A 7th advertiser pulls out of Limbaugh's show

[mrkleen]

If Bjorn was "exactly right" where am I exatly wrong when I stated In the US our States and Counties have public health facilities.

Man, you REALLY want to keep this going….ok.

So I have a job. I pay my share to participate in my employers health care plan. Yet, my employer decides it is against his religion to provide me with the blood pressure medicine I need to prevent a heart attack.

Your answer to this is, that I should go to the free clinic to get my pills? Really?

 

[FJW]

Man, you REALLY want to keep this going….ok.

So I have a job. I pay my share to participate in my employers health care plan. Yet, my employer decides it is against his religion to provide me with the blood pressure medicine I need to prevent a heart attack.

Your answer to this is, that I should go to the free clinic to get my pills? Really?

The short answer is 'Yes'

The employer has as much right to cover or not cover his/her employees with as broad or narrow a policy as you do to find an employer who will offer coverage that fits your needs. Be it Birth Control or BP medicine.

 

[mrkleen]

The short answer is 'Yes'

The employer has as much right to cover or not cover his/her employees with as broad or narrow a policy as you do to find an employer who will offer coverage that fits your needs. Be it Birth Control or BP medicine.

Fair enough.

And if my employer is an organization like Georgetown University or the Catholic Church that get some of their funding from the federal government, they should be cut off from a proportionate amount of that funding.

 

[FJW]

But in reality, every business private, public, non-profit, religious, etc receives something from the federal government either indirectly through tax policy or directly through some funding mechanism.

So I don't know where to draw the line.

It just seems like a 'business' should be able to run it's business in a way that will best serve it's employees and customers and if they (the business) think it's in their best interest to cover something or not, they should be able to do so without interference Washington.


***And as a relatively new member I'm somewhat amazed that amongst all this tweed and argyle this 'conversation' as gone on for several days and several pages.

Some of us need to agree to disagree and wait for 'Bilax' to give us a weather report and a new image from San Francisco!

 

[Jovan]

Well, this is The Interchange, it's a forum for discussions that go off the topic of clothing. We try to keep political and religious discussion out of the clothing forums.

 

[mrkleen]

But in reality, every business private, public, non-profit, religious, etc receives something from the federal government either indirectly through tax policy or directly through some funding mechanism.

So I don't know where to draw the line.

It just seems like a 'business' should be able to run it's business in a way that will best serve it's employees and customers and if they (the business) think it's in their best interest to cover something or not, they should be able to do so without interference Washington.

And you dont see the inconsistency here?

Kind of like the Tea Party members who collect social security, medicare, bought their house with a FHA load, sent their kids to school with a Pell grant - who are holding a sign the says "Get Washington Out Of My Business"

A catholic organization that receives funding from the federal government - which comes from taxes. Most of those taxes are from the paychecks of citizens who are NOT catholic. But as soon as that money is deposited in the the organizations account -they become the sole arbiters on how it is used?

Sounds fair to me.

 

[Bjorn]

Aren't businesses supposed to to, well, business? Why leave healthcare to them?

Oh, and is anyone of you who comment on this not fully covered?

 

[WouldaShoulda]

Aren't businesses supposed to to, well, business? Why leave healthcare to them?

This is frequently misunderstood.

Outside of programs to promote smoking cessation, weight control or flu shots, which my employer does completely voluntarily, employers do not provide health care.

They provide health insurance.

My doctor provides health care.

 

[WouldaShoulda]

Man, you REALLY want to keep this going….ok.

So I have a job. I pay my share to participate in my employers health care plan. Yet, my employer decides it is against his religion to provide me with the blood pressure medicine I need to prevent a heart attack.

Your answer to this is, that I should go to the free clinic to get my pills? Really?

Go to Giant Pharmacy and get a 90 day supply for $9 like I do.

You and Ms Fluke could really use some savvy shopping advice!!

 

[Jovan]

And you dont see the inconsistency here?

Kind of like the Tea Party members who collect social security, medicare, bought their house with a FHA load, sent their kids to school with a Pell grant - who are holding a sign the says "Get Washington Out Of My Business"

A catholic organization that receives funding from the federal government - which comes from taxes. Most of those taxes are from the paychecks of citizens who are NOT catholic. But as soon as that money is deposited in the the organizations account -they become the sole arbiters on how it is used?

Sounds fair to me.

You hit the nail on the head of the hypocrisy of this whole thing.

 

[Regillus]

1) women are not denied access to contraception.

2) the HHS mandate does not alter that fact.

3) no legislation has been proposed to deny women access to contraception.

