Should illegitimate children be denied insurance coverage from Catholic institutions?

[Stephen168]

Part of the problem is when a group or subset of people decides they want to define what is authentic medical care and what is not, and it doesn’t really matter unless those who actually are involved in the decisions come to the same conclusion.

That is why it was wrong for the court/legal system to decide that birth control was medical care.

One can disagree with it all they like, but at the end of the day, the medical community decides what is medical care and what is not.

True, not the court system.

 

[fix]

Exactly! A pathology is still being treated. It’s wrong, but nonetheless, treatment. Your definition is too narrow.

My definition implied it was being suppressed for no reason. I assumed no pathology present was understood.

 

[Stephen168]

The code would be the one for preventing pregancy, again, it’s preventative care.

Do OBGYNs consider pregnancy a disease?

 

[fix]

The code would be the one for preventing pregancy, again, it’s preventative care.

It’s their opinion, and their entitled to it. But their opinion will not get the claim denied by the insurance company, because it’s a legitimate billing code, matched with a covered diganosis, which is under preventative care.

Yes, that’s correct. And the reality is, legitimate healthcare is obtained in the healthcare field, obtained by legitimate healthcare professionals, and paid by insurance companies and medicare/medicaid.

They don’t have to.

You think ins codes decide what is authentic medical care? We are talking about basic definitions and you appeal to insurance companies as the arbiter.

If all medical is legitimate because it is endorsed by an insurance company or some professional/political medical group then anything can be medical care.

Back to Nazi Germany.

 

[fix]

Do OBGYNs consider pregnancy a disease?

Yes, the basic question is what is health and what is disease?

Rence wants the ultimate authority to be some group or body that decides these things and imposes it as a type of gospel simply because it is decreed by these credentialed groups without any recourse to logic.

I mean abortion is medical care because some organization or ins company says it is, right?

 

[Rence]

Do OBGYNs consider pregnancy a disease?

I don’t recall anyone saying it was a disease. That doesn’t mean patients don’t want to prevent it, because obviously they do want to prevent it. And to answer your question, some OBGYNs think it should be prevented, otherwise they wouldn’t be prescribing contraception or performing tubal ligations.

 

[Rence]

You think ins codes decide what is authentic medical care? We are talking about basic definitions and you appeal to insurance companies as the arbiter.

If all medical is legitimate because it is endorsed by an insurance company or some professional/political medical group then anything can be medical care.

Back to Nazi Germany.

Those involved in the medical community (Doctors, nurses, medical researchers, etc.) and the insurance companies decide what counts as legitimate medical care.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, the basic question is what is health and what is disease?

Rence wants the ultimate authority to be some group or body that decides these things and imposes it as a type of gospel simply because it is decreed by these credentialed groups without any recourse to logic.

I mean abortion is medical care because some organization or ins company says it is, right?

I agree with Rence’s post #4 but like I said in my post #16: The court system, not the medical system, decided birth control was medical care. Medical care is maintaining the body to operate as designed. This definition held until viagra came to market. Then the legal system decided having sex without babies was also medicine.

Basically a feminist political push to do what men can do: have sex without getting pregnant.(birth control and abortion)

 

[Rence]

Rence wants the ultimate authority to be some group or body that decides these things and imposes it as a type of gospel simply because it is decreed by these credentialed groups without any recourse to logic.

I mean abortion is medical care because some organization or ins company says it is, right?

Rence wants the ultimate authority to be those actually involved in the process of delivering healthcare: doctors, nurses, pharmacists, researchers, lawyers, and the insurance companies who process all of it. There shouldn’t be anyone outside the field of medicine interfering.

 

[Stephen168]

Rence wants the ultimate authority to be those actually involved in the process of delivering healthcare: doctors, nurses, pharmacists, researchers, lawyers, and the insurance companies who process all of it. There shouldn’t be anyone outside the field of medicine interfering.

Yet, you support the government defining health care. Is that because you agree with the government definition?

 

[Rence]

I agree with Rence’s post #4 but like I said in my post #16: The court system, not the medical system, decided birth control was medical care. Medical care is maintaining the body to operate as designed. This definition held until viagra came to market. Then the legal system decided having sex without babies was also medicine.

