Does freedom of religion include forcing your religious beliefs on others?

[10gr8kids]

You must have missed my past few posts: in the form of premiums, copays and deductibles. All costs of heathcare services are worked into the cost of insurance. If the insurance company provides ABCs in some of their plans, all of them share the cost. They’re not in the insurance business to go broke.

You are right, I must have missed it and I still don’t get it. I’ve never been accused of being overly intelligent.

Are you saying when birth control isn’t given out for free we are still paying for it just as much as if the insurance starts giving it out for free? So you do think that now the insurance company is going to eat this new expense because they’ve really been charging us for it all along?

I really am just trying to understand your line of reasoning.

 

[Stephen168]

There is not no way out of abiding by the mandate, an employer can choose to cancel their insurance and pay the fines or disobey the mandate. Priests For Life have said have said they are going to disobey the mandate.

Well, then let them pay the fines or disobey the mandate

And that doesn’t bother you at all? That’s the point.
Sure, we technically always have the option of guaranteeing our religious liberties by being arrested or killed under force of law, I guess?

No, it doesn’t bother me at all. I don’t use all the benefits in the package I have, and I don’t get to whine and complain about it or try to have my part of the package reduced in payment because** I **don’t use all of the benefits in the package.

**I have what I want? What is it that you think I **want and that I have?

 

[Rence]

You are right, I must have missed it and I still don’t get it. I’ve never been accused of being overly intelligent.

Are you saying when birth control isn’t given out for free we are still paying for it just as much as if the insurance starts giving it out for free? So you do think that now the insurance company is going to eat this new expense because they’ve really been charging us for it all along?

I really am just trying to understand your line of reasoning.

No, the insurance company is not going to eat the cost. All costs of heathcare services are worked into the cost of insurance. If an insurance company provides ABCs in some of their plans, all subscribers share the cost whether they have ABC coverage in their package or not. They’re not in the insurance business to go broke. In other words, we’re already paying for it. The only difference is only some people are getting the benefit while others are not. The new mandate makes sure all women have the benefits.

 

[Rence]

She has what she wants and principles are meaningless. The new progressive Catholic hiding behind the government; not like the 60’s when they demanded what was right.

Soooo, I have a great benefits package that I like and I’m glad that because of the new mandate other people will too?

 

[Stephen168]

I’m not getting it. Do you really believe the insurance company is just going to eat this extra expense? That is the only way I can see you claiming that the employee is not going to be paying for these extra “benefits”.

The employer pays the largest cost of insurance and the insurance company will not eat the extra cost.

Insurance is a financial tool to manage risk. There is no risk to birth control, so birth control “benefits” are not insurance. They are something paid for by the employer against their will.

 

[Rence]

I want to propose this analogy as to why the HHS mandate is wrong:

Suppose that the President and the Secretary of Agriculture decide that in order to improve the economy, Americans all have to pitch in to help the American farmer. They decide that the best way to do this is to drastically increase our consumption of pork.

The problem with this analogy is that in your example, people are being forced to consume something they don’t want. With the mandate, the benefit is available, but you don’t have to use the benefit.

 

[Stephen168]

I want to propose this analogy as to why the HHS mandate is wrong:

Suppose that the President and the Secretary of Agriculture decide that in order to improve the economy, Americans all have to pitch in to help the American farmer. They decide that the best way to do this is to drastically increase our consumption of pork. In order to do this, a combination of laws and regulations are passed that require every restaurant to sell something made with pork: bacon, sausage, ham sandwiches, etc. To make the rules fair, they apply to ALL restaurants, from your local Denny’s down to the smallest ma and pa places, including the vegan places, AND ALSO including the kosher delis.

Naturally organizations such as the Orthodox Union object. There’s no way these places can sell pork and still be kosher! The uproar rises to a level that the administration proposes an accommodation: the pork doesn’t have to be prepared on site; instead, the restaurants can buy pork sandwiches, that have been prepared off-site and wrapped in cellophane or plastic. That way, the workers at the vegan and kosher places don’t have to actually touch the pork.

This is not an accommodation! Ask your nearest Orthodox Rabbi: you cannot have ANY pork being offered in a restaurant and still have that place be kosher! And just because those insurance plans are prepared off-site and wrapped in plastic doesn’t mean we Catholics can legitimately participate and still say that we are not materially cooperating with evil.

