Oklahoma Schools Destroyed by Tornado Lacked ‘Safe Rooms’
Connecticut Court Rules That Lawyers Can’t Be Sued for Fraud
Wage and Hour Claims Among Top Threats to U.S. Employers
Cyber Attacks On Banks More Serious Than Public Realizes
E&O Insights: Restaurant and Tavern Risks
CEA’s First CIO Reflects C-Suite Trend
Golf and Country Clubs Weather the Storm
Midwest AGs Go After Storm-Chasing Roofing CompaniesFree Newsletters
Sign up to receive insurance news alerts!Most Popular
Current Issue
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
when will the church and the government get out of our bedrooms?!
Time to get religion out of politics too!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
So the Bishops, Priests, Pastors and other religious leaders who have committed pedophilia, adultery, homosexuality, drug use, etc. are the upfront a$$holes to which you are referring?
It does not matter if you are religious or not, you either respect others or you do not, period.
The assholes of which I am referring are the ones involved in every day dating.
They were not references to pedophilia.
And you would do well to note: Pedohpilia as I have stated is wrong, period.
A study in 1998 showed in 6 months 224 valid cases of teacher student were reported, primarilly women on men.
A majority were let go, with on having been a 13 year old boy, with a 43 year old woman, which they said the boy was just “satisfying his sexual needs”.
How’s that for bias?
Last year there were only about 8.5 incidences considered valid in the catholic church.
I might add, the studies show that between 7-10% of students in school experience some sort of inappropriate sexual behavior. The only reason we know this?
It was part of a mandatory study added to the “no child left behind act”. Something that forced the government and schools to live up to a certain “standard”. Some of you have said here that the government or schooling has a lower standard of churches. What a joke guys.
And I should note Ron since it flew over your head:
I am agnostic, let me say that again I am agnostic,
Let me say that again:
I am agnostic.
Ok, moving on: The power of someone who tries to state they are freeing you from religion (especially around seattle) it the moving force behind so many bad people, it far outweighs the power of someone telling you “oh what you’re doing is wrong!” boo hoo!
I don’t care if an idiot tells me I need to have a higher standard (even if they are so stupid to be a hypocrite, like some christians are, see I’m insulting both extremes friend)
I care if someone uses some sob story about how I’m chained up by religion to influence my actions, sleep with me, or unite me against religion, or buy my vote.
And for you as a younger male (I can tell) to state you have not seen this sob story of people saying the old “mmmaaannn, religion is just a matter of opinion, it’s holding ya back man, it’s opressive!” (to some degree) while this same man goes from woman, to woman, to woman, to woman, to woman, to woman, means you are not a well versed young man. It’s literally a pick up style. Tell the woman society has been against her, religion holds her down, get her away from the church which tells her to wait until marriage, and bam, you get laid.
I see much more bad on the side of people who fight against religion, than those who fight for it. I don’t necessarilly like either.
And as I said: It’s about the actual effects. Respect is respect, you’re correct. Reality is also reality. If you’re going to label religions (without evidence) then you should be willing to acknowledge how those who fight against religion fight against religion, and manipulate in that route. After all, we are against all tyranny right? There is tyranny outside the church right?
Have you fallen for the non religious bad person’s method of making you watch for one side, blind siding you to their errors? That’s how those type work. Again: This is not to say ALL non-religious folk do this, I AM AGNOSTIC. Would I be insulting myself?
There’s bad in all. I don’t discrimin-hate when it comes to saying something is hateful.
Ron, I won’t read Bob anymore for exactly your last statement. He doesn’t respect others. He’s a bully, calls people names all of the time, tries to belittle them with words like “moron”, “stupid”, and “idiot”. He acts as though he is king of the Insurance Journal sandbox and what he says goes. Quite frankly, I have no time for bullies. And, from my experience, if you ignore them, they go away. And, if they don’t go away, at least you aren’t involved with them, so problem solved. Yes, Bob keeps taking handfuls of sand and attempts to throw them at me. But, I’m on the opposite end of the playground and he doesn’t have the arm to reach me. He also thinks W Bush is an above average President. So, should you decide to engage him, take what he says with a grain of…we’ll stick with the analogy, sand.
Captain:
Your belittling comments are the other side of the coin.
You actually believe Bush is a below average president. I’ll use that for your credibility as well, but add, “with absolutely no evidence, no laws that he passed or removed that harmed the economy as proof”.
The “it’s common sense” argument doesn’t work, and will result in me calling you an idiot.
Explain yourself. Idiot. :)
Further: You spoke without facts on rape and molestation, and were wrong, while stating how horrible the church was.
How do you not define that as bullying and bigotry?
True on that Bob. Two low life deadbeats pulled that over my daughter. Now, she is the most unfit mother I know. Try and steer her out of the getho and she goes in even deeper.
I think he is referring to those types of a#$h)&^$.
