Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Does the Catholic Church's insurance cover vasectomies? Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:31:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
Coincidentally, Sandra Fluke.. the woman Rush called a slut is not all she claims to be either. She claimed to be a 23 yr old doe eyed college student at Georgetown that got caught up in the fray of not being supplied birth control. When in fact she is a 30 yr old women's right advocate who found out about Georgetown's b/c policy and chose to attend G-town specifically to battle this policy. Her claim that birth control cost her $3000 over a three year span is in question too. Especially considering that a drug store just off campus supplies birth control to any woman without insurance for $9 a month.

She didn't deserve to be called a slut by that fat pig Rush. But I'd prefer her battling an issue with a straightforward and honest approach rather than playing on people's emotions and playing the victim card. Make an argument on a factual basis and present them. The big ruse she played has caused her to lose all credibility.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
1curiouscat
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:47:30 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
I agree that we should not be banning people from the airwaves or tv or any other form of communication. I am a firm believer of free speech. However, I don´t belive that he and other talking heads (liberal or conservative) are being honest with their audience and on the most part of the listeners, they listen to it as truth and internalize it as truth. I don´t know who is to blame for this, but I read the other day that, in a poll taken in mississipi, over 50% of the interviewees believed Obama to be Muslim -- that information was given to them by someone, most likely a talking head on the radio or tv. This miscomunication (blantant lying) is no good for the future of the country.

But getting back to the OP -

Viagra and birth control are not the same thing and should not be counter punches in arguments of this kind. But there is a fair share of users, of both drugs, that take them purely for promiscuous reasons.









Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
VanGogh
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:05:38 AM

Rank: Sarcastic Coffee Aficionado

Joined: 2/10/2012
Posts: 3,039
Location: Vancouver, Canada
OK ... first of all, I am not catholic.

You originally ask: Does the Catholic Church's insurance cover vasectomies? Very obvious as to why they do not.

Now you are asking .... about viagra ... a drug that is/can be covered by your own prescription insurance. Why would you want to know if the CC's insurance policy covers that?? (I am not going to comment on your man/woman statement)

It appears that the CC's insurance policy covers more of the liability than prescriptions. Perhaps you should obtain a copy of this Insurance Policy and read it.

A question often asked in the past 30 years is can churches buy insurance for sex abuse?

Quote:
Yes. Like any business, churches, synagogues, and other religious organizations purchase insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits, like discrimination claims or negligence charges against officers. Since the spike in sex-abuse lawsuits in the mid-1980s, churches have also had the option to take out extra liability policies for damages related to sexual misconduct. These policies don't come cheap, and they protect just the institutions, for the most part. Insurers will mount a legal defense for accused individuals, but the support extends only so far: Perpetrators are on their own if they're found guilty or choose to settle out of court.

But insurance companies created these abuse-specific policies only after the lawsuits of the mid-80s forced them to make large payouts. Until then, general liability policies didn't specifically rule out sex abuse, so churches that needed to pay damages argued that insurers should pay. Thus, even though sex-abuse insurance is available today, many of the big payouts actually come from the churches' general policies, since the abuse happened decades ago.

More than half of Catholic dioceses buy their insurance from Catholic Mutual, which operates a self-insurance fund for the Catholic Church in North America


I agree with CuriousCat here -

Quote:
Viagra and birth control are not the same thing and should not be counter punches in arguments of this kind.


What I found was a company called Catholic Church Insurance Limited based in Australia for basic house, car, life and medical insurance. You might be able to buy insurance from them to reimburse you for your vasectomy and the viagra prescriptions.

coffee




A Milf series combined with Office Sex *fans face* .... The Secretary and The Student
starting with The Secretary and The Student - first part

Enjoy!!

For the Anal Lovers .... come enjoy my RR honoured An Alluring Ass

Another Sex in the Office Poem (I know you love those!!) In Your Office

Guest
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:47:57 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,327
lafayettemister wrote:
I've seen the argument here and a few other places. But I don't see a comparative arguemnt between Viagra and birth control. A man being able to get it up to have sex with his girlfriend or wife is more than just about sex. It's also about mental health. Men with erectile disfunction would suffer hugely with depression and all sorts of other emotional crap. Not to mention the closeness and bond that he can have with his wife. She would suffer just as much as he would if he lost his ability to perform in the bedroom. Viagra would be more easily compared to the estrogen treatments that a post menopausal woman receives. Which serve the purpose of supplying her body with the hormones that she had prior to menopause.

I understand the kneejerk response to play tit for tat on an issue like this. But it's not helpful. The chain reaction would go on too long. The Catholic has a long standing belief against birth control. It's NOT new. It'd been around longer than any of us. However.. no birthcontrol = no Viagra will lead to another kneejerk response. No Viagra = no estrogen therapy for women who need it. No estrogen therapy = no some other thing.

Many see the Catholic church's stance as a man vs woman issue. I just don't see it that way.

Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. A race baiter and a hate monger. But banning him from the airwaves just because we don't like what he says in unconstitutional. What's next? Maybe we should put all of his conservative DittoHeads into concentration camps.


