Bankers Threads
Click to return to BOL home page
Banker Store Read A Reg BOL Insiders Career Connect Learning Connect Bankers Information Network

Learn more about

MEMBERS


















Have a Question?
Looking for a
Product or
Service?

Our Vendor
Advisory Board








Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#1661876 - 02/08/12 09:07 AM Obamacare and religious organizations
Pale Rider Online
10K Club

Registered: 08/09/02
Posts: 33964
Loc: under the Lone Star
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...EditorialPage_h

In late January the Health and Human Services Department required almost all insurance plans to cover contraceptive and sterilization methods, including the morning-after pill.

HHS chose to draw the rule's conscience exceptions for "religious employers" so narrowly that they will not be extended to religious charities, universities, schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and other institutions that oppose contraception as a matter of religious belief.


....Obamacare, here we go.....
_________________________
"Call it the stupidity of the American voter... but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,"

Top
#1661884 - 02/08/12 09:24 AM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
DEL Offline
Platinum Poster

Registered: 10/30/02
Posts: 646
I think the separation of church and state comes into play here - according to the law, these are legal options. I would be much more concerned if Obama ignored that and let individual groups make up their own rules.

Top
#1661888 - 02/08/12 09:17 AM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
edAudit Online
Power Poster

Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 2970
Loc: You are here
Would that be something like it is leagal to have immigration laws but illegal for states to enforce them?
_________________________
Opinions can be considered as coming from anywhere but my employer.

CAMS


Top
#1661937 - 02/08/12 10:10 AM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
Sound Tactic Offline
Power Poster

Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 5348
It is ok to infringe on religious freedom so long as it is Christian.
_________________________
If your tagline references disclaimers regarding the nature of political posts, then you should just hit notify.

Top
#1661953 - 02/08/12 10:38 AM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
DEL Offline
Platinum Poster

Registered: 10/30/02
Posts: 646
There are plenty of Christians who not only are not against contraception, but actually use it! What about them - their insurance won't cover it because they work at a church-affiliated university or hospital?

Top
#1661955 - 02/08/12 10:28 AM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
Sound Tactic Offline
Power Poster

Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 5348
Why does the government have to mandate that insurance cover something for it to be insured?

God forbid if you want to use something you actually pay for it.

But that argument is pure falicy. We are not arguing about those who do not feel like the government is infringing on their religious freedom, we are arguing about those who feel it is.

We don't similarly say that because Muslims feel infringed by not practicing Sharia law, what about those who don't like Sharia law. That argument just holds no water at all.
_________________________
If your tagline references disclaimers regarding the nature of political posts, then you should just hit notify.

Top
#1661958 - 02/08/12 10:28 AM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
Stupendous Man Online
New Poster

Registered: 11/24/10
Posts: 6
Loc: Texas
We shouldn't have religious-based exceptions to laws at all.

Top
#1661962 - 02/08/12 10:30 AM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Stupendous Man]
Sound Tactic Offline
Power Poster

Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 5348
Originally Posted By: TexMex
We shouldn't have religious-based exceptions to laws at all.


I actually do agree with you. However, why do we have a law mandating that insurance companies cover the cost of contraception at all? God forbid insurance companies practice business based on supply and demand.
_________________________
If your tagline references disclaimers regarding the nature of political posts, then you should just hit notify.

Top
#1662005 - 02/08/12 11:17 AM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Stupendous Man]
straw Offline
Power Poster

Registered: 11/20/02
Posts: 9109
Originally Posted By: TexMex
We shouldn't have religious-based exceptions to laws at all.


Fortunately, the 1st Amendment protects our right to religious expression. Last year, San Francisco tried to ban circumsicion. As a Jew, my religion compels me to have all sons circumscized on their 8th day. If that law passed, would I not be allowed to adhere to my faith?

If an individual Catholic chooses not to follow their religious teachings that is their choice, but wholly different from saying the institutions themselves cannot follow their teachings.