4) the only thing the HHS mandate changes is who pays for contraception, under penalty of law.

The issue isn't access to birth control pills - it's the cost of BC. As TomS said; it's cheaper to provide women with free BC than to pay for the cost of raising an unwanted child. As I'm sure you know; healthcare costs have gone through the roof, and individuals are having difficulty paying the expense; hence the need to pool resources into an insurance pool to spread the cost around.

You have not been paying attention.

Sorry; I'm missing your point. Please elucidate.

Oh, and is anyone of you who comment on this not fully covered?

Know how I dealt with the high cost of individual health insurance when I was in my 20's? I didn't have any. Now (I'm 53)? My employer only covers short-term disability expenses up to $800 per month. Not enough to meet my monthly living expenses. So I shell out $117 per month to Mutual of Omaha for a short-term disability policy that pays me $1,800 per month for living expenses if I'm out of work for medical reasons.

 

[TomS]

The short answer is 'Yes'

The employer has as much right to cover or not cover his/her employees with as broad or narrow a policy as you do to find an employer who will offer coverage that fits your needs. Be it Birth Control or BP medicine.

This is frequently misunderstood.

Outside of programs to promote smoking cessation, weight control or flu shots, which my employer does completely voluntarily, employers do not provide health care.

They provide health insurance.

My doctor provides health care.

In that case, shouldn't the doctor(s) be free to prescribe what they like when they like, rather than being told by Roman Catholic (or insert any other religious/political group) employers what they're allowed to do? Healthcare is healthcare, and should be left in the hands of doctors/nurses/hospital managers, not dictated by special interest groups.

On the wider issue of US healthcare reform, I'd direct one and all to this graph, and then encourage you all to ponder whether healthcare is something people ought to make a profit from.

 

[VictorRomeo]

In that case, shouldn't the doctor(s) be free to prescribe what they like when they like, rather than being told by Roman Catholic (or insert any other religious/political group) employers what they're allowed to do? Healthcare is healthcare, and should be left in the hands of doctors/nurses/hospital managers, not dictated by special interest groups.

Bingo! And when spelled out like that it not just neutralises any form of opposing argument, it paves the way right to the very heart of what's wrong with the right wing, conservative and corporative agenda in the world.

 

[WouldaShoulda]

In that case, shouldn't the doctor(s) be free to prescribe what they like when they like, rather than being told by Roman Catholic (or insert any other religious/political group) employers what they're allowed to do? Healthcare is healthcare, and should be left in the hands of doctors/nurses/hospital managers, not dictated by special interest groups.

That is a false assertion. No one is being told what to do. When you pay your doctor for his services you have complete freedom of the services you are willing to pay for.

Every time anyone accepts money to pay for services on your bahalf, you also relenquish how much is going to be paid and what is going to be paid weather it is an insurance company or a government entity.

The only reason for anyone to deliberately confuse access and treatment options with methods of payment is to distract the uninformed.

It's unfortunate how often the ruse works,

 

[WouldaShoulda]

Bingo! And when spelled out like that it not just neutralises any form of opposing argument, it paves the way right to the very heart of what's wrong with the right wing, conservative and corporative agenda in the world.

Not so fast pal!!

 

[dks202]

In that case, shouldn't the doctor(s) be free to prescribe what they like when they like, rather than being told by Roman Catholic (or insert any other religious/political group) employers what they're allowed to do?

.

Doctors already prescribe what they want. But then, how many of us get to the pharmacy and receive a generic version? What about "it's not covered by your insurance"? You call the doctor's office and tell them, then they prescribe something else. If not you have to pay.

 

[WouldaShoulda]

^^^

In my case, my generic RX co-pay is $10 for a 30 day supply.

Without insurance the same stuff is $9.99 for a 90 day supply.

Wait a minute...

Why does Fluke get life saving BC pills with NO co-pay w/Obamacare and my life saving HBP medication has a co-pay??

Where's MY free **** at??

 

[dks202]

^^^


Where's MY free **** at??

I'm with you brother, I pay $300/month for health insurance (family coverage)! I wouldn't mind free stuff or lower premiums.

 

[WouldaShoulda]

I'm with you brother, I pay $300/month for health insurance (family coverage)! I wouldn't mind free stuff or lower premiums.

Why limit your own benefits, increase deductbles or co-pays to save money, when you can just have Obama mandate it for you??

F-them!!

 

[dks202]

That's the ticket! Drop all my coverage and pay little or nothing for health care that's above and beyond what I now have!


(translation--- I get a pay raise and YOU can pay for my coverage)