Very true that birth control and viagra are not the same although the same arguments you are using about viagra having legitimate non-sexual benefits could apply to birth control also. As far your chain of tit for tats that is kind of the point of most that argue against the Catholic Church on the issue have. If they can decide they don't want to pay for birth control what other legitimate medicines and medical procedures can they refuse to pay for?
Guest
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:54:36 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,327
PersonalAssistant wrote:
OK ... first of all, I am not catholic.

You originally ask: Does the Catholic Church's insurance cover vasectomies? Very obvious as to why they do not.

Now you are asking .... about viagra ... a drug that is/can be covered by your own prescription insurance. Why would you want to know if the CC's insurance policy covers that?? (I am not going to comment on your man/woman statement)

It appears that the CC's insurance policy covers more of the liability than prescriptions. Perhaps you should obtain a copy of this Insurance Policy and read it.

A question often asked in the past 30 years is can churches buy insurance for sex abuse?



I agree with CuriousCat here -



What I found was a company called Catholic Church Insurance Limited based in Australia for basic house, car, life and medical insurance. You might be able to buy insurance from them to reimburse you for your vasectomy and the viagra prescriptions.

coffee




I am afraid you have misunderstood what is going on here. I am not Catholic and I am not employed by the Catholic Church. I am simply asking these questions to try to ascertain whether the Catholic Church is taking a principled stand on this issue or if their position is just another sign of their long standing bias against women. I agree that viagra isn't the same as birth control. I was simply using viagra as an example of the church's insurance covering things they don't agree with to show that it wasn't outside the realm of possibility that it covers insurance. Hell, I know for a fact that until the rest political brouhaha their health insurance for some hospital employees covered birth control.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:00:18 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
gpjunk wrote:


Very true that birth control and viagra are not the same although the same arguments you are using about viagra having legitimate non-sexual benefits could apply to birth control also. As far your chain of tit for tats that is kind of the point of most that argue against the Catholic Church on the issue have. If they can decide they don't want to pay for birth control what other legitimate medicines and medical procedures can they refuse to pay for?



I have no idea. But until they do come out with a list of meds they won't pay for, I'm not going to assume. They haven't just recently "decided" to not pay for birth control. They decided many years ago that they do not condone contraception. There is another thread in the Think Tank where this has been debated. Birth control is a legitmate medicine, but one that goes against their core beliefs and values. It's Freedom of Religion, in my mind at least.

I live in the heart of Cajun country. The population where I live now and where I grew up is very heavily Catholic. This debate was had on several of my friend's Facebook pages. For the most part the guys stayed out of the debate as the women did most of the heavy lifting. A large majority of those women are Catholic and most of them are totally and vehemently against the government forcing the Catholic church to pay for services that are contradictory to their core values.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:01:15 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
lafayettemister wrote:
Coincidentally, Sandra Fluke.. the woman Rush called a slut is not all she claims to be either. She claimed to be a 23 yr old doe eyed college student at Georgetown that got caught up in the fray of not being supplied birth control. When in fact she is a 30 yr old women's right advocate who found out about Georgetown's b/c policy and chose to attend G-town specifically to battle this policy. Her claim that birth control cost her $3000 over a three year span is in question too. Especially considering that a drug store just off campus supplies birth control to any woman without insurance for $9 a month.

She didn't deserve to be called a slut by that fat pig Rush. But I'd prefer her battling an issue with a straightforward and honest approach rather than playing on people's emotions and playing the victim card. Make an argument on a factual basis and present them. The big ruse she played has caused her to lose all credibility.


I agree that not being forthright is pretty much a disqualifier for her personally. I know why 'they' did it though, of course: to make the testifier's circumstance as dramatic as possible. No, it doesn't make it right.

The bigger issue surrounding Rush Limbaugh, and by extension the entire Republican Party, is that Rush didn't know and didn't care about her particulars. Though as far as he was concerned, she WAS just a college-aged, over-educated* prostitute and slut.

He reacted to women in general, in their advocacy for coverage of contraceptive products and procedures. And this is a huge problem for Republicans, given that the vast majority** of women are deeply offended by all of this, more than half of all active voters are women.

Perception = Reality, which is not uniquely a Republican problem. Depending on the issue, it cuts deep for both sides of the aisle.

For many women, the equation is simple. Either a) one supports equal access for all women, regardless of what their employer personally believes about contraceptives, or b) they turn a blind eye while coverage is restricted based on beliefs/whims/sexual hangups, etc.

It's really not that complicated to see why so many woman are so deeply offended by the right-wing perspectives on this issue. And unfortunately, after years of depending on Rush Limbaugh to further their cause and galvanize their base, even going so far as apologizing to him when stepping out of line with his rhetoric, they can't suddenly separate themselves and claim he's just another idiot talking head that doesn't represent Republican ideals.

I'm of the mind that both parties are deeply flawed, but whatever chance I'd side with the Republicans- based on economic prudence, tort reform, or a host of other issues that make them seem marginally more sensible- is now gone. I can't possibly support a party that is systematically regressive toward women, yearning for a repressed time in the past, and then hiding behind faith when criticized for it.