Any pedohile – cut it off! Make sure it never happens again.
Does that mean Viagra will also be outlawed since that makes a man want to have sex and create children? This religious way of keeping woman under the thumb has got to stop. All this, from an institution that turns their heads for years regarding sexual abuse of minors by their priests. I find organized religions need to stick with Faith rather than esotaric beliefs. When the church steps up and helps all the unwed mothers and pays for them for Health care, school and buys food and clothing,legal fees towards the unwed father to get them to help pay as well, maybe then they could decide and make woman have a child and not allow them to have any relief from an unwanted pregnancy. They should be the ones paying for them, not all of us taxpayers.
That is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time. Besides the Church is against premarital sex too. So if you were not having sex outside of marriage, you wouldn’t be having children. You don’t have to agree with the Church but why should the government be involved in their beliefs? If you don’t agree with the teaching of the Church, don’t work for them. I think that’s pretty simple. But the government needs to butt out of religion.
Religion needs to butt out of government.
And Govt needs to butt out of Small Business.
Religion is not dominating women, the Church itself did not turn a blind eye to rape and sexual abuse, people did, and regarding this B.S. of religion keeping women under a thumb you’re just plain wrong.
Under the same theory of thinking, wouldn’t the church dispute paying for the medical care of any child conceived out of wedlock, and any medical expenses of someone who is gay??? And for that matter, if the Catholic church beleives that all of it’s employees are devout then I would think that they should have no problem including the coverage under their plan as they can’t have any reason to beleive that their employees would use the coverage.
In the end I think there are much better uses for the bishop’s time than fighting birth control.
DW, Most of the Catholics I know do not follow the teachings very closely. After all, you just go to confession and the Priest tells you to say 3 Hail Mary’s and all is forgiven. I do believe they have the right to run their various businesses/hospitals the way they want and government should butt out of their business. If they don’t want to offer birth control on their policies, they shouldn’t be forced to.
And, as a result, they lose their tax exempt status. Sure, I could agree with you then, Agent. They want to keep the tax exempt status, they need to play by the rules just like everyone else.
Captain:
Your comment doesn’t make sense. They should lose their tax exempt status for not including birth control, which is their right to not include as a religious entity?
You’re mixing crap up again.
They can decide not to offer contraception all they want. It’s a $25 dollar pill. Pay for it yourself rather than stating it’s an ideal. No. It’s not. It’s you being a greedy dumbass.
Putting the pill on an insurance plan is dumb. And you’re dumb for trying to force the church to live by your lifestyle.
The church should not have to give up their religious status to excersize their religious rights, and you have no right to force them to give free birth control, against their beliefs.
Captain’s comment notwithstanding, the church should not have tax exempt status anyway. They are a business; that’s all they really are. They sell a product. They should be taxed.
Which product do the sell?
How are they different than a non-profit organization?
More to the point: People are businesses. If I run a business, and I say I’m not paying for your birth control because I don’t believe in it, I as a person am having my rights violated by paying for your birth control.
Get over it Shirley. If I make a multi-billion dollar company, I get to say how I run it. If you want birth control, pay the $25 dollars, or go work somewhere else.
The church is not a business. Every aspect the church runs is in:
Hospitals. In the 1960′s if you taxed them, people would have died. All in the name of taking away their “power” right?
Psychology clinics: The largest in the world I might add. This isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact. They do more non-profit psychological assistance, more free services, than any organization in the world. So now that should be harder for them right?
Rape and alcohol rehibilitation: Same as the psychology.
Grow up Shirley. There is more wrong with the government than religion. Yet you follow like a sheep to Obama, and join on his bandwagon of power.
Planet, I will tell you a true story about how screwed up our health system is. In our area, we have a Catholic owned hospital that handle most of the births of new babies. If the parents want to not have any more kids and decide to tie the mothers tubes, they have to transfer to the county hospital next door and get another doctor to do that. They then transfer back and are discharged from the Catholic hospital. Not exactly an efficient use of healthcare dollars, is it? I am not sure why Catholics are Democratic voters since the Democrats are the ones who are messing them over.
Don’t they have to transfer hospitals because the Catholic hospital doesn’t do sterilizations? I know CHI hospitals don’t do any kind of sterilizations, so some of their hospitals don’t even have labor/delivery services.
Yes, JW, this is the real reason. No, Agent, no an efficient use of anyone’s dollars to have to transfer hospitals.
Maybe they should worry more about their priest’s and little boys instead of birth control.
BB:
Out of line. The church does worry about their priests. There is nothing in the church condoning rape.
And I find it insulting that you would blame rape on a religion and not people who rape.
Side comment: There are more occurences per 1000 in our schooling system than in the religious system. Is the government causing the rapes? I’m sure some people in the government wouldn’t turn in a rapist in those scenarios, but they don’t do that with the government’s ok. And neither to the priests.
