J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
This has absolutely nothing with the topic of the thread, and in fact, there is another thread on the subject.
Jim
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Jim
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I heard a JW explain that they refuse transfusions, but do not think they can force that view on others, so they pay for it in insurance plans.There must be Jehovah’s Witnesses who are employers who do refuse to cover blood transfusions, and that is there is right as an employer.
.
C
catharina
Guest
Should any American be forced to giveThis has absolutely nothing with the topic of the thread, and in fact, there is another thread on the subject.
Jim
a penny to an abortionis, if the citizen is
opposed to the fact of abortion?
Of course, a better example of medical
abuse would be cases in this country, for
example, the doctors charged recently
in New Jersey.
My point was: how bad can it get???
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Sister Keehan is coming awfully late to the fair. After supporting Obamacare, then supporting the anti-Catholic mandate all this time, she has suddenly “seen the light”?
Yes, and monkeys fly out of…
More likely this is a way to get Obama off the hook. His numbers are falling, and while he was perfectly willing to spit in the eye of observant Catholics and Evangelicals previously, thnking (rightly) that few would vote for him anyway, he is probably thinking he had better backtrack. So, he’ll “evolve” in his thinking, “prompted by the concerns of Sister Keehan” in hopes of grabbing a few bits off the prolife vote based on the bogus “care for the poor” argument. And they’ll ride that pony until it drops.
What a bunch of saps they think we are.
And just in case anybody thinks there’s a lot of “charity” involved with the Catholic Hospital Association, be assured most of those institutions will drive you into bankruptcy just as readily as any secular hospital will, if you can’t pay. I have seen it, plenty. So let’s not go into a swoon over the “charity” in which this organization allegedly engages.
And, of course, Catholic employers will still have to pay for contraceptive, abortifacient and sterilization coverage. No help for them in this…and none is intended. They think we’re so stupid we won’t notice.
Obama will backtrack at least some, and Sister Keehan will be his “poster child” for “moral sensitivity”. Wait and see. But it doesn’t matter if he does, because he can reverse it just as soon as he’s re-elected, and do a lot worse. And he will.
Am I being cynical? Well, you know, when a president appoints Kathleen Sebelius, who ardently supported partial birth abortion, to make rules requiring Catholic institutions to provide anti-birth coverage against conscience, and when a nun goes against the teachings of the Church and the bishops and supports an immoral mandate for far longer than any thinking person would, one can not be blamed greatly for thinking actions speak a lot louder than words.
Yes, and monkeys fly out of…
More likely this is a way to get Obama off the hook. His numbers are falling, and while he was perfectly willing to spit in the eye of observant Catholics and Evangelicals previously, thnking (rightly) that few would vote for him anyway, he is probably thinking he had better backtrack. So, he’ll “evolve” in his thinking, “prompted by the concerns of Sister Keehan” in hopes of grabbing a few bits off the prolife vote based on the bogus “care for the poor” argument. And they’ll ride that pony until it drops.
What a bunch of saps they think we are.
And just in case anybody thinks there’s a lot of “charity” involved with the Catholic Hospital Association, be assured most of those institutions will drive you into bankruptcy just as readily as any secular hospital will, if you can’t pay. I have seen it, plenty. So let’s not go into a swoon over the “charity” in which this organization allegedly engages.
And, of course, Catholic employers will still have to pay for contraceptive, abortifacient and sterilization coverage. No help for them in this…and none is intended. They think we’re so stupid we won’t notice.
Obama will backtrack at least some, and Sister Keehan will be his “poster child” for “moral sensitivity”. Wait and see. But it doesn’t matter if he does, because he can reverse it just as soon as he’s re-elected, and do a lot worse. And he will.
Am I being cynical? Well, you know, when a president appoints Kathleen Sebelius, who ardently supported partial birth abortion, to make rules requiring Catholic institutions to provide anti-birth coverage against conscience, and when a nun goes against the teachings of the Church and the bishops and supports an immoral mandate for far longer than any thinking person would, one can not be blamed greatly for thinking actions speak a lot louder than words.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The article you posted, has to do with aborted babies in India, which were thrown to dogs.Should any American be forced to give
a penny to an abortionis, if the citizen is
opposed to the fact of abortion?
