Front Page
- National
- International
- Most Popular
- Magazine
- Forums
- Blogs
- Videos/Podcasts
- Newsletters
News
- Most Popular
- National
- International
- East
- Midwest
- South Central
- Southeast
- West
Topics
- P&C Companies
- Agents & Brokers
- Government
- Markets/Coverages
- Operations
- Claims
- More Topics
Magazines
- East
- Midwest
- South Central
- Southeast
- West
- Subscribe
Directories
Jobs
- Sales
- Marketing
- Management
- Finance
- Claims
- Underwriting
- Other
Features
Subscribe

Md. Catholics Embark on 100-Mile Walk to Protest Birth Control Coverage

July 31, 2012

July 31, 2012 at 1:35 pm

googlegal says:

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
79
100
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
How are they “being forced to violate their religious beliefs and their consciences?” No-one says they have to TAKE the contraceptives, just that they have to be covered. Has the Catholic Church noticed all the teen and single mothers with unwanted, neglected children in this country? Things have to change with the times or we are doomed to repeat the past.

Reply
- August 2, 2012 at 11:52 am
  
  Judy Dudich says:
  
  Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
  57
  31
  We are being forced by being mandated to take an implicit part (i.e. including contraceptives, abortificients, and sterilization services) in our private health care packages when these things are contradictory to our religious belief. Further students and employees are then forced to have these things included in their health care when they purchase it, as well. The Catholic Church is not denying anyone’s choice to take or not take … to buy or not buy…these products and services…It is saying that the Federal Govt does not have a right to usurp the religious freedom and expression of schools, institutions, and businesses, who, by their beliefs, do not want to offer/provide or have any part (even implicitly) in the dispensing of these things to others. The Constitution of the USA protects the religious liberty and freedom of expression of its citizens through the First Amendment and the Government is denying that.
  
  Reply
  - August 2, 2012 at 4:06 pm
    
    BS says:
    
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    36
    52
    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
    I don’t think that the Church should have to provide Church birth control to their nuns living and working in their convents or to the rectory staff.
    
    However, when the Church is running public organizations like universities and hospitals, they should be required to provide the same insurance as any other secular organization. A public bank should not be able to refuse to provide insurance that won’t cover blood transfusions, just because it’s owner is a Jehovah’s Witness. Why does the Church deserve special dispensation? No matter what religion the business’ owners are, once it’s operating in the public, secular world, and possibly employing people who are not members of that religion, it needs to adhere to the same rules as every other business organization.
    
    Reply
    - August 3, 2012 at 4:36 pm
      
      CalDude says:
      
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      3
      42
      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
      Nuns take birth control pills?
      
      Reply
  - August 2, 2012 at 4:23 pm
    
    googlegal says:
    
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    29
    50
    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
    That right is given to the individual not to the organization. Just because coverage is offered doesn’t mean you have to take advantage of it. If they were truly comfortable with their parishiners following the doctrine, what are they worried about? Maybe there would be many “practicing” Catholics that would take advantage of birth control? A family has the right to limit the number of children it brings into the world. That’s only being fiscally and morally responsible.
    
    Reply
    - August 2, 2012 at 4:40 pm
      
      googlegal says:
      
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      24
      48
      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
      Well said, BS.
      
      Reply
July 31, 2012 at 1:40 pm

NotOpiniated says:

Hot debate. What do you think?
26
20
You’re right….times have changed and I agree with you …even so, I am even cautious about tapping out a response…..but I think the term pirvate insurance plans…would include any insurance plans that they (Catholic Church) offer to their employees…..They still have the employer contribution.

Reply
July 31, 2012 at 1:46 pm

thebiggerlebowski says:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
101
56
Cue the Catholic haters in 3…2…1…

The government is FORCING Catholics to fund a specific “obligation” which is against Catholic teaching. This forces Catholics to cooperate in what our faith teaches is an extrinsic evil, which is the separation of the material (the pleasure of the sexual act) from the spiritual (the purpose of conjugal love). I realize that to a non-Catholic or fallen-away Catholic, that may make no sense. But at least try to learn why the forced funding of contraception is offensive to Catholics and a violation of our core beliefs, before attacking us. Your artificial dichotomy between forcing us to pay for it versus forcing us to “take” it is a non-sequitur.

