" will be even less for those on Medicare/Medicaid. The "amusing" thing about all this is that the service providers (i.e. the physicians, pharmacists, hospitals, etc.) can't explain why this is the case and quite often don't know what the individual charges are. When the price mechanism is this screwed up, you know that the system is not only broken, but you've got a monumental SNAFU on your hands and guess what...our Government is behind a good deal of it.
.....while the government (federal, state) cannot make people be responsible, they can ensure that there are meaningful consequences for irresponsibility. Currently that is not the case.

The best solution I have heard that I am certain will drive health care costs down with no effect on quality of care is for people to have to pay for more of it. Focusing on seniors, the largest consumers of health care by far, whatever the median income is for those on Medicare (it's ~$50K for the nation as a whole)......the first 5% of ALL medical costs are the responsibility of the patient. If $50K is close for seniors....then they are on the hook for $2500 each year....and no more.

That deductible would gradually go to zero for incomes of about $25K...and it would double to $5000 for incomes of $100K......double again to $10,000 for incomes of $200K.

With a $2500 deductible you can be sure that MD's wouldn't be saying, "let's do an MRI",...when he/she knows there is no need for an MRI. And seniors wouldn't be running to the doctor for every ache and pain, every cold, etc.

This year I had a doc write a scrip for me that cost $400 per month...for life. He was astonished when I told him that...didn't have a clue about the cost. Needless to say my insurance wouldn't cover the cost.

The notion that docs do all those tests to avoid law suits is baloney.

Just this week in the WSJ was an article examining the practices of urologists. Urologists having a stake in a pathology lab ordered 72% more prostate tissue biopsies than urologists that dealt with independent labs. C'mon!
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 04-13-2012, 12:26 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 2,967
Thanks: 3,716
Thanked 897 Times in 523 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Many of our health insurance cost issues derives from the employer-paid insurance. The government is also a major contributor with the Medicare/Medicaid mess.

One country in Europe used to have a single-payor plan - it became too expensive and the scrapped it for the following:

Everyone must have the "basic plan" - some preventive care, catastrophic care - whatever is agreed upon between (wait for it) the government and the private insurers. This basic plan has no pre-existing clauses and is uniformly priced regardless of insurance company.

If the person wants "bells and whistles", then those are priced differently, can include pre-existing conditions, etc. and are totally open market driven.

Their costs have dropped dramatically, the insurance companies are profitable, and everyone is covered (distributing the cost). Employers can choose to pay for the cost or not.

I'd like see something similar, but I'd like to see it be individual. Employers can increase the employee's pay, but cannot pay for/provide health insurance.

I've studied this (as part of my jobs) for enough years to know that the employer provided healthcare makes people "users" not "consumers".
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to IAFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
rollo (04-13-2012), UACFlyer (04-13-2012)
  #86  
Old 04-13-2012, 12:38 PM
Chris R's Avatar
Chris R Chris R is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 8,182
Thanks: 620
Thanked 5,670 Times in 1,911 Posts
Chris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond repute
And to IAFlyers point, why is healthcare even tied to employment. Car insurance is not. Life insurance is not. Homeowner's insurance is not. Occupation and health insurance have nothing to do with one another.
__________________

C. M. Rieman | Publisher | 937.361.4630 | Get the latest here:

Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 04-13-2012, 12:53 PM
rollo's Avatar
rollo rollo is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pumping Iron at the RoyalRecPlex
Posts: 6,405
Thanks: 5,371
Thanked 4,027 Times in 2,033 Posts
rollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Chris R View Post
And to IAFlyers point, why is healthcare even tied to employment. Car insurance is not. Life insurance is not. Homeowner's insurance is not. Occupation and health insurance have nothing to do with one another.
It goes back to WWII when the gov't had restrictions on darn near every natural resouce that existed in order to fund the war but in a nutshell salaries were also frozen as a way to control human resources. Because companies could no longer recruit better talent with money they had to be creative and offering health care insurance was one of the incentives given to employees for their jobs....so yeah, they didn't increase his/her salary but they picked up a cost of something everyone at that time had to pay for out-of-pocket.

There's a ton more to it than but this gives you some perspective.
__________________
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to rollo For This Totally Excellent Post:
Bat'71 (04-13-2012), IAFlyer (04-13-2012)
  #88  
Old 04-13-2012, 01:02 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Good point,..

