Court orders birth control

[kellycummings]

Here is an article on cnn.com that I just read. I'm wondering what people think about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/01/church.contraceptives.ap/index.html


I'm sorta riding the fence on this, I can see how both sides might be right. Not being catholic it doesn't personally affect me too much but I'm a firm believer in the seperation of church and state.

 

[Madame Manga]

What do I think? I hope that cases like this will lead to the utter collapse of the insurance industry/employer cabal and eventually bring the United States to institute some form of public universal health insurance or single-payer system. Anything is better than the current way of doing things.

MM (whose children are without insurance because Blue Shield, otherwise known as B.S., will not cover anyone with a developmental disorder under a privately bought policy. By California law, thanks to our brilliant state legislature, they cannot cover the person for major medical while excluding treatment for these specific disorders, so they just exclude the entire person. Speaking of Catch-22, next time she's going to merrily lie through her teeth while filling out the applications.)

 

[minsue]

I think the thread title is a bit misleading. The court ordered the organization Catholic Charities to comply with CA law and include birth control as one of the prescriptions covered in their employee health care. I'm of two minds about laws stating that birth control must be covered if employers offer health insurance including prescription coverage. I have no issue, though, with a court ordering an employer to follow state laws.

- Mindy

 

[kellycummings]

I think the thread title is a bit misleading. The court ordered the organization Catholic Charities to comply with CA law and include birth control as one of the prescriptions covered in their employee health care. I'm of two minds about laws stating that birth control must be covered if employers offer health insurance including prescription coverage. I have no issue, though, with a court ordering an employer to follow state laws.

- Mindy

I had actually meant to write something a little different in the thread title but as I was starting the phone rang and I had to multi-task. Trust me, you don't want me to multi-task. It never ends well.


And I agree, they should have to follow the law but at the same time I have to agree with the charity, they are catholic, whether they employ or help other religions or not. I was just very divided on this when I read and wondered what others might think. Probably not an earth shaking decision.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't see any problems. The law is in place already that if you offer a prescription drug plan you must also offer contraceptives. They are a prescription drug.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Offering birth control to be in compliance with the law doesn't mean anyone has to take it. The title of the article is definitely misleading.

I can see both sides. On the one hand, I'm offended when I read that the Santoria church is permitted to perform animal sacrifices that aren't done in the most humane manner. On the other, I was terriby disappointed as a college student when I read about a court deciding that being Rastafarian did not entitle someone to legally smoke marijuana. I was planning to convert.

Seriously, in its function as an employer, the church is just another employer. As long as nobody is forced to access the service, no harm has been done.

 

[minsue]

If I recall correctly, the judge stated as one of the reasons for the ruling the fact that this particular organization is not a church. It is a charity organization that is funded by the Catholic church, but it is not in itself religious and it serves and, more importantly, employs people of any religion. This is expected to impact the Catholic hospitals for the same reason.

- Mindy

 

[Guest]

 

[Svenskaflicka]

*high-fives the court*

1 down...

 

[Madame Manga]

Just out of curiosity, Svenskaflicka, what's health care like in Sweden? Do you have to wait months for an appointment? Do you have to go elsewhere for certain procedures that aren't covered? Or does it all seem to work pretty well?

I believe that insurance companies can provide the services more cost effectively than the government and do a better job at preventing abuse and fraud. Government would serve as regulator to prevent the insurance co.'s from abusing us.

Lime, I know what you are saying, but IMO, government attempts to regulate private insurance is what got my children into their current pickle in the first place. The law of unintended results seems to take over every time. Many companies simply refuse to do business in California, period, if they have to comply with the regulations. This would have to come from the federal government to have any effect, and insurance companies have plenty of resources to fight any such action in Congress.

MM

 

[Guest]

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Just out of curiosity, Svenskaflicka, what's health care like in Sweden? Do you have to wait months for an appointment? Do you have to go elsewhere for certain procedures that aren't covered? Or does it all seem to work pretty well?

You call your doctor/dentist, and get an appointment. If you're lucky, you'll get one next week (this mostly happens in countryside practises, with the mutual understanding that this is only unless Bessie will have her calves that day), but often it can be a month or two. For psychiatric care, you have to wait atleast one year. Unless people drop off the waiting list, that is.

If your local hospital can't perform a special surgery, you'll be send elsewhere. The hospital will pay for that, through taxes. Atleast that's what happened when my aunt had to go through chemotherapy in another town. Her local authorities paid for her trip to the other town, and even paid for her stay at a hotel in that other town.

It works pretty well, although there's almost always too much waiting to see a doctor/dentist, and the prices are too high, IMO. When I was bitten by a dog and had to have my forehead sewn back together, it cost us 250:- SKR. I think all medical care should be sponsored through taxes.

Ofcourse, if you're a politician, it's completely different rules that apply. As a politician, you'll get free medical care, free dental care, and you can run several companies while still collecting 15.000:- SKR/month from the unemployment agency.

When's that revolution coming..?