As Catholics we respect your right to pay for yourself or others to contracept. We simply ask that the government respect OUR right NOT to do so. That’s really not so much to ask. What happens when the government forces you to pay for something you believe is offensive?

Reply
- July 31, 2012 at 2:24 pm
  
  CalDude says:
  
  Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
  49
  78
  Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
  Funny. They didn’t ask me if I wanted my money to defend the parish due to covering child abuse or sending my monies to the “pro-marriage” political hacks. Hippocrites, all of them.
  
  Reply
- July 31, 2012 at 2:48 pm
  
  Jon says:
  
  Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
  65
  77
  Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
  I’d have more sympathy for the Catholic Church if they didn’t spend so much time, effort and money to conceal and protect child-molesting sexual predators from justice.
  
  But they do, so I don’t. That’s the bare honest truth of it.
  
  I suppose I would be okay if they didn’t have to fund the contraceptive part of their health insurance plan if they gave up all the lovely tax immunities and breaks they get from the government.
  
  That would work too.
  
  Reply
  - July 31, 2012 at 3:18 pm
    
    Jon says:
    
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    59
    71
    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
    And for all you “red-checkers” who can’t face the simple truth of it…there’s another article–on IJ today–about an insurance company filing for declarative judgment that they do not have to defend the catholic church for sexual predation stemming from instances from the 1930′s – 1970′s. Forced sodomy, fondling, cash-for-sex. From Church clergy targeting children.
    
    Yup. No sympathy.
    
    http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2012/07/31/257650.htm
    
    Reply
    - August 7, 2012 at 4:02 pm
      
      MI INS GUY says:
      
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      0
      37
      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
      While you are totally off base trying to intertwine the two matters, the insurance company has every right to seek the judgement. No underwriter in their right mind during the time period mentioned would have considered an intentional act by a minister to be an insured act.
      
      Reply
      - August 7, 2012 at 6:31 pm
        
        Jon says:
        
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        15
        40
        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
        Way to misread.
        
        The article is just an example that the church is still embroiled in sexual abuse scandal.
        
        Of course the insurance company has every right to seek the judgment.
        
        The article even mentions that the church is basically putting every possible defense resource on notice, shotgun-style, hoping that they’ll hit upon something that will have to assist with the defense.
- August 2, 2012 at 3:38 pm
  
  Jon says:
  
  Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
  30
  44
  Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
  Oh, and your opening comment is pure hyperbole.
  
  Being frustrated and fed up with the actions of the Catholic church does not make one a “hater” of the approximately 1 billion Catholics out there.
  
  Setting yourself up to be the victim does not do much to help make your point.
  
  Reply
- August 6, 2012 at 2:02 pm
  
  RGM says:
  
  Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
  35
  0
  GOD Bless you my friend! I’m Christian Catholic, we are.
  
  Reply
July 31, 2012 at 1:50 pm

Really? says:

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
43
63
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Those of Catholic persuasion are against the death penalty but have been hapily paying taxes for decades which, indirectly, fund executions by states. Why such an issue now? Why is this any different? Can’t we make some compromise here folks…

Reply
July 31, 2012 at 1:59 pm

Sam Meek says:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
81
53
I agree with Lebowski. What the government is trying to do is patently unconstitutional. Catholics have a right to practice their faith, publicly and privately. This is an unnecessary and unconstitutional violation of that right. Remember what the First Amendment actually says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Although I am not Catholic, I can appreciate the affront my Catholic brothers and sisters are feeling when the government tells them they HAVE to pay for something that is so totally against the practice of their faith.

And I agree that this board brings out the worst in non-Catholics and those that hate Catholics. Let’s try to keep this nice and professional, eh?