Basically a feminist political push to do what men can do: have sex without getting pregnant.(birth control and abortion)

The court system, with the help of the medical community, is there to make sure that the patient’s rights are not being violated, among other things. They make sure everything is legal and protect all parties involved.

 

[Rence]

Yet, you support the government defining health care. Is that because you agree with the government definition?

I support the government ensuring the rights of the patients and healthcare providers are honored by both sides. Of course the government is going to be involved, and they should be. They ensure the laws are being followed.

 

[Stephen168]

I support the government ensuring the rights of the patients and healthcare providers are honored by both sides. Of course the government is going to be involved, and they should be. They ensure the laws are being followed.

No, the government said if you, Insurance Company, cover viagra you will also cover birth control. This a government mandate put upon the medical community. This is why birth control is now medical care. Like abortion it was a feminist political push to do what men can do: have sex without getting pregnant.

 

[Rence]

No, the government said if you, Insurance Company, cover viagra you will also cover birth control. This a government mandate put upon the medical community. This is why birth control is now medical care. Like abortion it was a feminist political push to do what men can do: have sex without getting pregnant.

Birth control has been a component of medical care way before Viagra, and insurance companies paid for it way before Viagra…

In addition to that, the Catholic Church is the only entity that forbids artificial birth control for the reasons it does. Even the Muslims, Jews, and non-Catholic Christians don’t have the same rules. So, I have no idea why one would expect the secular civil authorities to back it up let alone recognize it and base civil laws on it. Without the knowledge about the unitive and procreative properties that the Church requires, there is no reason to outlaw birth control yet allow Viagra. People compare the two because they don’t have the teachings of the Church on the unitive and procreative properties that the Church requires as a foundation. With knowledge of the Church’s rules in this matter, one can see that the two are completely different.

So from a secular perspective, I can see how they would require payment for both if one is covered: Both allow the sexual freedom of the patient. So speaking from a secular perspective, why should viagra be covered so that men can have sex, if women can’t have medications that will enable them to have sex (without consequences). Both are for enhancing the sexual life of those taking the medications. Because why does one use birth control? for sex without the worry of pregnancy.

 

[Seeker1961]

The ridiculous thing about posts about these threads contraception, gay marriage, or ordaining women priests is that certain individuals on these threads actually think that the Catholic Church is going to change Her mind on these topics. I’m not a very educated man, but I do know one thing for sure. IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN !!! That’s my :twocents:

But the Church is not the state-not here in the USA anyway. The Church and it’s members are part of an entire country of people who may or may not share their beliefs and have no legal requirement to do so.

If you are a committed Catholic then it is YOUR responsibility to obey the teachings of the Church. Neither the state or private companies have to assist you by making things that are against your beliefs illegal, more expensive or otherwise difficult to obtain. They are allowed to consider the needs and concerns of other citizens that do not share your beliefs and make decisions accordingly.

 

[Rence]

But the Church is not the state-not here in the USA anyway. The Church and it’s members are part of an entire country of people who may or may not share their beliefs and have no legal requirement to do so.

If you are a committed Catholic then it is YOUR responsibility to obey the teachings of the Church. Neither the state or private companies have to assist you by making things that are against your beliefs illegal, more expensive or otherwise difficult to obtain. They are allowed to consider the needs and concerns of other citizens that do not share your beliefs and make decisions accordingly.

It’s true that the State is obligated to make sure the laws are fair for people of all faiths, and that all faiths are represented, and that no laws are made according to the teachings of one religion. There is no State religion, and one religion can’t define the civil laws.

 

[Stephen168]

Birth control has been a component of medical care way before Viagra, and insurance companies paid for it way before Viagra…

In the same way that plastic surgery has been, elective because pregnancy is not a disease. The controlling of birth is not health care.

In addition to that, the Catholic Church is the only entity that forbids artificial birth control for the reasons it does. Even the Muslims, Jews, and non-Catholic Christians don’t have the same rules. So, I have no idea why one would expect the secular civil authorities to back it up let alone recognize it and base civil laws on it. Without the knowledge about the unitive and procreative properties that the Church requires, there is no reason to outlaw birth control yet allow Viagra. People compare the two because they don’t have the teachings of the Church on the unitive and procreative properties that the Church requires as a foundation. With knowledge of the Church’s rules in this matter, one can see that the two are completely different.

