| To the Editor: Grand Rapids man: Religious persecution still occurs in U.S. |
| Written by James Hodak |
| Wednesday, 01 February 2012 09:33 |
|
Catholic employers will be punished for practicing their faith, thanks to the Obama Administration. The recent Health and Human Services edict requiring Catholic employers to provide coverage for some abortion-causing drugs, contraception and sterilization is a brazen act of arrogance that reveals the administration's disapproval for religious liberty, and for the Roman Catholic Church. One wonders if person or press will remain silent when Catholic employers are punished for living their conscious? Who said religious persecution couldn't happen in America? James Hodak Grand Rapids |
Front Page Stories
| Rossford seeks input on schools 05/19/2012 | DAVID DUPONT Sentinel Staff Writer  Ron Vincent came prepared with pencils, brainstorming exercises and blowout noise make [ ... ] |
Perrysburg Twp. tries EMS/fire levy 05/19/2012 | CHAYSE HELD Sentinel Staff Writer  PERRYSBURG - Perrysburg Township Board of Trustees have approved the placement of a ne [ ... ] | Other Front Page Articles
| ||
Comments
We should hold out hope that the individual mandate is struck down, and that we see a repeal of the Health Care law, and the removal of government from health care altogether. With the government restrictive on insurance companies (both state and federal), as well as the impact of third party payers in general, we ave plenty of items that can be fixed.
What's the difference?
Try living in the ghetto with bullets flying around, Jimmy. Try living as a TLBG person and having doors slammed in your face as you're told "we don't hire/rent/serve your kind here" or be afraid of having some good ol' boy redneck wanting to use your head for baseball practice.
The wording was wrong, as I mentioned (and I'm upset no one commented, was hoping for at least one). But the underlying point is, should they be forced to have insurance that covers contraceptives? Why can't their employees just have to pay for that out of pocket?
With the number of exemptions existing for the law, this seemed like a reasonable request. They aren't trying to skirt the whole law, just want a special coverage which they will provide
I remember there is a person you'd like to forget when speaking of birth control.
A person who rights of any kind what so ever are violated. Talk about dogmatic bigotry, you butcher your object of hatred and they have never even said a word or had thought about you.
Keep telling yourself that. When this genocide is finally given it's day there will be such an outcry, child labor atrocities will seem like a kindergarten spat.
As is usual from the Mandatory Motherhood Mob, their tactics of demonization and dehumanization of providers and their patients are failing miserably.
Gee, Gargie... could it be the fanatics putting bullets in the heads of the doctors performing these *legal* procedures are beginning to wake to people up to your immoral fanaticism?
You are ignorant of freedoms demands if you believe the only ones involved are the woman and doctor. I you want to "demand" it is only the woman and doctor you must protect freedom for all. Violating anyones freedom in defense of your own, dooms your own. You are not free to kill another, period regardless of who the law calls a person protected.
Freedoms demands will be kept one way or another, bank on it.
Abortion providers have done more work to protect freedom for all than you could possibly imagine. Abortion is NOT the taking of human life. There is no human until a person CHOOSES to procreate. Try simple logic.
What people don't understand is that health insurance and health care are two different things.
No body will do away with service to poor, rich, in between, if we remove insurers from the equation. Additionally, the need for health care (the more costly services) could be minimzed with better care being taken by all. But if you smoke, drink, etc, you and you alone should face the financial burden, rich or poor. Under the current system, the rich pay lower amounts for their indiscreations (even in the newer system) than the poor.
Not everyone will agree to everything, but we need more productive talks, something that isn't available with the two larger political parties.
There are many things that on the surface may seem off putting to some when it comes to the LP, but once you dive into the solutions suggested and the probable outcomes, there is a lot of good (and even some compromise) which can exist with people across the political spectrum.
"There are many things that on the surface may seem off putting to some when it comes to the LP, but once you dive into the solutions suggested and the probable outcomes, there is a lot of good (and even some compromise) which can exist with people across the political spectrum."
I have yet to see a liberatarian willing to compromise on anything. Give me a break Nathan!
Plus you must always understand what it is to compromise. The Libertarian Party stands by Principles which are very simplistic. Individual freedoms for all guaranteed under our constitution, free market principles, and an open society.
I'd recommend looking at the website for the LP, www.lp.org, and read the FAQ and the introduction pages. There you will see insight on real libertarianism.
Even though I am not 100% in step with your platform, this is another area for which I give you credit.
The fanatics who started this movement are in now way, shape or form even *close* to being Libertarians -- I call them "TeaBirchers", due to the fact the Kochs were the ones who began this "party" and their daddy was the initial funding source, and the two brothers are still key members of the fanatical John Birch Society.
Point is, no one should be forced to carry, pay for, or provide insurance. The third party payer system actually raises rates on everyone, as negotiated payments cause increases in costs pushed to uninsured or under insured. If the third party payer system was different, the insurance giants would not exist and doctor visits would cost a lot less.
Now, as it pertains to the IRS and taxes, yes, certain organizations can get preferential treatment through the non-profit statutes. I, of course, believe we need to abolish the IRS and the Internal Revenue Code. This being the case, I think we would be back to square one.
That is of course that no one should be compelled, coerced, or forced to buy any product for any reason. Let it be an individual or a business (which is a collection of individuals).
If it is not covered under insurance (which the Church does provide), it can be purchased with personal funds.