My mother was raped, so was my uncle, so was my sister. None of those men were involved in the Church.
This labeling of religion is out of line. Again: I’m not sure if I believe in a God, but I definitely don’t believe in bigotry, and you my friend are actively taking place in a gossip style in your arrogance, that is the same as saying, oh man, those black churches, they totally don’t monitor their rapists.
It is no different. You cannot label a group in religion, you cannot label a color in religion, without it being exactly the same.
You’re part of the problem in this world, and there are far too many of you fake open minded cacks in the liberal crowd that try to pretend they aren’t bigoted, the whole world is, while they label religion, label an enemy, and go to war.
I don’t need you fighting against the name of religion. I don’t need the religious cacks fighting in the name of religion. Learn to balance your crap out.
Bob, I see you are having a lively discussion with our Progressive bloggers. Judging from your comments to some of them, you basically handed them their heads. They make such a big deal out of an insurance policy paying for birth control. If women really want to take the pill, they can get it inexpensively. Adding the benefit will only increase the cost and probably more per month than the pill is costing. They certainly made some idiotic comments and you sent them packing.
I’ve just had it agent.
I’m actually the agnostic who wants to believe but can’t. And I would never call say such things of this magnitude.
It’s so bigoted, these people are people. I am shocked that people are ok with being so bigoted against fellow man and jusifying it. Are we really talking about liberals here? I mean really, aren’t they supposed to be about unification? Not this tar. I imagine in another world I would have been liberal, if it was truly a force to move us out of bigotry.
Bob, It is amazing how many denominations and churches we have, all interpreting the bible in different ways. The Catholic Church has some very odd ways about them. Perhaps one of the things that give them trouble is celibacy of the priests and nuns. Most other religions allow a pastor to marry. Maybe they wouldn’t have so many sexual abuse issues if a Priest was allowed to have a wife. Getting back to the subject of this article, I do believe businesses or charities providing Health Insurance to employees should have the right to determine what benefits they offer, not what the government mandates they do.
Agent,
I would agree with you, but the Catholic priests do not have more problems with rape and molestations…
See my link below. It’s rather surprising that with over 1 billion atendees, that there have only been roughly 2,500 verified cases over the course of 1950 to the early 2000′s. 4% of priests as opposed to 6-10% of all atendees in college is substantial. We aren’t talking about 6-10% of professors. That would be a much smaller number. We are talking 6-10% of atendees. 10% of over 1 billion would be over 100 million in the Catholic church! Consider that for a moment when considering how strikingly low the occurence rate is for child molestation and rape is in the church!
Very sad to see. The church again abdicates its primary doctrinal responsibility of social justice and instead chooses to further degrade its public image by aligning itself with a political subset of one of the two faces of the American monopoly political party. To what benefit?
The U.S. Catholic bishops again sully Benedict’s reputation. His final homily hinted at the true reason for his resignation, namely his failure to enact a legacy of positive reform. The stopping power of self-interested church bureaucrats proved to be too strong, and so we see the Church continue down its unfortunate path of vitriol, divisive antiquated rhetoric and the flashy corruption of the JPII papacy. The Vatican Bank will not be taken off of the money laundering blacklist anytime soon, it seems…
Birth control pills are also used as medication for women/girls suffering from excessive menstrual symptoms such as cramps, irregular cycles, and other discomforts. The church is basically saying that any of their female employees who need hormones cannot get them in this form. That is intentionally withholding care, and relatively inexpensive care at that. Do they also prohibit certain antibiotics, such as ones used to treat venereal diseases? Maybe they want to prohibit coverage for pelvic exams and pregnancy tests for unwed females, and exclude vaccinations for cervical cancer, because then they can just deny support of any consequences of sexual relations, other than childbirth and treatment of infertility.
Fedup:
Wrong. The church is saying pay for it yourself.
Adding it to insurance raises the cost, and has someone else pay for it for you. In this scenario, it’s $25 bucks.
Pay for it yourself, and stop being a greedy moron.
And when used for other purpose, it is coded that way. Birth control is not the drug, it’s the use.
In order to mitigate risk, the Catholic Church should be more concerned about better risk management of its pedophile priests that have resulted in billions of dollars paid. In addition, it has ruined the lives of countless number of innocent children.
Insurance 102:
More rapes in classrooms than in the church. That’s a fact. Their risk management is superior.
Stop with the bigotry. People ruined the lives of countless children. Frauds in religion, not frauds due to religion.
Learn the difference.
This is not an over exaggeration: Beliefs like yours due lead to wars, people who are willing to fight and die one religion to another.
Why do some Muslims want to kill us? Well, this is why. They think it’s ok to hate and label an entity. Not a person. And they fight that entity.
Hate sin, not the sinner, if you are religious. If you are not, hate the person who comitted the act. That simple. If he loved hockey would you go blame hockey? There is nothing in church that taught the person or encouraged the person to rape. Stop with the association gig.