Yes, forcing store owners to purchases something they are morally opposed to is wrong. As much as I personally would enjoy the cheap pork, I would still be against it on principle.

 

[boclucky14]

The problem with this analogy is that in your example, people are being forced to consume something they don’t want. With the mandate, the benefit is available, but you don’t have to use the benefit.

Sorry, I’m a late commer, and I’ll go back and read, but what gives YOU the right to take MY money to pay for YOUR “benefits”? (not specifically you, more of a general statement)

I just finished my first year as an employee and I’m beyond angry about my taxes - and the worst, it only gets worst from here. I’m fed up with entitled people thinking they have a right to my personal property (my labor - which I exchanged to my employer for a price), and then take it and spend it against my principles!

Sorry, I have a little anger against the government right now. People are in need in my community, and the government has the nerve to tax me! I could be giving more money to a much more efficient charity and church that has results, not a government bureacracy that can’t help anyone…

 

[Rence]

Sorry, I’m a late commer, and I’ll go back and read, but what gives YOU the right to take MY money to pay for YOUR “benefits”? (not specifically you, more of a general statement)

You don’t pay for my benefits. I belong to a network and I contribute to that network and pay for my own healthcare by paying my premiums, deductibles and copays.

And I have news for you, yes, your’e already paying for the healthcare of someone who doesn’t have insurance, whether you know it or not and whether you like it or not. The good thing about this mandate is that it makes the uninsured buy insurance according to their ability, and those people by purchasing their insurance, add back to the pot in the form of their premiums, deductibles and copays

I just finished my first year as an employee and I’m beyond angry about my taxes - and the worst, it only gets worst from here. I’m fed up with entitled people thinking they have a right to my personal property (my labor - which I exchanged to my employer for a price), and then take it and spend it against my principles!

Part of belonging to a community means contributing to that community. Of course ideally everyone should contribute the same, but the fact is, it’s not always the case. That’s the result of belonging to a community and to a network. There’s an easy way and a hard way to do everthing. You’re going to have to continue paying taxes, like everyone else. You can make it easy or hard, it’s up to you. I prefer a positive approach rather than a negative one. Do what works for you

Sorry, I have a little anger against the government right now. People are in need in my community, and the government has the nerve to tax me! I could be giving more money to a much more efficient charity and church that has results, not a government bureacracy that can’t help anyone…

People are in need in your community and the government has the nerve to tax you? How do you think services will get to your community? Sure you can give more to a charity or a church, and you still can. But the best way to support a community is through taxes which then fund the community’s needs. The taxes you and the other members of your community pay goes to garbage collection, cleaning the streets, keeping the street lights on, funding the schools, and of course our federal taxes fund medicare and medicaid.

Oh, and those taxes you pay from your first job? I guarantee you that because it’s your first job, it’s highly unlikely that you make as much as I do…or pay as much in taxes as I do as a result. So it’s not like I haven’t been there and don’t know what I’m talking about…and you won’t catch me whining about paying for other people’s healthcare or supportig other peoples’ kids.

 

[10gr8kids]

The employer pays the largest cost of insurance and the insurance company will not eat the extra cost.

Insurance is a financial tool to manage risk. There is no risk to birth control, so birth control “benefits” are not insurance. They are something paid for by the employer against their will.

I agree totally with you. I am trying to understand why Rence does not think the employer is going to be paying for the cost of birth control. But I think I just figured out my problem. I see in my first post I wrote employee instead of employer. Oops:shrug:

 

[Rence]

I agree totally with you. I am trying to understand why Rence does not think the employer is going to be paying for the cost of birth control. But I think I just figured out my problem. I see in my first post I wrote employee instead of employer. Oops:shrug:

The employer pays a portion of it yes, but the bulk of it is paid by the employee. Usually employees, if they’re lucky, have their employer pay for half of their premium. But the employee still has copays and deductibles. Even if a benefit, whatever that benefit is, comes ‘without a copay or deductible’, that benefit will be made up in what the member pays in copays and deductibles for other services. We’re already paying for it in our premiums, copays and deductibles. An insurance company will make up it’s costs by accounting for them in premiums, copays and deductibles and distribute that cost among the members. If an insurance company offers ABCs in one policy, everyone will contribute to the cost of those ABCs with their premiums, copays and deductibles. And most companies offer it in most of their packages.