Top
#1662014 - 02/08/12 11:26 AM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
Bankbb1, PITA Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/16/04
Posts: 38
Loc: The Sovereign State Of Oklahom...
I find it interesting that our national view of separation of church and state has become so extreme. At the time that the constitution was written, there weren't but a handful of schools that were not affiliated with, and frequently conducted in a church....
I get the whole idea that we dont want "King George and the Church of England" to rule every aspect of out lives, but really? Was this what the authors intended? I just dont think so. My opinion only.
_________________________
Run like the wind, but never forget gravity. wink

Top
#1662021 - 02/08/12 11:34 AM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: straw]
Stupendous Man Online
New Poster

Registered: 11/24/10
Posts: 6
Loc: Texas
Originally Posted By: straw

Fortunately, the 1st Amendment protects our right to religious expression. Last year, San Francisco tried to ban circumsicion. As a Jew, my religion compels me to have all sons circumscized on their 8th day. If that law passed, would I not be allowed to adhere to my faith?

If an individual Catholic chooses not to follow their religious teachings that is their choice, but wholly different from saying the institutions themselves cannot follow their teachings.



hmmm...that's an interesting point that i hadn't thought of. But it seems like free expression would make a loophole for every law. For example, if someone belonged to a religion that required human sacrifice, I dont think they should be exempt from murder charges. So, how do you decide where to draw the line? Is it only free expression for popular religions?

I think it should just mean that laws can't be made with the goal of limiting free expression--there has to be a non-religious reason for it. So, for your circumcision example, it would matter if there were any actual health concerns associated wtih circumsion. For example, if circumsized guys, I dunno, dropped dead on their 21st birthday.

But that's just my opinion. I dont know what courts have ruled or said before.

Top
#1662049 - 02/08/12 12:06 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
Sound Tactic Offline
Power Poster

Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 5348
Free expression creates a loophole so long as it does not violate another federal law. That is why the issue is, why is the Federal Government legislating such a thing. The market has obviously not dictated that health care programs be required to pay for contraceptives, so why does the admin feel that they need to mandate this?

Seems to me like another attempt to legislate the market. Sad thing is, some religion had to get in the way.
_________________________
If your tagline references disclaimers regarding the nature of political posts, then you should just hit notify.

Top
#1662054 - 02/08/12 12:24 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Stupendous Man]
raitchjay Online
Power Poster

Registered: 10/15/09
Posts: 4542
Loc: OK
Originally Posted By: TexMex
Is it only free expression for popular religions?


Long-established religions really. The courts have consistently protected long-established religions more fiercely than more recently established ones.
_________________________
"I have yet to see a piece of writing, political or non-political, that doesn't have a slant..."

E.B. White


Top
#1662106 - 02/08/12 12:50 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Stupendous Man]
straw Offline
Power Poster

Registered: 11/20/02
Posts: 9109
Originally Posted By: TexMex
Originally Posted By: straw

Fortunately, the 1st Amendment protects our right to religious expression. Last year, San Francisco tried to ban circumsicion. As a Jew, my religion compels me to have all sons circumscized on their 8th day. If that law passed, would I not be allowed to adhere to my faith?

If an individual Catholic chooses not to follow their religious teachings that is their choice, but wholly different from saying the institutions themselves cannot follow their teachings.



hmmm...that's an interesting point that i hadn't thought of. But it seems like free expression would make a loophole for every law. For example, if someone belonged to a religion that required human sacrifice, I dont think they should be exempt from murder charges. So, how do you decide where to draw the line? Is it only free expression for popular religions?

I think it should just mean that laws can't be made with the goal of limiting free expression--there has to be a non-religious reason for it. So, for your circumcision example, it would matter if there were any actual health concerns associated wtih circumsion. For example, if circumsized guys, I dunno, dropped dead on their 21st birthday.

But that's just my opinion. I dont know what courts have ruled or said before.


The Courts use a standard called strict scrutiny to decide if the state action is so important. Using your example, death by 21 from a circumcision would be a very compelling reason prompting state action.

In this case, where 90% of insurance plans currently offer or will offer this coverage (based on Obamacare law), the compelling state interest just isn't there.

Top
#1662201 - 02/08/12 02:10 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: DEL]
waldensouth Offline
Power Poster

Registered: 11/07/01
Posts: 7800
Loc: below the gnat line
Originally Posted By: DEL
I think the separation of church and state comes into play here - according to the law, these are legal options. I would be much more concerned if Obama ignored that and let individual groups make up their own rules.


Interesting - because I see this as a violation of the separation of church and state. The state is dictating to the church that they must provide a benefit for their employees that the church is on record as being against. The state is trying to tell the church that its beliefs don't really matter - the "STATE" beliefs are all that really count.

