Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Obama against the Catholics
Ruth34611 Joined Sat 08/02/08 Posts: 32402	Fri 02/10/12 02:00 PM
I disagree as a non practicing Catholic. If the Hospital is run by the Church and it is against their beliefs they should not be forced to perform it. People can choose another hospital. Apparently the government agrees as I was informed they changed that ruling this morning. I think the problem comes in when the hospital is a business. Which they are. But if the hospital gets any federal money, they are not independent are are subject to government requirements. I was agreeing that the rules that apply to churches would not necessarily apply to the businesses they may run. Federal money or not, they are subject to many rules of employment and cannot violate them due to religious beliefs.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 02/10/12 02:02 PM
I disagree as a non practicing Catholic. If the Hospital is run by the Church and it is against their beliefs they should not be forced to perform it. People can choose another hospital. Apparently the government agrees as I was informed they changed that ruling this morning. I think the problem comes in when the hospital is a business. Which they are. But if the hospital gets any federal money, they are not independent are are subject to government requirements. I was agreeing that the rules that apply to churches would not necessarily apply to the businesses they may run. Federal money or not, they are subject to many rules of employment and cannot violate them due to religious beliefs. Right. Just like a druggist who refuses to distribute birth control pills because of his religious beliefs.

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Fri 02/10/12 10:14 PM
I disagree as a non practicing Catholic. If the Hospital is run by the Church and it is against their beliefs they should not be forced to perform it. People can choose another hospital. Apparently the government agrees as I was informed they changed that ruling this morning. I think the problem comes in when the hospital is a business. Which they are. But if the hospital gets any federal money, they are not independent are are subject to government requirements. I was agreeing that the rules that apply to churches would not necessarily apply to the businesses they may run. Federal money or not, they are subject to many rules of employment and cannot violate them due to religious beliefs. Right. Just like a druggist who refuses to distribute birth control pills because of his religious beliefs. Unfortunately this person as yet has no recourse. Because our lawmakers did not actually 'craft' the bill to the nation. It violates the religion clause. But some cling stubbornly to its dream. Instead of getting to work 'crafting' a good version.

Redykeulous Joined Thu 11/09/06 Posts: 6052	Sat 02/11/12 06:46 PM
I didn't get back to this thread last night so I thought I'd check it today. In case you havn't heard, Obama decided to resolve the issue by not making religioulsy run business have to include birth control in any of their plans BUT (and the details are sketchy) anyone who wants birth control can still get see a doctor, PAID FOR BY THE INSURANCE, and get a script and then go to a pharmacy to fill it for free. Can't wait to see how that will be done, but I can guarantee that it will still be tax-payer dollars that support it, which means, if the organizations that do not have free BC in their policies, are still required to pay taxes, then they are indirectly still paying for and support the effort. If I can see that, don't you think that God can see that too???? The whole think is laughable.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sun 02/12/12 10:00 AM
I didn't get back to this thread last night so I thought I'd check it today. In case you havn't heard, Obama decided to resolve the issue by not making religioulsy run business have to include birth control in any of their plans BUT (and the details are sketchy) anyone who wants birth control can still get see a doctor, PAID FOR BY THE INSURANCE, and get a script and then go to a pharmacy to fill it for free. Can't wait to see how that will be done, but I can guarantee that it will still be tax-payer dollars that support it, which means, if the organizations that do not have free BC in their policies, are still required to pay taxes, then they are indirectly still paying for and support the effort. If I can see that, don't you think that God can see that too???? The whole think is laughable. That means the employer pays for the rubbers or pills. Employer being, the religious sect. I wish I had posted this topic. I would have named it, How do you pi$$ off the Pope?