Reply
- July 31, 2012 at 5:11 pm
  
  Jon says:
  
  Hot debate. What do you think?
  67
  64
  How, exactly, is this unconsitutional?
  
  No one’s saying you can’t be a practising Catholic.
  
  They’re not barring church doors and making the religion illegal.
  
  Reply
July 31, 2012 at 2:16 pm

DS says:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
78
58
I’m a Catholic, but these are the types of things that frustrate me about my religion.

Just because a plan has to COVER birth control, does not mean that those members covered on the plan have to TAKE birth control. Therefore I don’t see it as an infringement on religious freedoms.

Also, note that contraception is typically covered right now on almost all medical plans, but with a copay. The only difference is that it will have to be covered with no copay now. Not much different.

There are MUCH more important things that the Church could throw their energy behind!

Reply
- August 7, 2012 at 4:12 pm
  
  MI INS GUY says:
  
  Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
  40
  17
  No true my catholic friend!
  The argument is about the FREEDOM as a religious organization to say no to the federal government. The church fathers have every right to lead the fight under separation of church and state. Sadly, this to often gets ignored by the lax values of my fellow catholics in the pews each Sunday. Were too busy thinking about my next car, vacation, et cetera to care about moral dilemmas. Time to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
  
  Reply
  - August 7, 2012 at 6:33 pm
    
    Jon says:
    
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    21
    40
    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
    …
    
    The irony.
    
    It’s almost painful.
    
    Reply
    - August 8, 2012 at 10:32 am
      
      thebiggerlebowski says:
      
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      43
      22
      Your attacks on Catholics on this board are painful and unnecessary, Jon. The issue is whether the government can force a religious institution to violate its teachings, and rather than respond in a thoughtful and logical manner you drag out every issue you can layyour hands on to support an irrational arguement that the Church lacks the moral ground to raise a Constitutional issue. You would gladly deny to the Church the rights given to murderers. That’s where the hatred comes in. We’re quite sick to death of the ad hominum and ad institutional attacks. Try sticking to the issue.
      
      Reply
      - August 8, 2012 at 11:15 am
        
        Libby says:
        
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        19
        39
        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
        Churches and other houses of worship are exempt from the guidelines but Catholic hospitals, colleges, and social services are covered by the law. I’m sure not everyone that works at a Catholic hospital, college or social service is Catholic. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to make the choice of contraception? If the Church doesn’t want to pay for it, pass the cost on to the employee. A tenet of Catholicism is free will. Allow everyone to make their choice and let the chips fall where they may come judgement day.
      - August 8, 2012 at 11:32 am
        
        Sam Meek says:
        
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        40
        16
        Re: Libby >> As you point out, they do have free will to violate their faith. But requiring the Church to *fund* that choice and “pass the cost on to the employee” 1) would require co-employees to fund their colleagues’ actions, and 2) would still entail the Church’s cooperation with what it believes to be an intrinsic evil. As an aside, passing on the cost misses the entire point of the mandate.
      - August 8, 2012 at 12:41 pm
        
        libby says:
        
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        22
        37
        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
        Ths point is, if those institutions are for-profit,the Church can not use it’s status as a religious entity to protest. My employer may not agree on moral grounds either, but that’s the law.
      - August 9, 2012 at 5:06 pm
        
        Jon says:
        
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        21
        35
        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
        That’s utter bull, lebowski.
        
        Show me where I’ve attacked an individual on this board.
        
        I *could* have easily done so. The monumental hypocrisy being shown by some of the professed Catholics on this board can be staggering.
        
        The simple truth of the matter is this: The law as stated affects everyone equally. It doesn’t prevent a Catholic from being a Catholic. It doesn’t prevent a buddhist from his meditations, or a Wiccan from celebrating Ostara.
        
        Sorry you don’t like the truth, but there you have it.
        