 

[Corki]

The employer pays a portion of it yes, but the bulk of it is paid by the employee. Usually employees, if they’re lucky, have their employer pay for half of their premium.

Most employer sponsored plans are pre-tax deductions from the employee’s pay and operating expense deductions for the employer. In order to get the deductions, the employer MUST pay at least 50% of the premium.

If an insurance company offers ABCs in one policy, everyone will contribute to the cost of those ABCs with their premiums, copays and deductibles. And most companies offer it in most of their packages

Agreed, but most Churches and other Catholic organizations (hospitals, colleges, etc.) do not.

Noone is complaining about the companies that already have this in thier plan. The only real difference for those companies is that the co-pay, if any, is shifted to the employer. It’s the companies that do not already have this coverage that will get stuck.

 

[Corki]

. The good thing about this mandate is that it makes the uninsured buy insurance according to their ability, and those people by purchasing their insurance, add back to the pot in the form of their premiums, deductibles and copays

But it doesn’t really do that. It just gives the currently unisured **a choice **to buy insurance coverage or pay a fine. If they choose the fine, the rest of us will still be absorbing thier emergency health care coverage, just like we do now.

 

[Stephen168]

I agree totally with you. I am trying to understand why Rence does not think the employer is going to be paying for the cost of birth control. But I think I just figured out my problem. I see in my first post I wrote employee instead of employer. Oops:shrug:

She is under the mistaken idea that the employee pays all the cost. If that were true, an employer would not be involved with their employees insurance at all and this would not be an issue. Maybe that is why she doesn’t understand the issue.

You don’t pay for my benefits. I belong to a network and I contribute to that network and pay for my own healthcare by paying my premiums, deductibles and copays.

 

[Rence]

Most employer sponsored plans are pre-tax deductions from the employee’s pay and operating expense deductions for the employer. In order to get the Deductions, the employer MUST pay at least 50% of the premium.

Agreed, but most Churches and other Catholic organizations (hospitals, colleges, etc.) do not.

When I worked for a Catholic hospital, birth control pills were covered and the employee only had to pay a copay.

Noone is complaining about the companies that already have this in thier plan. The only real difference for those companies is that the co-pay, if any, is shifted to the employer. It’s the companies that do not already have this coverage that will get stuck.

How do you know that? In lieu of a copay, the costs will be offset in the premiums and deductibles, and copays for other services and medications. If a company doesn’t already have this coverage, but other plans that the insurance company have contracted these plans, everyone who subscribes that insurance company will pay in their copays, deductibles and premiums.

 

[Rence]

But it doesn’t really do that. It just gives the currently unisured **a choice **to buy insurance coverage or pay a fine. If they choose the fine, the rest of us will still be absorbing thier emergency health care coverage, just like we do now.

The fine will deter people from not subscribing. Their fine will go back into the pot though. So it will help.

 

[iloveangels]

However, the Catholics could do the same and avoid paying social security and medicare taxes and would be excempt from this mandate as well if they didn’t claim any benefits from those programs. Being involved in a multi-cultural network means there will be some benefits and services that some will use, while others will not.

I see your point. The problem with this whole issue is that it’s almost impossibly difficult for people to get their heads wrapped around, and it’s complicated with force and issues about prosetylizing of beliefs on both sides.

Insurance is all about membership in statistically pooled groups of individuals and the name of the game, for the insurance company, is to make money by minimizing risk while maximizing sales. But of course, the name of the game for the government is different from that–it’s politics and getting elected. And for some on either political side of of the issue, it’s about political prosetylizing and pushing particular points of view and belief systems. This can even extend to taking sides culturally and religiously. That’s where the force comes in.

I personally object to me personally paying for some things that other people do, such as abortion. I believe that abortion is an objective evil. However, my membership in a statistically pooled group of individuals is a problem if my views are far different than theirs, only in one way: I may end up paying a tiny fraction of something that I find morally objectionable. The “paying for it” is the problem for me. Up til now, it has been possible for the motivated person to find an insurance pool that doesn’t involve paying for abortion. If these exist, they should be legal. If the insurance company doesn’t object monetarily, I don’t know why the government should, unless they are using the insurance company for political gain, which is wrong.