Bob,
The biggest reason the Catholic Church has had $ billions in judgements agsinst it is due to their handling of reported abuses by Priests. Instead of reporting them to the police and firing them, they transfer them. Every time I have heard any report of a teacher engaging in any inappropriate manner with students, they have been immediatley suspended pending an investigation and reported to the police. If it turns out the report was true, they are fired and go to trial.
That is the difference.
Ron,
That’s not a difference, that’s your bias.
The church does have a program to rehibilitate priests. Priests are only transferred if they are going into a rehbilitation program. If they don’t, they are removed.
The rate of occurence of 8.5 in a year as compared to 225 in 6 months shows it works. Let’s talk numbers not tar.
Further to the point: It is not church policy to not turn incidents into police. That is members of the church who are stupid. Regardless: Whether or not they turn someone into the government is pretty irrelavent to me. Sounds harsh, but the fact is, if the priests superiors know about the rape, the child’s parents know about the rape. If that is the case, then the parents are the ones who should be reporting the rape to the authorities. Should the priests go against the wishes of the parents?
You are suggesting the priests somehow all know and the parents don’t. That is not a possibility. Priests don’t talk about confessions. If you’re mad that the child confessed to another priest and that priest actually respected the child’s wishes to not go to someone else, then how dare you go against the child’s wishes.
Get the point, idiot?
So let’s go by “real” scenarios, something that is a matter of methodology, of which you suck.
Let’s say scenario one: A child confesses to a priest. They clearly don’t want to be going to the police or are not ready. The a priest who didn’t do the raping knows. The priest would be violating the child to go to the authorities. I’m barring the fact that he would also be going against the religion, because I know you don’t care.
Scenario two: The priest is approached, with other leaders, and is told about it. If this happens/happened (the only way superiors can know about the rape, the superiors you say are shuttling people around and aren’t turning in the case) then the parents were a part of it, and if not, the child doesn’t want them to be. If at that point the authorities were not contacted, either the child, the parents, or both didn’t want to contact the authorities. So then, you want to violate one or both of them right?
In which scenario are the priests violating the child, or hiding it and somehow know but are going against the wishes of the child or children by not going to authorities?
It’s an impossibility, but you’re too stupid to see that.
Think with your brain not your emotions. Rape is a strong subject, I’ve had 3 people in my family raped, more molested. I know it’s a bad thing. But you can’t blame the catholic church. It’s stupid. And it’s bigoted. And you know it.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Interesting how so many of you have taken the birth control issue and turned it into how priests are pedophiles. Why not look at the real issue. I made a comment and it was given 12 dislikes. I guess the truth hurts. It is so easy to take one issue and instead of putting the arguments towards it, you turn the other way and start something different. If we have religious freedom in this country, the people who work for any of the Diocese, Parish, Hospitals or Charities of the Catholic Church say they do not want to do something because of the Church’s teaching then we should allow it. To say the Catholic Church is the only one to have pedophiles within it is wrong. Since the Catholic Church has a hierchy or structure to it, the reporting is there. If you look at the mollestations that happen in smaller Church’s with no structure the numbers are much greater. So, don’t be a politician and not answer the question, say what you feel about the subject.
beyert1 says:
If you look at the mollestations that happen in smaller Church’s with no structure the numbers are much greater.
I say – source required. I worked in the church niche for over a decade and only saw a handful of sexual misconduct claims and we handled all denominations as well as non-denominational houses of worship. The Catholic Church usurps that in a given morning (okay, hyperbole there) and then harbors those spineless scums of existence. Yes, that’s exactly what a pedophile is.
Oh, and one more thing, Ron is the smartest man in the room! Every time I read something from you, I think, “You’Ron’to something.” Ba-dum chish!
Planet:
Wrong. Completely wrong.
Just looked it up, quoted it in my last post, one of the most recent years studied had 8.5 verified cases.
Your confusion is in that between 1950 to 1980 there was a spike, and then everyone basically unraveled ALL cases at the same time. Even that was only in the hundreds, possibly thousands. Divide out by 1950 to 2013, equals 63 years, even at 2,000 = 31 occurences per year.
Besides which: Provide the number of people raped.
You can’t just state he needs a source to believe what he believes, while you can just assume based on your extremely limited experience.
Captain:
While I know you will question the source, (it’s a catholic church who posted it)
They teamed up with a criminal justice, referenced below.
Here are the results of the study:
“In 2002 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned an independent study to address growing concerns about child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in the United States. The Conference enlisted the Jon Jay College of Criminal Justice to conduct this study examining rates and characteristics of the sexual abuse within the Catholic Church. This study presents the best and most objective data on this phenomenon. The researchers found that a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse against 4,392 Catholic priests between 1950 and 2002, and that most such acts took place between 1960 and 1984. The 4,392 priests made up 4% of all Catholic priests in the 14 Dioceses/ Eparchies in the United States.