Originally Posted by Chris R View Post
And to IAFlyers point, why is healthcare even tied to employment. Car insurance is not. Life insurance is not. Homeowner's insurance is not. Occupation and health insurance have nothing to do with one another.
...not onlt that, but it's a major tax free benefit not enjoyed by workers at companies that do not provide insurance.

This is sort of like the deductibility of mortgage interest and property taxes. Make absolutely no sense......but has become part of the U.S. culture. That tax perk was established to encourage home ownership decades ago whan feww people owned their own home. It has outlived its justification.....but just try to change it.

Similarly, as I understand it, employer provided health insurance was devised as a way to reward (pay) employees during the war years when wage controls were in place. Prider historians can correct me if I'm wrong.

Makes more sense than the mortgage/property tax deduction. But, the cost of the insurance should be taxed as part of a worker's income.

And as IAFlyer said, any employer will tell you that employees use their company paid insurance as if it was free. That is a characteristic of all third party payment systems.

Everyone knows these things...knows exactly how to correct them....but as a nation we are paralyzed. That's a problem with democracy. What people want is what they get...whether or not it's good for them and their country.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UACFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
Bat'71 (04-13-2012)
  #89  
Old 04-13-2012, 02:03 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
As just mentioned in the preceding Posts (and covered in others before them), this is how the Government has been screwing up the price mechanism in the health insurance market for the past 60 years; it all started with wage and price controls during WWII. Progressives have had their sights set on this forever, but WWII gave them an opening. There will always be perceived problems, but the best way to iron out these issues is in Conference among all the interested parties that want to address our problems in a serious manner. That way problems can be thoroughly discussed and the best market based solutions can be worked out with the Government playing a less than prominent role in providing a back stop for people that may fall through the cracks.

As far as the price of pharmaceuticals is concerned, a way to get things a little more under control, would simply for the Government (yes, I know, this is something I think the Feds could actually do that would be effective) to enforce a stricture on the pricing of pharmaceuticals here in the U.S. known as a "most favored nation" clause. In essence, this would force the drug companies to price their products in this country at no more than the lowest price they charge in any Developed Country market (be that Canada, France, Italy, Great Britain, Japan, etc.) Many of those Developed Nations (most of whom are allies) enforce price controls on drugs...what this does is raise prices here in the US. As a result, we are not only picking up the bulk of their defense and national security costs, but we're also subsidizing their health care. While I am not in favor of price controls, a "most favored nation clause" would force drug companies to push back in other developed countries to even-out drug pricing, which would even-out costs internationally instead of having Americans make up the difference so others can get a free pass.

Last edited by Bat'71; 04-13-2012 at 02:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 04-13-2012, 02:10 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
UAC, the only item I would take issue with in your last Post is in your last line: "Everybody knows these things...knows exactly how to correct them...". The reason politicians and others can demagogue the health care issue is that most people do not know these things and people are frightened of change. Now I agree that most policy makers know these things (or should know), but that's a different issue.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 04-13-2012, 02:59 PM
UDEE79's Avatar
UDEE79 UDEE79 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Beavercreek Ohio
Posts: 1,860
Thanks: 1,394
Thanked 1,140 Times in 428 Posts
UDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Chris R View Post
And to IAFlyers point, why is healthcare even tied to employment. Car insurance is not. Life insurance is not. Homeowner's insurance is not. Occupation and health insurance have nothing to do with one another.
think about this. The pre existing condition issue only exists because insurance is tied to your job.
__________________
It's a great day to be a Flyer
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 04-13-2012, 03:42 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Not sure about the drug pricing...

Originally Posted by Bat'71 View Post
As far as the price of pharmaceuticals is concerned, a way to get things a little more under control, would simply for the Government (yes, I know, this is something I think the Feds could actually do that would be effective) to enforce a stricture on the pricing of pharmaceuticals here in the U.S. known as a "most favored nation" clause. In essence, this would force the drug companies to price their products in this country at no more than the lowest price they charge in any Developed Country market (be that Canada, France, Italy, Great Britain, Japan, etc.) Many of those Developed Nations (most of whom are allies) enforce price controls on drugs...what this does is raise prices here in the US. As a result, we are not only picking up the bulk of their defense and national security costs, but we're also subsidizing their health care. While I am not in favor of price controls, a "most favored nation clause" would force drug companies to push back in other developed countries to even-out drug pricing, which would even-out costs internationally instead of having Americans make up the difference so others can get a free pass.
As a Merck shareholder of many years I know something (I think) about the industry. It has got to be the most difficult business there is.