        If I wanted to be nasty–I could easily draw a comparison about protesting Catholics and the more negative members of the Occupy movement… :)
        
        But I’m not willing to stoop that low.
      - August 9, 2012 at 6:33 pm
        
        BS says:
        
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        22
        35
        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
        I love how the only time people scream about “separation of church and state” when things don’t go their way.
        
        Gay marriage should not be allowed because marriage is a sacred and holy pact between man and woman. Even though marriage is a civil contract between two people that can be enacted without any involvement with a religious entity, it goes against god, so we need to create a law or constitutional amendment to ban it it!
        
        How dare the government require our public, Catholic hospital to provide insurance that covers contraception? It doesn’t matter that we operate as any other secular corporation does and that we employ Jews, Muslims and Lutherans who don’t even follow Catholic teachings. We’re the Church and you can’t tell us what to do!
        
        Separation of church and state ONLY when it affects US.
        
        The hypocrisy is staggering.
        
        Tell you what. Once religions stop trying to impose their rules and beliefs on the government and society as a whole, and only deal with those within their circle of believers, then I’ll support their cry of ‘separation of church and state.” Until then, they get absolutely no sympathy from me on this issue.
July 31, 2012 at 2:25 pm

googlegal says:

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
59
71
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I don’t believe I was attacking Catholics. I just think there needs to be some recognition of what is happening in the real world and, although it may be offensive, realize it may be a very good thing to do for the sake of others. Would they rather fund thousands of unwanted children and what results from them becoming unloved, neglected adults? I don’t see many standing in line to do that.

P.S. I find it offensive to pay for executing people.

Reply
- July 31, 2012 at 3:22 pm
  
  AlsoOffended says:
  
  Hot debate. What do you think?
  49
  48
  First, I’m not sure what your “P.S” comment has to do with this topic.
  
  Second, while I don’t think it’s denying religious freedom by requiring birth control coverage specifically, I do think the bigger issue is that the government is putting a restriction or requirement on a religous organization. To some, this is a small issue, but a stand is needed now to prevent larger, more invasive “requirements” in the future. I think the government is stepping over its bounds on this one.
  
  And yes, I would rather fund the unwanted children, than fund someones “right” to ignore any consequences and to partake in any activity I find biblically wrong. By that I don’t mean I find contraception wrong, but using it to validate sexual activity out of wedlock is. Maybe the money being wasted by the government trying to force this issue should go towards that fund.
  
  Or we could add an addendum – if this is required, then the church is provided a list of those who partake of the benefit? Maybe you would think twice if you had to look your religious leader in the eye every week knowing he knows…
  
  Reply
- August 2, 2012 at 5:15 pm
  
  insurance is fun! says:
  
  Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
  1
  45
  Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
  with heads planted firmly in the sand, they would rather have neither
  
  Reply
July 31, 2012 at 3:02 pm

BS says:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
79
59
As far as I’m concerned, any religion that spends more time condemning it’s nuns for not being obedient enough, than punishing it’s priests for preying on young children loses the right to claim any kind of moral authority.

Reply
July 31, 2012 at 5:08 pm

Ruminator says:

Hot debate. What do you think?
49
50
The government needs to stay out of private health care facilities and programs of all types.

Reply
- July 31, 2012 at 5:18 pm
  
  Jon says:
  
  Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
  40
  56
  Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court said otherwise.
  
  Reply
August 1, 2012 at 8:14 am

Little Frog says:

Hot debate. What do you think?
54
55
All of these posts togather is a great illustration of why “we” cannot even agree on the color of poop these days. I’m not Catholic and I don’t need to be, to understand that our Federal Govt has no right role or purpose to demand that a religeous organization subsidize a voluntary activity that is contrary to their beliefs. That is the issue to be decided here. Also, as horiffic as the abuse scandles and crimes are; they really have nothing to do with THIS debate.

By the way Jon; at one time, the US SUPREME Court also ruled that not only were slaves who had escaped to “free” states still property, but could be forcibly returned to their owners.