Another key difference found in the study is that a little less that half of the priests (1881) were found to be subject to unsubstantiated allegations. An unsubstantiated allegation was defined as “an allegation that was proven to be untruthful and fabricated” as a result of a criminal investigation. This rate of false accusations is much higher than found in the general population. Additionally, 23% of the priests who were accused of abuse were identified as suffering from behavioral or psychological problems ranging from alcohol and substance abuse to depression and a past history of coercive sex, although most never received treatment for these problems. This would suggest that helping priests with their mental health issues would be an important part of future prevention efforts.”
In other words, since 1950, 2,511 valid cases. Moreover, 4% of priests. This is lower than the 7-10% of molestations and rapes in schools.
2,511 divided by 63 is about 39 priests who are rapists a year. You came by the miracle of running into a third of them? Liar.
Forgot the link:
http://www.catholicleague.org/some-key-misunderstandings-regarding-the-child-sexual-abuse-scandal-and-the-catholic-church/
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/02/secret-vatican-report/62419/
Did a Secret Vatican Report on Gay Sex and Blackmail Bring Down the Pope?
You’re an ignornat son of a @%#%.
Pardon the anger, nothing in this article you have provided is a factual, provable, number.
So the justice who worked with us here must have clearly totally failed in his studies? These priets have managed to silence 99 out of 100 people who were raped or molested?
The numbers I gave are numbers. Less than 3,000 confirmed cases out of over 1 billion atendees. You suggest that 1/7th of the population has been somehow owned, and I somehow never saw any signs of this despite having seen people who were raped in the cathoic church?
The numbers don’t lie: Numbers over 100 times occurence wise higher outside the catholic church. In order for there to be a cover up 99 out of 100 cases would have to have the Church actively involved to cover it up. There was no cover up in any of the 3 circumstances I mentioned.
More importantly: ALL THOSE PEOPLE HAVE THE CHOICE TO GO TO THE AUTHORITIES.
You think that ONE random, dumbass newspaper, has it right?
Huffington post would have jumped on this with MSNBC and CNN if it were even far fetched. The fact that they won’t touch it shows plenty on it’s own.
More importantly: SHUT THE FU@%@ UP.
This is an insulting read, but more importantly, it doesn’t have ANY evidence in the study. NONE. ZIPPO. And you just used it, like a pawn, a sheep, to say “oh! This person says this!”
Well child, some people say a lot of things. I tend to trust a Justice working with a church. That’s two sides of the coin working together. And I tend to trust it when it does a study with numbers, including the cases that were dropped.
Grow up.
Binders full of gay priests!
Just binders!
I love the hilarious ass backward humor of your comment. See how you’re the biased liberal opposite of the Romney Binders full of women?
*smacks forehead*. Yes, where are these binders?
And the stastics on Childhood education rape, at 6-10% from CBS. I’m avoiding the people you don’ listen to, even though you never question their methodology like a proper debator, you try to mar the source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1933687.html
Note that also they state that 422,000 people in California will have an incidence by graduation.
Note that since 1950 there have been over 2,000 valid cases. Note that 1/5 people are catholic. This means out of 1 billion church attendees, 2,000 were molested. 422,000 in just California will have abuse as part of the schooling system.
See the problem with the numbers? Where does the epidemic really lie?
This whole issue has gotten completely out of hand, in my eyes at least. I think we need to go back to the basics and realize that church and state need to be separated as they have been in the past. I am Catholic, but not everyone in America is. Obama’s reforms are simply just trying to give people the option to use these contraceptives if they see it necessary. Most people who use these are most likely not religious. We are living in a free country, therefore people should be allowed to take legal pills as they please.
As for Plan B (the morning after pill), it is NOT an abortion pill. Plan B simply stops an egg from being fertilized. There was never any fetus created, never a sperm and egg connected. Therefore, no child is being harmed.
I see that people are agreeing here? Feel free to leave comments.
Rachel, I agree with you partially. This all comes down to a government dictating what a business or charity should offer on a health plan. If we still have a free country, any business should be able to offer what they want to employees. If the employee doesn’t like what is offered, find a job that does. The employer should not be forced to offer something that is against their beliefs.
I definitely agree with what you’re saying here. It is up to the company how they want to run their business. However, it is unfair for someone to have to go out and look for a completely new job just because they do not agree with the employer’s religious beliefs.
“It is up to the company how they want to run their business”.
Not any more.
Rachel, Non Religious business dont want it because they dont want their cost to go up. No one in my group is of child bearing years and yet I have to pay for “Free” Birth Controll.
So, I have two questions for you – 1) Do you really believe this will be free?
2) Do you recall anyone in the entire US asking oBama to make Birth Controll Free?