The fact that an insurance company is involved just gives the government a better handle than they previously had on me. This is a problem that’s growing in relevance, and I think it’s out of bounds. I don’t believe the government should have the right to expect me to pay for procedures like abortion, that I find objectionable. I object to paying for some military and social activities too. The government has the power to do too many things that I object to morally. So far, we have not solved this problem in American law and practice. It’s apparently one of the more grave problems that this sort of a system of governance has, although I don’t think it’s the only one.

I personally also think that there’s a very big difference between
a) making a product non-available to the population of a certain religious group,
b) making it non-available to only the “professional” members of that certain religious group, or
c) allowing it to be available but expecting people from that religious group to exhibit some morality in choosing whether to use it or not. I’m as unclear as most other people how these things are supposed to be related and how this part is supposed to work, from a logical point of view.
d) allowing it to be available but expecting people who do NOT belong to that religious group to abide by the teachings of that religious group.

I’m very loyal to the Church. I just am not really sure this has really been thought out very well in a lot of ways.

 

[MacBP]

If you don’t provide birth control to your employees because of your religious beliefs, and 100% of your employees don’t have the same religious beliefs as yourself, you are forcing your religious beliefs on them. So does freedom of religion extend to forcing your religious morals on others? If a bunch of people work for me is it right for me to make them conform to my religious beliefs?

Probably pointed out ad nauseum at this point, but this reasoning really doesn’t follow. If I went to lunch with my vegetarian friend, and he didn’t pay for my burger, would he then be orcing his vegetarian beliefs upon me? If my friend was a pacifist , and he didn’t buy a gun for me, is he forcing his pacifism upon me? It absolutely astounds me that people would equate a lack of support for a lifestyle as being an imposition of will.

 

[Rence]

I personally also think that there’s a very big difference between
a) making a product non-available to the population of a certain religious group,
b) making it non-available to only the “professional” members of that certain religious group, or

That’s one thing that no one’s talked about: the fact that those who don’t have insurance can get free and discounted ABCs, but some religious organizations want the working women who have insurance to not have access to this same benefit.

c) allowing it to be available but expecting people from that religious group to exhibit some morality in choosing whether to use it or not.

Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be though?

d) allowing it to be available but expecting people who do NOT belong to that religious group to abide by the teachings of that religious group.

We can’t base our freedom and happiness on the decisions of other people. That makes for very unhappy people

I’m very loyal to the Church. I just am not really sure this has really been thought out very well in a lot of ways.

I don’t think it has either. Why on earth didn’t Obama just provide vouchers for these women who work for these ‘religious’ based employers? They could turn in the vouchers to the government or to the insurance company directly for a separate rider. The employer wouldn’t know about it, those who wanted the benefit would get it, and life would go on.

 

[iloveangels]

Probably pointed out ad nauseum at this point, but this reasoning really doesn’t follow. If I went to lunch with my vegetarian friend, and he didn’t pay for my burger, would he then be orcing his vegetarian beliefs upon me? If my friend was a pacifist , and he didn’t buy a gun for me, is he forcing his pacifism upon me? It absolutely astounds me that people would equate a lack of support for a lifestyle as being an imposition of will.

Your objection doesn’t really follow either, and this is because of the way insurance companies are set up. They don’t deal with individuals, one by one. The whole thing is calculated on pools of individuals, using demographics. Employers purchase a plan that is supposed to cover everyone and everyone gets the same plan.

For those employees who don’t want coverage and who work for a religious employer, this is all honky-dory. For employees who want coverage and don’t work for a religious employer, again honky-dory. But for a) those employees who want coverage and work for a religious employer, or b) for those employees who don’t want coverage and work for a non-religious employer, there’s some degree of difficulty.

In case a, they pay out of pocket for the product or service. In case b, they pay a small fraction of the cost for the covered service, regardless of the fact that they themselves never use it.

Now, all this has been relatively minor up to now, but the US Government has stepped in and made a mess out of it. What was a fairly minor practical problem is now a disaster. You will pay no matter what, and you can’t not pay, even if you are willing to go without insurance to do it. Now Everyone Pays. And the government will somehow get its cut in the profits and/or re-election hopes, don’t worry. That’s how it always works. This is the REAL name of the game. Politics and forcing peoples’ ideas on each other.