Reply
- August 2, 2012 at 2:54 pm
  
  Jon says:
  
  Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
  29
  46
  Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
  “By the way Jon; at one time, the US SUPREME Court also ruled that not only were slaves who had escaped to “free” states still property, but could be forcibly returned to their owners.”
  
  Really? That’s what you had to dig up and say? Really??
  
  Okay, 1) My statement was just that–a statement. There was neither ‘for’ or ‘against’ intent in my statement.
  
  And if you want to throw that dirty blanket around, please make sure you have it cover not just the mean ol’ USA, but also Great Britain, the Greeks, Romans, Norse, the abundance of African Tribes, the Roman Catholic Church, the Egyptians, and just about every major cultural and societal entity down throughout history.
  
  I’m sure with just a little bit of effort, you could dig up more assinine and horrible laws around the world too.
  
  Reply
- August 2, 2012 at 4:37 pm
  
  BS says:
  
  Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
  31
  46
  Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
  As I said above, if a religious organization is operating in the public, secular sector, they need to adhere to the same rules as any other business.
  
  If a priest does not want to provide insurance that includes contraception to the women who work at his church, I have no problem with that. Internal church employees, working in the church/on behalf of the Church have to deal with Church rules.
  
  However, Mr. Smith, the CEO at St. Mary’s Catholic Hospital* does not get the same consideration. While it may be closely affiliated with the Church, St. Mary’s is a public entity, operating in the secular world outside of the Church, employing and serving non-Catholics. It needs to be held to the same standards as the county hospital.
  
  *I have no idea if this is a real hospital, just used a random saint’s name.
  
  Reply
August 2, 2012 at 1:54 pm

insurance is fun! says:

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
26
47
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I just wish the Catholic church could accept a little bit of science and get into the 19th century. Over the years they have changed rules. Their stance on this could change, too…in another 100 years, maybe.

AND, it is simply idiotic for anyone to make 1 topic (and only 1 topic) their sole basis for supporting (or not) a platform or a candidate.

Reply
August 2, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Two way street says:

Hot debate. What do you think?
50
47
Since religious institutions are part of the economy and are frequently taking advantage of government largess – faith based charities collecting government funds, receiving income tax breaks, etc. – they should be subject to the same rules as others in operating in the economy.

If those religious institutions wish to give up all of their subsidies, tax abatements, and other government payments, I would not have an objection to them creating health insurance plans that fit their moral beliefs. If they do, the added tax revenues (including revenues from taxes for failing to provide the required health services) would cover the increased costs for society to provide those services that they believe conflict with their beliefs.

Unless and until churches and other religious groups give up their government benefits and subsidies (including tax breaks), I have no sympathy for their plight. It is a two way street. If you take from the government, you have to play by its rules.

Reply
August 6, 2012 at 10:09 am

LiveFree says:

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5
44
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
It is sad that so many have hate toward the Catholic Church. I mean I understand why, they have had a great deal of black marks throughout their history. But as a Catholic I get to personally see all the good they do as well. I do believe if this was a different religion they would be getting a lot more support for their arguement or at least a lot loss venom against them.

That being said, I do see both sides of the sound arguements here. The people taking the “cover” vs “take” stance are off base. You must understand it is implicting against the church beliefs to even fund this. However the Church did sell it’s soul to the devil, I mean gov’t ;), with tax breaks and subsidies and therefore can’t really make much of a case either.

Reply
- August 6, 2012 at 10:36 am
  
  Jon says:
  
  Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
  17
  40
  Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
  So where’s the hate?
  
  I mean, if your feeling so victimized…you should at least be able to specifically identify examples.
  
  I’ve personally witnessed a Catholic priest blame 9/11 on “the lapse of Catholic faith in America.”
  
  Now, there’s a lot of frustration with the church–which I think they’ve rightfully earned. Perhaps if they actually clean their house, and actually embrace the tenets of their faith…there’d be a change in public opinion.
  