The drug pricing policies of other countries do not raise U.S. prices....if there policies were different U.S. prices could be lower...but they are not raised.

Companies like Merck and all the others spend billions developing new drugs. Their pricing policy has been to recover 100% of the development cost in the U.S. market....which they do. Of course, the actual cost to make a pill might be a penny....but the selling price in the U.S. may be $3 in order to recover the cost of R&D.

So, having recovered the R&D cost by way of the U.S. pricing model,...along comes Canada, for instance, which says to Mecrk....we won't pay anymore than $1 for your pill....the pill that sells in the U.S. for $3 but that costs a penny to make.

Merck says "sure". And it looks to the U.S. consumer as if he's getting screwed by Merck. Merck can't say to Canada...nope, we won't sell you our pills. Maybe that's what they should say. Or, perhaps they should price the cost of the pill in the world market so as to recover the R&D cost globally...not just in the U.S. Then they could say "no dice" to Canada. If Canada's price-they-will-pay is insufficient to cover R&D...then Canadians will have to do without Merck's pills.

(By the way, the pharma industry always points out that their "pills" account for about 10% of the cost of U.S. health care.)
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 04-13-2012, 04:29 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
UAC, that may be Merck's "rationale" to shareholders, but that's not what is behind the pricing differentials. The only reason Merck can sell that "pill" in Canada at the lower price is because the US consumer is picking up the tab for everybody else. Without the US consumer paying the freight (so to speak) for R&D and the cost to get the medication tested, etc. there wouldn't be a "pill" to sell in Canada. The key to any business is to cover the cost of product development, approval processes, manufacturing, marketing, etc., etc., etc...and provide a profit margin. Yes, the Canadians ( as well as the French, Germans and everyone else) are paying the marginal cost to produce and market the drug and provide a profit in those countries, but the reason the Pharmaceutical Industry is willing to accept price controls over in those markets, is because the US consumer is picking up the tab for all the R&D and development costs, which shouldn't be the case. It's like squeezing on one end of a balloon...the air gets displaced, so one end bulges up (US prices) while the other end gets depressed (Canada, etc.). In my career, I've dealt with many companies in many different industries doing business both domestically and in foreign markets and Merck's answer, while maybe technically correct, is totally misleading. If the US were to institute "most favored nation" status clauses, the Pharmaceutical Industry would have to bargain harder to raise prices in those markets to cover their total costs or the drug should not be made available there. If prices were to rise a little bit more over such a broader population base, prices would fall here and a more level playing field would be in place without harming profit margins or impacting R&D at the companies. This is also an area where the US Foreign Trade rep can get involved and provide some pressure on our trading partners to relax their own price controls. One of the reasons this hasn't been done is because the status quo is currently "working" for those involved, but it's working against the best interest of the American consumer.

*If the US were to implement a most favored nation clause for Pharmaceutical Industry to abide by, you'd be amazed at how quickly they'd adapt to force price increases overseas and you would see a noticeable drop in prices here. Nothing focuses the mind like survival and Big Pharma and politicians everywhere know how to survive. Foreign politicians would not want to have all these drugs pulled from their markets, nor would the Drug companies want to pull them, but if they have to take a hit to their political careers or to their bottom lines, respectively, they'll do what they find a solution and to reach equilibrium pricing.

Last edited by Bat'71; 04-13-2012 at 04:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Bat'71 For This Totally Excellent Post:
TD Flyer (04-15-2012), UACFlyer (04-13-2012)
  #94  
Old 04-13-2012, 04:55 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,010
Thanks: 2,121
Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,465 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Bat,....

....re pharma....if there is any disagreement between what you said and what I said, I fail to see it.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 04-13-2012, 05:14 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 2,967
Thanks: 3,716
Thanked 897 Times in 523 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDEE79 View Post
think about this. The pre existing condition issue only exists because insurance is tied to your job.
Not sure I follow this.

If you apply for Life Insurance and have a heart condition, you could be turned down (much like Health Insurance).

If you have accidents/violations or no prior car insurance, your rates will be much higher as a result.