Someone working for the Catholic church would have to have been born under some kind of rock not to understand what the church's beliefs are on that topic. It's their choice to work there or not - in this day and age it's their choice to pay for the employer insurance or not. My insurance does not cover 100% of everything under the sun. It won't cover my daughter's ADHD medication - $150 per month - for example. However, my HSA can be used for many things. We all make choices based on our belief systems. Why should the government get in the business of legislating what our benefit plans will be/cover?
_________________________

When you read a great book, you don't escape from life, you plunge deeper into it. Julian Barnes


My Opinion Only.

Top
#1662217 - 02/08/12 02:42 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Stupendous Man]
Jokerman Offline
10K Club

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12846
Originally Posted By: DEL
I think the separation of church and state comes into play here - according to the law, these are legal options. I would be much more concerned if Obama ignored that and let individual groups make up their own rules.

Yeah! Who do these individual groups think they are?! The government knows best! Individual rights? Get the @#$% outta here - we're from the government and we're here to help!

Originally Posted By: TexMex
hmmm...that's an interesting point that i hadn't thought of. But it seems like free expression would make a loophole for every law. For example, if someone belonged to a religion that required human sacrifice, I dont think they should be exempt from murder charges. So, how do you decide where to draw the line? Is it only free expression for popular religions?

LOL - we're comparing a law requiring a faith-based organization to pay for an abortifacient to a law preventing a "faith-based" orgnization from murdering a human being. Kind of through-the-looking-glass.

Top
#1662230 - 02/08/12 02:53 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Jokerman]
Sinatra Fan Online
Power Poster

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 5352
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: Jokerman

LOL - we're comparing a law requiring a faith-based organization to pay for an abortifacient to a law preventing a "faith-based" orgnization from murdering a human being. Kind of through-the-looking-glass.


And yet, in an odd way, maybe not. After all, the intent of an abortifacient is, in fact, murder. The difference between the two laws, of course, being that of requiring murder as opposed to preventing murder.

Top
#1662242 - 02/08/12 02:56 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Sinatra Fan]
Stupendous Man Online
New Poster

Registered: 11/24/10
Posts: 6
Loc: Texas
the morning after pill isn't the same as the abortion pill. The morning after pill wont cause an abortion or miscarriage.

Or were you saying that all contraception is murder?

Top
#1662277 - 02/08/12 03:38 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Stupendous Man]
Miscuit Offline
10K Club

Registered: 08/23/05
Posts: 18789
Loc: TX
and



here



we



go!


smirk

Top
#1662282 - 02/08/12 03:29 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Stupendous Man]
HappyGilmore Online
10K Club

Registered: 06/11/04
Posts: 17503
Loc: Moron, Mongolia
Originally Posted By: TexMex
the morning after pill isn't the same as the abortion pill.


the Catholic Church would disagree with you on this one...
_________________________
The only people you should be getting even with are those that have helped you in some way.

Top
#1662294 - 02/08/12 03:40 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
Stupendous Man Online
New Poster

Registered: 11/24/10
Posts: 6
Loc: Texas
another reason not to have religious exemptions at all. The pope shouldn't have veto power.

Top
#1662299 - 02/08/12 03:46 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
Blade Scrapper Online
Power Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 5911
Loc: Outside A Garage
Isn't that between the Pope and Catholics?
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home

Top
#1662307 - 02/08/12 04:09 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Miscuit]
Bobby Boucher Online
Power Poster

Registered: 08/31/06
Posts: 6575
Loc: Down Yonder
Originally Posted By: Miscuit
here



we



go!

::runs and fetches an ice-cold Bud Light for Miscuit::
_________________________
...not only will I do it for you, I... I... I... yes, yes, I'll do it for you.

Top
#1662314 - 02/08/12 04:00 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
GuitarDude Online
Power Poster

Registered: 11/17/04
Posts: 5645
Loc: So Cal
::looks down at the pavement and realizes "tolerance" is a one-way street::
_________________________
I've just writed a wrong.

Top
#1662338 - 02/08/12 04:17 PM Re: Obamacare and religious organizations [Re: Pale Rider]
Pale Rider Online
10K Club

Registered: 08/09/02
Posts: 33964
Loc: under the Lone Star
Why is the morning after pill medical treatment? So then what do you call the act the night before?

Should we have to pay for that too?
_________________________
"Call it the stupidity of the American voter... but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,"

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >


Moderator:  Andy Z, John Burnett