  Reply
  - August 6, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    
    LiveFree says:
    
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    10
    38
    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
    I did not state my opinion clear enough, sorry. I do not and don’t believe I said I feel victimized. And I completely understand the frustration with the church as I myself have my own frustrations with the church. I could not agree with your statements more except that I think it is naive to say that there is no hate toward the catholic church. Undoubtedly the church has caused much of the frustration that has in many cases turned into a hatred, it is still hatred and therefore is an extreme and unnecessary reaction. Every religion has crazy and extreme people in it that do not represent the whole but create the unjust stereotypes. Sadly in the catholic church’s case a lot of thoes people are also leaders of the church.
    
    Reply
    - August 7, 2012 at 8:18 am
      
      Libby says:
      
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      6
      43
      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
      You think church leaders are crazy and extreme? I don’t think you meant to say that. There are no more “haters” of Catholicism as there have been for decades. I think the feeling is more the same as the feelings people have towards Penn State. We do not blame the players or students, but the leaders that covered up child abuse on a scale much, much lower than the Catholic Church did. That is what is hated. The cover up and abuse of children. Not the church or it’s members.
      
      Reply
      - August 7, 2012 at 9:04 am
        
        LiveFree says:
        
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        10
        39
        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
        No I meant what I said. I would call priests leaders of the church and there were, as you poitned out, some that were abusing children. I would call that a type of crazy (and sick). And yes some are extreme that won’t even accept the science behind evolution (just an example don’t want to get into that lol). That I would call extreme.
August 9, 2012 at 1:46 pm

Bob says:

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6
45
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Just my 2 cents here but there are numerous items that my plan does not cover such as pills to help one lose weight. As obesity is epidemic in this country and negatively impacting the health and well being of individuals.

My point is that health plans all have different terms and conditions and in a free market the employer make a decision as to what benefits versus cost are most adventageous to the employee base and will allow the employer to keep the most employee’s satisfied.

There are many things that I would like for my health plan to cover, but as we all know the plans are set up to meet the needs of the whole and unfortunatley the decisions of what to cover or not to cover are sometimes not what everyone wants.

My problem with this whole matter is not religous freedom but rather the government forcing anyone to make a purchase that they do not want. I understand and appreciate the argument that the government via our taxes has many programs funded that some find objectionable, in a free society that is the way that it goes. We hope that our elected officials will only enact those programs that are for the good of all.

What will this president do next, require each of us to donate to the NAACP or one of the other organizations the he has choosen to support in the past. I say to the federal government get out of my checkbook and let me decide what is best for me.

Reply
- August 9, 2012 at 2:32 pm
  
  BS says:
  
  Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
  15
  35
  Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
  Bob said: “…My problem with this whole matter is not religious freedom but rather the government forcing anyone to make a purchase that they do not want”
  
  No one is being forced to buy birth control. Public organizations are being required to provide insurance that will offer it. The individual can elect to purchase it or not as they see fit.
  
  “…What will this president do next, require each of us to donate to the NAACP or one of the other organizations the he has chosen to support in the past.”
  
  You know, you actually had a couple of good, rational points. Did you really need to throw in the ignorant, barely-concealed racist comment at the end?
  
  Reply
- August 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm
  
  Libby says:
  
  Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
  11
  29
  Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
  “My point is that health plans all have different terms and conditions and in a free market the employer make a decision as to what benefits versus cost are most adventageous to the employee base”
  
  Not any more.
  
  And birth control is advantageous to the entire world.
  
  Reply
  - August 16, 2012 at 1:53 pm
    
    Bob says:
    
    Like or Dislike:
    2
    11
    Libby,
    You are correct as we are no longer a free nation but rather a socilist state. What a shame!
    
    Reply

Add a Comment Cancel reply

More News

More News Features

Insurance Jobs

LIVE MAY 23: 8 Court Cases every insurance professional should know!
ON-DEMAND: The Agent's Role in Enterprise Risk Management
ON-DEMAND: Why Should I Hire You as My Insurance Agent?