Ruth34611 Joined Sat 08/02/08 Posts: 32402	Sun 02/12/12 10:06 AM
Unfortunately this person as yet has no recourse. Because our lawmakers did not actually 'craft' the bill to the nation. It violates the religion clause. But some cling stubbornly to its dream. Instead of getting to work 'crafting' a good version. Then how do you fix this? If the Catholic hospital hires non-Catholics don't they need to provide adequate health insurance for all it's employees? Or should non-Catholics simply not work for them, thus leaving them not enough good employees and forcing them to offer the additional benefits to recruit said employees?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 02/12/12 10:08 AM
I am still very confused. How many employers have a health care plan and how do they pay for that health care plan? Through having insurance right? Through an Insurance company right? So what changed? If law requires that Insurance companies provide contraception no matter what, and the employer/church pays for the insurance..... WHAT CHANGED? Will someone please explain this to me?

Ruth34611 Joined Sat 08/02/08 Posts: 32402	Sun 02/12/12 10:12 AM
I am still very confused. How many employers have a health care plan and how do they pay for that health care plan? Through having insurance right? Through an Insurance company right? So what changed? If law requires that Insurance companies provide contraception no matter what, and the employer/church pays for the insurance..... WHAT CHANGED? Will someone please explain this to me? Well, I don't know about this case, but about 2 years ago the city (I work for local government) went to a self-insured program to save money. They pay directly for our medical expenses and can say what we can and cannot have. They take away a little more every year.

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Tue 02/14/12 12:38 AM
Unfortunately this person as yet has no recourse. Because our lawmakers did not actually 'craft' the bill to the nation. It violates the religion clause. But some cling stubbornly to its dream. Instead of getting to work 'crafting' a good version. Then how do you fix this? If the Catholic hospital hires non-Catholics don't they need to provide adequate health insurance for all it's employees? Or should non-Catholics simply not work for them, thus leaving them not enough good employees and forcing them to offer the additional benefits to recruit said employees? I am not sure how to fix it. I am not a law maker. But you may be missing the point. If Catholic as an institution must be given an adjustment so the law work. so also is Catholic as an individual... This LAW itself can not pass constitutional muster. It MUST be fixed. Else the 1st Ammendment be repealed. (and if this is done I will then Stand with out hesitation by the 2nd though I die for it)

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Tue 02/14/12 04:26 AM
This is clearly a violation of the separation clause and if it goes to court the government will lose.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Tue 02/14/12 05:16 AM
So i guess now he is going to force Muslims to not use hate against the Jews.Or force the Jews to not circumsize do to possible bacteria infection.Or force protestants to approve of the pope.Or force christians to have pictures of Jesus to have only brown eyes hanging on their walls.Or force scientologist to sell back half of downtown Clearwater,Fl. to the city.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 02/14/12 07:17 AM
not so much about RELIGION As it is about BUSINESS religions can still express and live by whatever beliefs they wish to

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Tue 02/14/12 07:32 AM
not so much about RELIGION As it is about BUSINESS religions can still express and live by whatever beliefs they wish to Business in what sense?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 02/14/12 07:38 AM
not so much about RELIGION As it is about BUSINESS religions can still express and live by whatever beliefs they wish to Business in what sense? in the sense of considering hopsitals and universities businesses,,,,

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Tue 02/14/12 07:49 AM
not so much about RELIGION As it is about BUSINESS religions can still express and live by whatever beliefs they wish to Business in what sense? in the sense of considering hopsitals and universities businesses,,,, Catholic hospitals are NPO's. If you look at the 501(c)3 IRS code on what qualifies as an NPO you will not find a single reference to the word "business". http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html/

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Tue 02/14/12 08:36 AM
not so much about RELIGION As it is about BUSINESS religions can still express and live by whatever beliefs they wish to yep it is all about business if i'm not mistaken healthcare insurance is big business for Michelle she has alot of interest in it. Though i'm not against Obama my statement above was just a sarcastic remark,but alot of politicians do get into politics to try to keep their investments safe and profitable.

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Tue 02/14/12 01:56 PM
not so much about RELIGION As it is about BUSINESS religions can still express and live by whatever beliefs they wish to I respectfully disagree. If it must be adjusted for a single Religion, it violates the rights of every religious person also. Every single one. No matter the Faith. Faith Matters.