Battra92 Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 But their religion tells them to do plenty of things you aren't allowed to do any more. Where does what "religious freedom" covers stop and a nations laws begin? Law > Religion. Your religion < Other peoples health and well being. What specifically are Catholics not allowed to do that is part of their doctrine? I'm a Methodist so I can't speak for Catholics. I'd like some facts to back this statement up as its claims are dubious at best. It's much like the opposition to smoking. You're free to destroy your body, but when it starts effecting other people, then sod off. Umm what? What we have people who are chosing out of their own free will and conscience to work for a Catholic institution (a hospital, university etc.) and the employer is not providing their birth control pills for free. For the love of Mike, how is that destroying someone's health and well being? The people are obviously employed. Why is it the responsibility of the Church/employer to provide Birth Control? Really, at its core why is this such a huge issue for the left? This isn't about denying birth control pills to needy women; this is about forcing an ideology onto the Catholic church. For people who talk about prejudice, hate and one not forcing opinions on others, you guys can be pretty complacent in others being forced to do things they find morally wrong. There is no law preventing them from purchasing it on their own (paying a mere $8 a month as I mentioned earlier in the thread - I spent that on Rifftrax downloads tonight!) so where is the great health issue? There isn't! Or let's take this into another argument and remove the birth control, I'm morally opposed to drinking alcohol. I will not purchase alcohol for myself or others nor will I allow my wife to use our joint checking account to purchase alcohol as a gift for someone else. Now say you came to me and demanded that I buy a bottle of Jack for someone, I would certainly be outraged and would refuse. There's of course the Constitutional issue here in that where the Fuck does the POTUS get the authority to tell people what products and services they must buy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) "[Y]ou almost certainly can't get your employer to just give you cash instead of the benefits." False. The last three full time jobs I had let me opt out and pocket the money. Not common for lower-paying, non-white collar jobs, however. I'm also interested in how you propose health care should be handled. I saw your subsequent reply, made I did not understand what you were trying to say. Edited February 16, 2012 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 I'm also interested in how you propose health care should be handled. I saw your subsequent reply, made I did not understand what you were trying to say. I think the problem is there's so much cronyism and big government inbreeding in the system that it would take quite a bit to unravel it all. The real issue is that healthcare should be on the level of the individual. The other big government program, Social Security, has been shown to be an absolute failure. I highly doubt anything I pay in will be around in the future. However, on the individual level my work offers a 401K and I can opt for a traditional IRA or a ROTH IRA. I've seen the idea of Health Savings Accounts tossed around and I think it is an idea worth looking into. I also believe many people out there don't really have the right insurance. Most live and die by the copay amount but instead we should probably pay for routine stuff out of pocket and carry insurance for the serious medical issues. I'm confident there is a solution out there but I doubt we'll see it from Washington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Health care is a simple disconnect between supply and demand. Demand is constant and supply is completely limited. I have two options, the discounted expensive insurance through work or the really expensive independant insurance. If you were to eliminate businesses offering insurance to their employees and simply paid people money and let them buy insurance then you'd be able to control where the money goes and create more competition. There is limited competition in the market place right now as companies can bargain with providers but the actual care being provided is being provided at will en masse to those insured who are only worried about their measly copayments. The disconnect between supply and demand may be simple but the solution is slightly complicated by the ideals of humanity and human life. It's simple to say that if some poor sucker has opted not to buy health insurance then he should be left to die in the street. In pracitce it's not really good for society to have people dying in the street. That's where you have the rules of providing stabilizing medical care to anyone regardless of ability to pay begin. The problem with that is they cut you lose as soon as your stable and that person may be back next week adn over and over again. Now you get to the issue of do you make everyone buy insurance because that way everyone is splitting the cost. Well now you're back into a plan where there is no limitation on the demand and so everyone gets every possible procedure and medical test done they can (also because doctors are worried about being sued) without any attention to the actual cost involved. So doctors charge whatever they want and do whatever tests they want and patients okay the tests and procedures because they're aren't footing the bill the insurance companies are. Medical costs continue to rise, health insurance premiums rise as a result and the cycle goes on forever. The only possible way to break the cycle is to connect consumers to the real costs of health care and make them responsible for their own care. Let them choose providers based on costs and keep the money that they save. Consumer Driven High Deductible health plans are a good start in this direction. The make patients carry a plan with a deducitble of at least $2,400 and they must pay all costs out of pocket until the deducitlbe is reached. It must also be accompanied by a savings account (tax protected) from which consumers can pay their expenses. They can also keep this money if they do not spend it. I believe Obamacare does away with these tax provisions though. There is a line to draw between letting people die in the street and providing health care to everyone. I think if you can eliminate the laws limiting insurance companies selling across state lines that would create more competition. Tort reform would limit doctor liability and help doctors to not order useless tests for legal purposes. Eliminating tax breaks for corporations and passing them to individuals would allow people to chose their own medical coverage creating more competition. There are many many ways we can reduce the cost of medical care. Socializing medicine only eliminates the laws of supply and demand and creates a welfare state in which demand skyrockets and costs go up and quality goes down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Though of course, if my life is ever endangered by religion, I may have no choice but to stoop to their level and truly fight fire with fire. I think the chances of that are about nil unless you decide to move to the Muslim world. Because Christians have never murdered anyone who they decided was an enemy of their religion. Like gays, or Muslims, or African-Americans. Oh, right. They totally have. Boy, is my face red. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Next time someone uses God as a justification to do anything, I will not let it slide. I will let them know with my voice that what they're doing is wrong because what they believe is wrong. We will not use spears, knives, or flames like the religious do. Our weapons will be reason, facts, and an inability to allow unspeakable acts to continue unpunished. Our actions will not be with that of violence, but of common sense. Though of course, if my life is ever endangered by religion, I may have no choice but to stoop to their level and truly fight fire with fire. I think the chances of that are about nil unless you decide to move to the Muslim world. Ignoring your first bit, I'll have you know that most gay people I came to for advice warned me to expect violence. Almost all of them have had their lives endangered at some point because of their sexuality. That's hardly something limited to the "Muslim world", especially with the number of nutjobs blinded by what some angry man in a pulpit orders them to do. Edited February 16, 2012 by DukeOfPwn 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 But their religion tells them to do plenty of things you aren't allowed to do any more. Where does what "religious freedom" covers stop and a nations laws begin? Law > Religion. Your religion < Other peoples health and well being. What specifically are Catholics not allowed to do that is part of their doctrine? I'm a Methodist so I can't speak for Catholics. I'd like some facts to back this statement up as its claims are dubious at best. I'm talking religion in general here. I'd say the numero uno change between most holy books and modern law is the equality of women. Can't stone folks to death either for blasphemy, being gay, not being a virgin, etc. Actually the bible really enjoys the stoning stuff. (And yet marujina is outlawed, who'd have figured?) Which part of being pregnant is being healthy? The vomiting certainly ain't good for you. Leaking blood isn't that good either yet you guys seem fine with disallowing blood transfusions. It's the employers responsibility to provide this coverage if they're offering health insurance. Why offer health insurance if it's going to come with a shit ton of small print that's "well we don't do this, or this, or that, etc"? If health insurance is required why should a small group of people get to dictate just how healthy folks are allowed to be based on what their holy book tells them. Also the alcohol argument is hugely silly since you know full well nothing like that is going to happen. p.s: I'm not american and therefore don't follow your lots political leanings. So "Liberal" and "Left" "Right" "Hockey-Cokey" mean jack shit. And as far as health care goes, and reason I was popping in here anyway: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203315804577209230884246636.html Doctors are turning away parents that refuse to vaccinate their children. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Did anyone else see this and think the exact same thing I did? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ignoring whatever has been going on in this thread for "I dunno how long," for a while I've been coming to a revelation whenever I'm on Facebook viewing whatever my friends post on their Wall. Politicians are mythical creatures. At least that's how it feels when you're reading "facts." Lately there's been that story about a college professor making a point about Obama's "socialism," but there has been two variations and, just by the merit of the conclusion, is actually fabricated. This isn't to bemoan, "Stop attacking Obama!" There have always been stories involving politicians and intellectual figures to set some point/theory in concrete on the basis of those individuals. Where does the truth stop and the fairy tales begin? In the upcoming months there is going to be mud thrown from either side. It's political war and no fraction of your life is safe if it means votes for your opponent. So we get origin stories, shady pasts, supposed crimes against humanity, the "truth" as it were. With how my Friends on Facebook are balanced on a political scale, I see quite a bit of stories. I fully suspect, in a month, to see a story about Obama having saved a burning orphanage, or a story about Romney secretly funding the Illuminati. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 And as far as health care goes, and reason I was popping in here anyway: http://online.wsj.co...0884246636.htmlDoctors are turning away parents that refuse to vaccinate their children. I don't think that's really a good thing. You're not helping the kids by refusing to treat them, even if their parents are making bad decisions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Yeah, I'm really confused by the motivation of the doctors. I wonder if they are worried they are going to be held responsible for the poor medical decisions the parents make. I wonder if they're worried about legal implications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 The article seemed to think it was because they have too many patients to justify the time and effort necessary to deal with difficult patients. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 And as far as health care goes, and reason I was popping in here anyway: http://online.wsj.co...0884246636.htmlDoctors are turning away parents that refuse to vaccinate their children. I don't think that's really a good thing. You're not helping the kids by refusing to treat them, even if their parents are making bad decisions. You've also got a bunch of unvaccinated kids in your clinic. Refusing vaccinations is bad parenting, you want to be a bad parent to your kids fine, but to other parents kids too? Out the door. A doctors obligation is to his patients, if you're not wanting to be treated you're not a patient. The other kids he's treating are, and now his has an obligation to protect them from your kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 but the vaccinated kids should be unaffected by the non-vaccinated ones right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Not all kids at a paediatricians are of the age to have been vaccinated. So now you have parents bringing in their kid with measles/mumps/rubella/meningitis etc going "my child is ill" while all the younger unvaccinated kids are being exposed to this virus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 The younger ones are unvaccinated because they are still protected by their mother's immunity. I don't think it's right to punish kids for their parents stupidity, and I think that's exactly what this practice is doing. And just because they refuse one type of treatment doesn't make them "not your patients". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 That only lasts a few weeks and not all vaccines are in one go. And the doctors aren't punishing the kids, the doctor isn't the one refusing to give the vaccination, that's the parents. If the parent isn't allowing the doctor to treat the child then what is the point of having them at the clinic? I'm sure the doctor would in fact love to treat the patient, but they cannot without the compliance of the parent. It's a bit like the "my child isn't doing well at school, what is the teacher doing wrong" thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 http://www.salon.com/2012/02/16/freedom_of_religion_is_freedom_from_religion/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 http://www.businessinsider.com/tennessee-republican-bill-to-ban-teaching-gay-people-exist-2012-2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 You know, when I read things like this I try to take solace in the knowledge that this is just the next stage of civil rights and that sooner or later this country will get its head out of its ass and grant homosexuals the equality they deserve. Who knows when it will be, but it is inevitable. You can't stop progress. There have always been people afraid of change like this, but it doesn't matter. They couldn't stop women from voting and they couldn't stop black people from integrating the schools. At some point, they won't be able to stop gay people from having federally recognized marriages, too. Just watch. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 That only lasts a few weeks and not all vaccines are in one go. If you breast feed like you're supposed to it lasts a year or more. And the doctors aren't punishing the kids, the doctor isn't the one refusing to give the vaccination, that's the parents. If the parent isn't allowing the doctor to treat the child then what is the point of having them at the clinic? I'm sure the doctor would in fact love to treat the patient, but they cannot without the compliance of the parent. It's a bit like the "my child isn't doing well at school, what is the teacher doing wrong" thing. I don't think it's right to refuse to treat a kid for an ear infection because the kid's parents won't let you give them the MMR vaccine. It's not like vaccines are the only thing pediatricians do, and I think it's shitty of them to refuse all treatments because the parents refuse one specific type of treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 http://www.salon.com..._from_religion/ Completely beside the point of the article, but I really hate the saying "It's 'freedom of religion' not 'freedom from religion.'" IT'S NEITHER! And it's BOTH! It's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The "freedom of religion" saying? That's the "free exercise" part. The "freedom from religion" thing? That's the "respecting an establishment" part. FFS! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 It's not like there's just one vaccine rolled into a single treatment. If the parent isn't going to take their doctors advice on one treatment what's to say that won't expand to other treatments? If the parent is going to turn down a potentially life saving vaccination for their child because the internet/family friend told them it's going to cause autism, then it's going to be even easier to dismiss more minor treatments over false information. Ultimately the solution would be to have mandatory vaccination, as was used against smallpox. Then the parent has no say in the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Forgetting all these specific points of view for a moment, and particularly after reading TME's microrant (which I agree with FYI) about how it's both and neither freedoms, I do wonder how long it will take before the word of law is almost like a religion unto itself. A lot of laws set out by nations and states were created to protect people, interests and such. Some are outdated and we'd like to think that nations are continuously evolving entities but the well established nations have not seen 'radical' change in their laws and constitutions since inception. Yes there are changes for what is allowed and a few minor changes to try an accept a more modern mentality but the fact that people and eventually even officials misread what the true intention of the law is brings an important question. How long will we let them stand before clarification? On one hand it's amorphous and there's change but on the other there's a lot of staticness and the very fact that language itself changes over time to the point that some laws are pointless yet still stand is scary. Sure we may laugh and say oh yeah there's laws against bringing goats to covent garden on any day except those 3 alloted days but there are others that haven't really been changed that no one bothers to look into. I mean shouldn't we actually redefine a certain number of laws outside of court-cases and when need arises so that there's at least a sense of fairness (the world isn't fair, i think we all know that - it's what we make of the fairness) instead of leaving it at the last minute when someone desperately needs the law to change for some reason or the other? Question is why do we encourage the study of law but not the library management of law to tell people ok the validity of this law is in question, new laws need to be instated for these things, etc so that we get the authorities rolling on updating records properly rather than wait till some incident happens. Wouldn't it technically be more cost-effective to do so? Or are we so programmed to let things work the way they are until shit happens (in fact that's pretty much how Operating Systems work - there are no deadlocks till it actually occurs) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I completely agree vaccination of children should be mandatory. You have a right to decide what treatments you want done for yourself, but I don't think you should be able to inflict stupid decisions like that on your kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.