How do the employer/pre-ex condition correlate?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 04-13-2012, 06:01 PM
Bat'71 Bat'71 is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,171
Thanked 1,248 Times in 623 Posts
Bat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond reputeBat'71 has a reputation beyond repute
UAC, I guess my point is that US prices would be lower than they are now, not higher or even the same, if a most favored nation clause were in effect. It would make pricing decisions that much harder for the drug companies...they couldn't rely on American consumers to cover all the cost of their R&D and allow them to sell it for less overseas. It would force them to determine an equilibrium price for all markets and force them to bargain harder on any price controls a Developed Country would insist upon or bypass that market. As long as the foreign governments know Big Pharma can cover their cost of R&D in the US, it gives them much more leeway to push price controls as far as they can...without that, they can't do it or they risk the loss of access to those drugs for their constituents...which wouldn't make their voters very happy. Because prices of drugs sold overseas do not help defray the cost of R&D, the prices here in the States have to be higher to augment the sale of products outside our borders. If Big Pharma knows that they can't sell the product for more here than they can in Developed Markets, it will push prices down here and up overseas.

*Developed markets are used as a parameter because there are many societal, humanitarian benefits for encouraging the sale/consumption of life-saving, life-improving drugs to the Developing World and that should be encouraged.

Last edited by Bat'71; 04-13-2012 at 06:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:33 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,641
Thanks: 22
Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,195 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by IAFlyer View Post
Not sure I follow this.

If you apply for Life Insurance and have a heart condition, you could be turned down (much like Health Insurance).

If you have accidents/violations or no prior car insurance, your rates will be much higher as a result.

How do the employer/pre-ex condition correlate?
they don't. Unless health insurance were sold as a lifetime policy similar to whole life or mult year level premium term life. If it is an annual policy like auto there wouldn't be a connection.

My guess is if all health was individual without group employer policies then it would be regulated such that it were sold similar to whole life. In which case the only health consideration in underwriting is price at time of purchase.

Would also provide incentive to buy young. But that gets ignored all the time for life.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UDDoug For This Totally Excellent Post:
IAFlyer (04-16-2012)
  #98  
Old 04-15-2012, 01:46 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,103
Thanks: 409
Thanked 425 Times in 271 Posts
Mich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to beholdMich Flyer is a splendid one to behold
New Ad About Catholic Input on Elections

http://video.foxnews.com/v/156277327...te-in-november
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Mich Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
DetroitFlyer (04-16-2012)
  #99  
Old 04-15-2012, 09:46 PM
Glen Clark Glen Clark is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Between Kroger & Esther Price
Posts: 3,712
Thanks: 3,245
Thanked 2,275 Times in 1,065 Posts
Glen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond repute
Uh - click on a Faux News link? I'd rather pull off my fingernails with linesman's pliers . . .
But have a nice day.

Here is the link to the petition to "urge Fr. Graham and the Xavier University Board of Trustees to live out the Jesuit mission of being men and women for others and not succumb to polarizing, politicized attacks on women." :
http://www.change.org/petitions/xavi...-birth-control

__________________
If you reveal your secrets to the wind, you should not blame the wind for revealing them to the trees.
- Kahlil Gibran
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 04-15-2012, 11:06 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,641
Thanks: 22
Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,195 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
What attack on women. Since when does not paying for something become an attack. They aren't paying for vasectomies either. Is that an attack on men.

Xavier is a catholic institution. The position of the faith is that birth control is immoral and that abortion in any form is a grave sin. Those positions may be wrong and one can disagree with them. It doesn't matter if people disagree or if the vast majority of Catholics choose to ignore the position of the church. They shouldn't provide benefits that violates church teaching. Making their employees pay for it out of their own pocket isn't an attack. The use if that language is innacurate and in and of itself is polarizing and divisive.

But it's the rule du jour.
Posted via Mobile Device

Last edited by UDDoug; 04-15-2012 at 11:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
6 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to UDDoug For This Totally Excellent Post:
Bat'71 (04-16-2012), DetroitFlyer (04-16-2012), IAFlyer (04-16-2012), Mich Flyer (04-16-2012), TD Flyer (04-16-2012), UD Sam (04-16-2012)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.1
Sponsor


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement System V2.6 By   Branden

     
 
Copyright 1996-2012 UDPride.com. All Rights Reserved.