3) Do you see anything wrong with it being subject to copay just like every other meds – the way it used to be?
(Ok, three questions)
FFA, to answer your questions…
1. I’m not arguing whether it will be free or not, I am arguing that a business should offer birth control as part of its health plans for employees who seek to use birth control whether the leader sees it religiously right or not.
2. Again, I’m not arguing whether it will be free or not. I don’t care about that issue at this time.
3. Yet again.
Rachael, I got taxxed down to the poverty level last year. First time since I got out of High School I brought home that little amount of money.
Now My CPA is telling me I have to include my Health Premiums the company paid on my W2.
Business is booming again this year so I will be back above Poverty Level until my increase for Health Care hits again next year.
If cost is not an issue for you right now, it will be. oBama needs to be stopped by what ever means possible. That SOB wants to penalize the small business man right out of business. If its the Church doing it, then so be it.
With that line of thinking, a company could use “beliefs” as an excuse for anything. No bloos transfusions. No medical coverage at all, because the Lord shall heal everyone. This whole controversy isn’t really about religious liberty. It’s about power. The church is trying to regain it, throwing their weight around. They got the President to partially cave, now they want more. More power.
blood transfusions
“this whole controversy”
So where are these fights to stop blood tranfusions?
Let’s talk in facts. Not what someone can do. The government “could” take over health care and deny the elderly coverage *insert your laughs here and notable denial* but when it comes to religion, you bet, it’s completely realistic to say they will let people die from blood tranfusions!
See the bias?
Birth control is cheap, birth control can be bought, and putting it on insurance raises the cost of the pill. It’s not worth it. We aren’t putting advil onto insurance, we should not be putting on birth control, in order to spark a power war between the government and religion.
You’re right that it’s about power, so why is Obama choosing birth control, and oh let’s say not something is extreme as divorce when it comes to the Catholic church? People are damaged there quite badly. Why isn’t he passing a law that blood transfusions cannot be denied?
Easy answer: Birth control is an easier way of destroying his enemies.
I see what you’re saying. Because one religious man at the top of a company says no birth control, so many other doors are opened. This would become very, very messy. This whole new introduction of business issues related to the church are just bringing church and state together even more. For so long, our country has functioned successfully, keeping the two separated. Now is not the time for their reunion.
That is exactly the point DCMS! Remember the Amish and alike who do no believe in insurance? Are you going to force the Amish to have insurance or pay a penalty??? This goes to the very fundamental idea of separation of church and state. The State has crossed the line.
DW:
I think that came up…You might want to look it up.
I’m not sure one way or the other, but I think they may actually have some type of partial exemption, when it comes to whether or not individuals have to buy insurance. Probably not on the employer end.
Obama’s reforms are simply taking a low cost prescription, and is raising the cost.
People are allowed to take pills as they please. The option already exists. Obama is not creating the option. The pill is cheap, anyone can take it.
The simple way of wording it: You’re lying to yourself if you aren’t seeing what this really is. Birth control is affordable, it is accessable. Obama wants you to think exactly what you just said: That no one can get this birth control, and it’s all insurance and businesses fault! As such, he’s making it a part of insurance, (raising it’s costs, and I might add feeding more dollars into insurance, sounds like cronyism to me). The guy is misleading you.
Bob,
Since you are so smart, what is Obama’s end game? Could it be less unwanted pregnancies, abortions and children on welfare who become adults on welfare? That would terrible for our country.
Ron,
Birth control through religious employers does absolutely nothing to prevent children on welfare. Nothing. There is no logic to even suggest that outcome whatsoever.
But making it available at no additional cost might. It is the low income people to which $25 makes a big difference. If they don’t need to pay that they may be more likely to use it.
Ron,
Easy Answer:
Divisive politics, and votes. Next question please.
So if the Catholic Church and Republicans did not bring up the issue his plan would have been foiled. Now I see who is smarter between Obama and his opposition.
“So if the Catholic Church and Republicans did not bring up the issue his plan would have been foiled. Now I see who is smarter between Obama and his opposition.”
Are you joking me?
It’s not smart, it’s called playing dirty. More to the point: Your actual comment back, is that it’s religion’s fault for fighting back?
A tyrant just pushed them into a position where they either are violated, are do what he wants, he knew it, and twisted it to businesses and religion, as opposed to funding directly from the government, which as I said people do NOT agree with, and you say “that’s just smart!”
No. It’s called tyrant. Backing your opponents into corners to force what you want is tyranny. It is wrong.
And I can see now you must have been involved in the clicks, the group, the dominators. Exactly why I’m not democrat.
The issue isn’t of importance. If you’re doing it just to push someone around, you shouldn’t be in office.
Being a smart manipulator doesn’t make you a good man, a good politician, or right. Bush got us to war with Iraq.