ESPECIALLY if the employer may deny human rights like health coverage to an individual.
Employers can be compelled to serve black people. They can be compelled to provide health coverage according to humanist principles. We must not let churches and/or corporations (or school boards) trounce the rights of individuals.
Also: considering how employer health coverage is at better rates than individually purchased insurance (as you admitted previously) telling employees to purchase their own is tantamount to leaving the working poor out to dry. Sorry, I'm not with you on that.
Individuals need to care for their own health, and it should not be the employers burden. If that is a fact, would you be willing to let employers fire all those that smoke? Or how about firing all those that are overweight? Considering these items lead to the highest rate of health issues in our country, wouldn't that be the right thing to do if the employers are fully responsible? Why should they pay for employees poor health choices?
If everyone is required to either purchase insurance, or is added on to Medicaid, then that means costs go down, and ERs won't be full of uninsured people, which drives up medical expenses.
Remember when Shrub said that *everyone* had health care -- just go to the ER?
Based on only basic macro-economics, this is not the case. The laws of supply and demand, which can not be argued in any fashion, dictate that such interference such as requiring all to purchase insurance may drive down insurance costs, but not the services which they pay for.
As an example, with car insurance, do you believe that the cost to fix a vehicle has been brought down over the years due to more people having insurance? Has the cost associated with bodily injury been decreased?
The same goes for medical care, education expenses, and so on. If there is a floor created from government interference or collusion in the market place, the price can not come down.
Can definitely talk more to this in the next post.
Due to restrictions of becoming an insurer, the market is essentially only so many different vendors for individual choice. There are many economic rationales behind the thought of removing the requirement, or at the very least changing how insurers do business in Ohio by removing restrictive policies for new entrants into the state.
Now, the next largest will have slightly higher costs. The next will have even larger costs. This is due to bargaining power. However, under your example, the poorest among us will actually face much higher rates of insurance (due to the precondition requirements as well), and will face still the highest costs of out of pocket.
But there is the issue of promoting good health through better life choices. That is the number one way to bring down costs.
I was just put back on Medicaid after a two-year battle, and you can be assured that I'm going to be taking advantage of the system, because I haven't been able to afford a damn thing since I was kick off.
At least I have a PCP instead of relying on the ER for health care, and that means I don't drive up the costs for those with insurance because the hospital had to eat the fees.
My dad recently had two major health scares late last year, and I have no doubt I may have what caused him to have his last hospital stay, or I could have COPD. Now that I have a PCP I can get tested!
I bore these costs from my own actions, and even though I have insurance 80% of the care is my responsibility. It is a heavy burden, but again, one which I have to take on.
Healthful lifestyles has to be promoted, but individual choices will still be made. Those that choose unhealthy items which lead to health issues are the ones who should bear the burden.
Simple request.
Further, comparing the church to current corporate cronysm is not accurate.
Further, the government interference in health care is the biggest issue. Remove insurers from the process, and its a much better world. You should need insurance to receive healthcare. Do you need car insurance to get a repair or new paint job for your care?
Bottom line, the government telling the church or individuals they must buy health insurance is the top issue.
The bottom line is that the Church is exploiting workers WHO HAVE NO CHOICE but to work a job. The job market is not so labile as you seem to imagine.) Poor folks REALLY DO depend on paychecks and health insurance.
But you did miss the point. You are suggesting that even though thousands of exemptions have been given for other companies and organizations, the church should nt receive an exemption, as simple as not providing coverage for contracptives. The insurance can be comprehensive except for that, and they ask only for that allowance. Why is this worse than McDonalds being exempt to the rules providing coverage for all employers?
Some chapters did pull out of the program, whining about "oppression" or some sort of BS, but it was the fact the Catholic Charities no longer were receiving special treatment, and had to operate under the same rules as everyone else.
We have to look at why they receive such funds in the first place.
But as well, the law is flawed in general, and is actually hurting all of us. Everything from HIPPA and other 90's healthcare related legislation has added to the cost of providing care. Add in the power of the third party payer system, and we know why costs have skyrocketed.
But do you believe that even if they stop receiving funds that they will not be attacked for not providing contraception coverage?
I'm fairly certain you do, none of those things are required to be under federal regulation. The law is all that's required and the law has been by haters of religion made seperate from religion. Now they want to run religion.
It is to be expected.
No I'm just using the laws as they are interpreted by the likes of you. Religion is never dead, just changed. There is always a god, whether it be God or a person who makes themselves out to be a god as is in your case. You are a religious zealot.
We COULD also throw in the number killed by the Crusades, but that is a different flavor of historical phenomenon. No less brutal and unjust.
I consider both 9 million over 8 or 9 hundred years and 6 million in a few years to both be unspeakable crimes. You described them perfectly as "systematic mechanized slaughter of...autonomous post-natal individuals." Your accurate description applies to all of the historical genocides we can think of.
When Congressman Stupak of Michigan tried to get the Bishops to sit down and talk aboout how to fix these problems he saw coming in health care the Bishops wouldn't. Instead they had people haress this Catholic Congressman. His district, Michigan 1, is half of MI and has less people than Lucas County. High unemployment for decades, low wages and alot of seniors. The Bishops forget this isn't Italy where the government does what the church wants, not the people, an unelected theocracy.
RSS feed for comments to this post.