Doesn\’t this hospital realize that the COnstiution grants the right of freedom of attraction, not religion. It was merely a typographical error in 1786.
Notice how the Hospital by being \”Self-funded\” is able to avoid the state requirement which does not permit health insurance discrimination regarding civil union partners.
This is EXACTLY how the Association Health Plan idea being pushed by the Bush Administration in Congress would avoid State mandated benefits. For example,A plan set up in Alabama would be able to avoid state mandated benefits required in Pennsylvania for PA subscribers. Sure, it might create a lower premium, but the benefits created by this idea would become inferior.
We need plans which provide first rate coverage while controlling spiralling costs. We already have enough individual plans on the market providing 2nd rate benefits.
Why is this debate confined to \”gay couples\”? What\’s wrong with sisters, or brothers, or Army buddies, establishing a mutual reliance just because they\’re NOT having s_x with each other? Talk about being narrow minded!
I know folks will disagree with my comment but I agree with the hospital. Its a Catholic hospital so they should be allowed to exercise their rights to not honor the civil union. In fact I wish this was the case across the board. I feel that insurance should only be offered to husband and wifes… Not gay partners, not girlfriends and boyfriends or roomates. It was intended for married couples and that is the way it should stay.
\”As recipients of state funding, Catholic hospitals are subject to state laws, she said.\”
If the hospital self-funds their own insurance plan, and the hospital\’s funds are in part from state funding, there is a case to be made that the insurance plan is not completely \”self-funded\” in such a way that precludes them from being bound by state law.
Doesn\’t this hospital realize that the COnstiution grants the right of freedom of attraction, not religion. It was merely a typographical error in 1786.
Notice how the Hospital by being \”Self-funded\” is able to avoid the state requirement which does not permit health insurance discrimination regarding civil union partners.
This is EXACTLY how the Association Health Plan idea being pushed by the Bush Administration in Congress would avoid State mandated benefits. For example,A plan set up in Alabama would be able to avoid state mandated benefits required in Pennsylvania for PA subscribers. Sure, it might create a lower premium, but the benefits created by this idea would become inferior.
We need plans which provide first rate coverage while controlling spiralling costs. We already have enough individual plans on the market providing 2nd rate benefits.
Why is this debate confined to \”gay couples\”? What\’s wrong with sisters, or brothers, or Army buddies, establishing a mutual reliance just because they\’re NOT having s_x with each other? Talk about being narrow minded!
I know folks will disagree with my comment but I agree with the hospital. Its a Catholic hospital so they should be allowed to exercise their rights to not honor the civil union. In fact I wish this was the case across the board. I feel that insurance should only be offered to husband and wifes… Not gay partners, not girlfriends and boyfriends or roomates. It was intended for married couples and that is the way it should stay.
\”As recipients of state funding, Catholic hospitals are subject to state laws, she said.\”
If the hospital self-funds their own insurance plan, and the hospital\’s funds are in part from state funding, there is a case to be made that the insurance plan is not completely \”self-funded\” in such a way that precludes them from being bound by state law.
But which Constitutional right \”trumps\’? Freedom of Religion? Or, the new Right-To- Have-Health-Insurance-If-I-Want-It.?