Pretty smart huh? 90% of the public agreed with Iraq at one time, and far above 2/3rds of congress. Smart dem there policics there Ron! So smart! God, why didn’t I get it before? *smacks head* the democrats were totally fooled by some fancy foot work so IRAQ WAS GREAT!!!
~ Love, sarcasm.
Please note: I actually am using sarcasm from what I’m sure your point of view it to do with Iraq.
I don’t believe that what I layed out happened that way.
But in order for you to hate Iraq, which you probably do, that’s the way you must think it went down.
So man, that Bush guy must have been right, right? If it’s right for one president in your eyes, it should be right for another. It’s called being “unbiased”. Know how to do it?
Ron Said – “But making it available at no additional cost might”.
In what part of the world do you live in where you get more for nothing? I want to move there. I was assuming you understood basic economiccs as you are somewhere in the insurance world.
Ron:
As a side comment: It’s not necesarilly that I’m so smart. With the religious comments I actually have experience on the matter, and was raised catholic. I’m one of the ones who actually became agnostic due to Catholicism. So I’m no friend of the Catholic church. I just don’t like the unmerrited attacks. As an example: I don’t like their stance on divorce. Though, if you look into catechisms divorce is possible in many cases through anulement, but most of the times if you do that you basically can’t get married again. I don’t like that. People can mess up, why so to the code?
With confession and the way rapes come out, it’s just something I’ve seen as well. Note that I said 3 people in my family were raped. Note that I said I was raised catholic. Note that I also said I’ve seent his play out, but more importantly I know the church well enough to know that priests don’t share confessions, so thus I know the only way priests can know about a rape, and know that if they know and authorities haven’t been contacted, it is because the victim or their parents isn’t ready for authorities.
Then moving on to the issues with birth control, this one is just common sense. Divisive politics are the best type.
But most importantly: Again, it’s not intelligence, it’s that I have no allegience.
The only reason I refuse to vote democratic, is more or less the following things:
Cutting reimbursements and payments to doctors, rather than cutting benefits themselves to the tune of over $700 billion dollars, then stating they didn’t cut anything through accounting methods. It’s dishonest. When a third of your $700 billion cuts come from cuts to “provider reimbursements” provisions from that provider (medical supplies) will have over $200 billion dollars less of purchasing power. When you take out $200 billion dollars from doctor reimbursements, doctors and hospitals will have $200 billion less to spend on treatment. Then they go and make an add of Paul Ryan pushing a granny off a cliff. Come on Ron, tell me that happens on the right.
Abortion: The public is against public funding of contraceptives. Always have been. But now that he made an enemy of the church, and said the business is paying for it (why are we making things individual versus business? People own businesses, they are still people, and we don’t get to suddenly take away their rights as soon as they make a business) suddenly it’s being paid for and it’s ok. Potato, potato. He basically changed the how, made a war, and put in place something dishonestly.
QE: He claimed that letting the housing market bottom out would harm the middle class. The middle class, if they were told, that housing costs are being inflated by the government currently, would not be ok with it. He tried to state that raising incomes and lowering unemployment would offset the increase in costs of housing. Anyone with a brain knows incomes would have either have had to sky rocket by over 20% all these years, or housing costs would have to go down in half, for people to afford houses. Passing QE would not help. Letting the market bottom out, as Romney put it, was the thing to do. Lower housing costs is good. He needs to say it.
Taxes: He makes it rich versus poor, and that’s not ok.
Abortion: Religions versus people. Not ok.
Corporate tax rates: Green energy, versus oil energy, versus government preferred companies. This is cronyism. Accuses the republicans as being for big profit companies when they lower taxes for ALL corporations. When it comes to cronyism, that is not cronyism. He does it on purpose, and actively engages in cronyism. Moreover, says that corporations should not be considered people. When Romney said they were people, people actually called him a corporate mother @#%@#%er. Divisive politics again. Corporations are people, but regardless, divisive politics, and hypocrite politics at the same time.
Republicans did not do this during their 1995-2006 majority.
Republicans did not say they would help the middle class, by increasing the cost of health insurance, and then forcing everyone to buy it.
Right now, it’s not allegience, it’s just that voting democrat currently is supporting a power that needs to get toppled over. If the next republicans need to be toppled over, fine, so be it. But this current administration has to go.
Ron,
Wrong, wrong, and more wrong.
Transference of money does not work, while raising the cost of that money.
The middle class is paying for the mark up, and the $25. It’s not “free”.
And ANY person can afford $25 a month. It’s the hard costs we want to get off their back. You’re insane if you’re actually making the debate that $25 would just add back to dem ‘there economy!
No. It won’t. And having their living costs covered to the degree that it is, is exactly why we have to tax the middle class so much. The upper 1% cannot pay for healthcare, education, welfare, unemployment, and social security for the whole population. It is impossible. And when you tax the middle class more, their life is harder, no matter how much you “give back” through programs.