Of course, a better example of medical
abuse would be cases in this country, for
example, the doctors charged recently
in New Jersey.
My point was: how bad can it get???
It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, bur is an attempt to accuse the president of supporting such a thing.
Jim
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
That Jehovah’s Witness might have that opinion, but there must be some who refuse to pay for it in insurance.I heard a JW explain that they refuse transfusions, but do not think they can force that view on others, so they pay for it in insurance plans.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Why? To them it is something they have to do.That Jehovah’s Witness might have that opinion, but there must be some who refuse to pay for it in insurance.
It’s really interesting that it is being used in the birth control mandate but it isn’t a good analogy.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
If that is Jehovah’s witnesses view, then it is different than the Catholic view in relation to paying for conscience opposing services. Cardinal George said co-operating with the HHS mandate was ‘materially and formally’ sin because you would be ‘knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people.’Why? To them it is something they have to do.
It’s really interesting that it is being used in the birth control mandate but it isn’t a good analogy.
For Catholics it is not we are over here and do not use those services but if you want to use those services over there that is up to you and we will pay for it.
You are correct it is not a good analogy because contraception and abortion is not on a par with blood transfusions.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It’s always a little hazardous to attempt to define what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe. From my JW friend, at least, I have been told the following:If that is Jehovah’s witnesses view, then it is different than the Catholic view in relation to paying for conscience opposing services. Cardinal George said co-operating with the HHS mandate was ‘materially and formally’ sin because you would be ‘knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people.’
For Catholics it is not we are over here and do not use those services but if you want to use those services over there that is up to you and we will pay for it.
You are correct it is not a good analogy because contraception and abortion is not on a par with blood transfusions.
- They have no use whatever for government, believing it to be intrinsically evil.
- Nevertheless, with a few exceptions (participating in war, for example) they hold that one has to go along with the government on most things, not because the government is less evil than believed, but because certain things, like paying taxes, are required, are worldly stuff anyway, and because the consequences of not doing it outweigh the seriousness of doing it.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Personally, I am embarrassed that Sister Keehan is Catholic. She doesn’t represent my faith at all…nor the core teachings of the Church. She has gotten caught up in the “social justice” nonsense and is perhaps in love with her salary and benefits that total almost $1 million a year,
Jim,
You stated:
Jim,
You stated:
First question, how does the government have the right to mandate that a private company give ANY product for free? Second, use logical business sense, the cost would not be paid for the insurance company, it would be passed to the employer paying for the policy.The coverage for contraception and such, would be paid for by the insurance company.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Yerusalyim;
If the company doesn’t want to follow those regs, then they don’t get a license to participate in AHC.
The government forces car insurance companies to cover certain items. How the company pays for them is up to them, but in many states like here in MA, auto insurance rates are regulated.
The fact is, without regulation of these companies, they would and have screwed people, who have paid all of their premiums.
In various states, insurance companies could drop a customer, as soon as they required costly medical care, even though the policy stated that the treatment was covered, and the customer was up to date with premiums.
Most states have made that illegal today, but without the regulation, you can bet they’d be still doing it.
Jim
The government is the one granting the license for insurance companies to do business in this field of insurance coverage, and it can and already does, place regulations that the company must follow.First question, how does the government have the right to mandate that a private company give ANY product for free? Second, use logical business sense, the cost would not be paid for the insurance company, it would be passed to the employer paying for the policy.
If the company doesn’t want to follow those regs, then they don’t get a license to participate in AHC.
The government forces car insurance companies to cover certain items. How the company pays for them is up to them, but in many states like here in MA, auto insurance rates are regulated.
The fact is, without regulation of these companies, they would and have screwed people, who have paid all of their premiums.
In various states, insurance companies could drop a customer, as soon as they required costly medical care, even though the policy stated that the treatment was covered, and the customer was up to date with premiums.
Most states have made that illegal today, but without the regulation, you can bet they’d be still doing it.
Jim
- Status
- Not open for further replies.