1. No one is talking about outlawing birth control. 2) The teachings of the Catholic Church are not why the medical community saw Viagra as health care and saw birth control not as health care. Viagra allows an organ to operate as designed, birth control does not allow an organ to operate as designed; breaking things is not health care. 3) Feminist politics pushed the government to declare viagra and birth control to be the same; not the first irrational declaration of government. Not a declaration of the medical community.

So from a secular perspective, I can see how they would require payment for both if one is covered: Both allow the sexual freedom of the patient. So speaking from a secular perspective, why should viagra be covered so that men can have sex, if women can’t have medications that will enable them to have sex (without consequences). Both are for enhancing the sexual life of those taking the medications. Because why does one use birth control? for sex without the worry of pregnancy.

I rest my case, you agree with government, so it must be health care.

 

[Rence]

In the same way that plastic surgery has been, elective because pregnancy is not a disease. The controlling of birth is not health care.

A treatment being elective doesn’t mean it’s not healthcare. It’s still a component of healthcare.

1. No one is talking about outlawing birth control. 2) The teachings of the Catholic Church are not why the medical community saw Viagra as health care and saw birth control not as health care. Viagra allows an organ to operate as designed, birth control does not allow an organ to operate as designed; breaking things is not health care. 3) Feminist politics pushed the government to declare viagra and birth control to be the same; not the first irrational declaration of government. Not a declaration of the medical community.

I never said anyone was outlawing birth control. Nor did I ay anything about the teachings of the Church being part of the court’s decisions. And of course women want the same benefits that men get.

I rest my case, you agree with government, so it must be health care.

Ok…

 

[Stephen168]

Back to Nazi Germany.

It does surprise me when people look to the government as the source of reason and morals.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Birth control has been a component of medical care way before Viagra, and insurance companies paid for it way before Viagra…

In addition to that, the Catholic Church is the only entity that forbids artificial birth control for the reasons it does. Even the Muslims, Jews, and non-Catholic Christians don’t have the same rules. So, I have no idea why one would expect the secular civil authorities to back it up let alone recognize it and base civil laws on it. Without the knowledge about the unitive and procreative properties that the Church requires, there is no reason to outlaw birth control yet allow Viagra. People compare the two because they don’t have the teachings of the Church on the unitive and procreative properties that the Church requires as a foundation. With knowledge of the Church’s rules in this matter, one can see that the two are completely different.

So from a secular perspective, I can see how they would require payment for both if one is covered: Both allow the sexual freedom of the patient. So speaking from a secular perspective, why should viagra be covered so that men can have sex, if women can’t have medications that will enable them to have sex (without consequences). Both are for enhancing the sexual life of those taking the medications. Because why does one use birth control? for sex without the worry of pregnancy.

I’m not sure one can justify mandating coverage for Viagra or contraceptives or abortifacients from a secular standpoint. They increase the cost of insurance for everyone, but not to save lives or improve health. They are all manipulations of the normal functions of the human body, (which includes aging in the case of Viagra, and aging is normal) using medically-tested chemicals to do it, and in a medical setting. And both are designed to enhance totally voluntary activity. Disease is not voluntary. It imposes itself. So, to the extent scarce resources are used to enhance voluntary activity, they reduce resources for things that really do save lives or improve health, for conditions that are not voluntary.

It seems to me, then, that if a man wants Viagra, he ought to pay for it, 100%. If a woman wants to have sex without conception, she should pay for that 100% as well. If, by doing that, the overall cost of insurance goes down by any amount, a secular purpose is served, which is increasing resources available for things that really do save lives or improve health, and which people otherwise cannot, themselves, control.

What all of this healthcare debate does not seem to take into account is the fact that resources for healthcare, as with all other good things, are limited. As a consequence of our seeming refusal to accept the fact that resources are limited, we find ever greater portions of national income going to debt service, thus reducing limited resources even more.