Ron,
And I should add:
That when you pay for someone’s way through life, provided they don’t have a good job, and they have kids, where is the motivation to go to college to get the better job?
Let’s say you want to be a pre-school teacher. There are about a million of those jobs.
2 year degree: what…$20,000-$40,000 of cost?
You now make $30,000 a year. You were responsible. You didn’t have kids.
Now a single mother, living like an idiot, who isn’t going to college, working at minimum wage in Washington.
A lot of key democrats things there. This will also show why minimum wages are bad in some cases. Not all.
So she makes about $10 an hour. This is $20,000 a year. Even with one child she gets back more in taxes than she puts in. My new hire: She received a tax check back of $5,500 DOLLARS. She also gets asssistance with insurance, she also gets food stamps, and some living assistance. Let’s say $200 food stamps, $200 living assistance (way too low) and insurance for free more or less ($500 a month)
So now, she makes about $18,000 total bring in income. She gets $10,800 in assistance.
at the $30,000 here’s the kicker: That teacher gets half her insurance paid for usually. So she pays $2,500. Her income is now $27,500. She pays an effective tax rate of around 15% including payroll tax and medicare. Her income is now $23,375. She pays that $200 and $200. Her income is now $18,575. Now she’s $20,000 to $40,000 in debt to student loans, and she makes as much as someone who didn’t have to bust their ass in college, and she doesn’t get assistance, which means you subtract even more from that $18,575. They are equal at best. The $30,000 in my opinion has it harder, and has less benefits.
So then the question: WHY DO IT?
And I kid you not, this is a huge problem in Washington. People don’t do it. They don’t want to.
They want their free birth control. They want to get pregnant, have a few kids, get some assistance, and work at Gap kids, and never go to school. Or if they do they want it all paid for. This issue is more than helping the poor, it’s about keeping them motivated and giving reason to become part of the responisble middle class.
Just got a call from one of my clients. One of her employers is cutting her hours from 35 to 29 to avoid Obama care. This is a major employer and I’ll lay money down they are in your town or close to it. This will cover thousands of people. So, now the employer has to go out on a hiring spree to cover all the hours.
This is how oBama Creates jobs – by creating underemployment.
Now, she has to go out and find a thrid Part Time job to make ends meet.
Hi FFA. It is now coming to pass on everything we have been warning about. Planet and his cohorts think everything is wonderful and we should just follow Obama over the cliff like the lemmings. This law is the biggest job killer ever passed into law. Companies nationwide are laying off people or cutting their hours to avoid disaster since the costs will be doubling under this “Affordable Care Act”. Rate increases continue unabated because the carriers know they have to pick up all the PreX’s coming in. Younger people used to have good rates for Health coverage and they will notice a big increase to pay for all these sick people coming in. Since the young people know they cannot be denied, they will opt to pay the tax until they get sick and then go to the exchange to get their illness covered. We will end up with a bunch of sick people covered (adverse selection) at very high rates. So much with the theory of large numbers controlling the cost. This could all have been prevented by creating high risk pools in the states to cover the PreX’s at a fraction of the cost Obamacare will have. Instead, everyone will have a sorry plan of one size fits all and we can get treatment from a PA or Nurse Practitioner after waiting in a long line. Our country already has a doctor shortage and thousands more will close their practice before long.
I have my feet on the ground daily and see it daily. My client is struggling to make ends meet and its only going to get worse for her. Should she pay her mortgage or medical insurance????
This is a major chain in the home improvement market that is a major national employer that pays well over min wage.
Its only going to spark another Mortgage Crises.
In other news, two more IL politicians entered guilty pleas in federal court yesterday. Two more Il Politicians heading to club fed. Tarahout, IN? Brooks, WI? Or Colorado with Gov Rod? Maybe he can piece his political network back togeather behind bars?
FFA, Planet would advise your client to apply for a subsidy from HHS to pay her medical insurance. That is why it is called the Affordable Care Act, right? If you can’t pay it, ask Sebelius for the money. I am sure she will cut all that red tape and get it out right away kind of like FEMA did with the Sandy victims. How did that work out for them?
Well, hes got his nice cushy job paying him $250K a year.
Its unfortunate I am stuck in IL. I am stuck here because I dont want a divorce. I have been advised, once again by my accountant, to get out. Maybe Iowa is a good option for her.
Where else does someone not think that $250K is not that much???
Please don’t disparage the Physician’s Assistants and Nurse Practitioners. For many routine office visits, they are quite capable. In some areas of the country, they are the only medical providers available.
I don’t disparage PA’s or Nurse Practioners since I have a daughter who is a PA. They are fine for exams, treating minor illnesses and can prescribe medicine, however if I am really sick, I don’t want a PA trying to figure out what is wrong and you shouldn’t either. That is what doctors are for and they will be in shorter supply in the near future.