*And since when is having an education a bad thing for women? His and many Republicans' blithe bigotry toward women never ceases to amaze me.

**I do realize that all, or even most, Republicans who back the Catholic Church and have since taken pitchforks in hand to oppose the federal government's mandates aren't intentionally marginalizing women's rights, but that's how it plays to every woman who doesn't subscribe to that set of beliefs.

Guest
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:02:08 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,327
For anyone that doesn't see what the big deal is with this issue let me post a hypothetical.

You are a nurse who was only able to obtain a job at a Catholic hospital. You aren't Catholic yourself but being a nurse is being a nurse no matter who owns the place. You develop a rare condition that can be treated with stem cells. Stem cell treatments are highly expensive but you aren't worried because you have insurance. Then you find out that because the Catholic Church is against stem cell research your insurance doesn't cover it and now having a job with benefits does no good when you needed it most.

The point of this whole controversy isn't the birth control. If the Catholic Church can choose not to cover birth control what other legitimate medicines and medical procedures can they choose not to cover?
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:15:54 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:


I agree that not being forthright is pretty much a disqualifier for her personally. I know why 'they' did it though, of course: to make the testifier's circumstance as dramatic as possible. No, it doesn't make it right.

The bigger issue surrounding Rush Limbaugh, and by extension the entire Republican Party, is that Rush didn't know and didn't care about her particulars. Though as far as he was concerned, she WAS just a college-aged, over-educated* prostitute and slut.

He reacted to women in general, in their advocacy for coverage of contraceptive products and procedures. And this is a huge problem for Republicans, given that the vast majority** of women are deeply offended by all of this, more than half of all active voters are women.

Perception = Reality, which is not uniquely a Republican problem. Depending on the issue, it cuts deep for both sides of the aisle.

For many women, the equation is simple. Either a) one supports equal access for all women, regardless of what their employer personally believes about contraceptives, or b) they turn a blind eye while coverage is restricted based on beliefs/whims/sexual hangups, etc.

It's really not that complicated to see why so many woman are so deeply offended by the right-wing perspectives on this issue. And unfortunately, after years of depending on Rush Limbaugh to further their cause and galvanize their base, even going so far as apologizing to him when stepping out of line with his rhetoric, they can't suddenly separate themselves and claim he's just another idiot talking head that doesn't represent Republican ideals.

I'm of the mind that both parties are deeply flawed, but whatever chance I'd side with the Republicans- based on economic prudence, tort reform, or a host of other issues that make them seem marginally more sensible- is now gone. I can't possibly support a party that is systematically regressive toward women, yearning for a repressed time in the past, and then hiding behind faith when criticized for it.





*And since when is having an education a bad thing for women? His and many Republicans' blithe bigotry toward women never ceases to amaze me.

**I do realize that all, or even most, Republicans who back the Catholic Church and have since taken pitchforks in hand to oppose the federal government's mandates aren't intentionally marginalizing women's rights, but that's how it plays to every woman who doesn't subscribe to that set of beliefs.




I don't think that the entire Republican party can be all dumped into Rush Limbaugh supporters. In fact, I think MOST Republican find him to be an idiot. He's in it for the money. All of those talking heads that hope to keep us at each other's throats are in it to line their own pockets. Rush, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher, Al Sharpton. They are all the same person.

I also don't see the Republican party as one who seeks to marginalize women or seeks a regressive and/or repressive lifestyle for all. I belive in total equality for all. Most, and by most I'd say 99%, of Conservatives believe in total equality too. For men, woman, blacks, whites, Asian, Hispanic, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, and atheists. Taking away the rights of one group to help another isn't freedom.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:24:54 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
I think you're missing the point just slightly. Below my post, I had a note that acknowledged that Republican intent was likely not to marginalize. They key here is that they don't believe their stance to be regressive, but it is. They don't believe they're marginalizing women in their intended policies, but they are. They say they believe in total equality- and I believe they're being mostly truthful- but in many, many cases, their stances don't represent equality in the eyes of...oh, I'd say, at least half of the country.

It's perception. I don't think it's malicious in most cases at all, but that doesn't change anything.

I also never claimed that all Republicans are Rush Limbaugh supporters. I said that they, as a Party (capital 'P', not necessarily any or all potential voters), can't suddenly disassociate with him when he engages in hate speech, after fully engaging his support and mouthpiece for decades. I obviously can't speak for all voters, but seeing a party so afraid to piss him off tells me all I need to know about influence.

As it stands, I'd be shocked to see anyone admit publicly to agreeing or liking Rush Limbaugh, but that didn't stop millions from laughing and nodding their heads as he characterized female activists for equal (there's that word again) access* to products and procedures as sluts.




*having to pay full sticker for something that would otherwise be had for a minimal price or a co-pay is not equal access.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:25:36 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,327
lafayettemister wrote:



I have no idea. But until they do come out with a list of meds they won't pay for, I'm not going to assume. They haven't just recently "decided" to not pay for birth control. They decided many years ago that they do not condone contraception. There is another thread in the Think Tank where this has been debated. Birth control is a legitmate medicine, but one that goes against their core beliefs and values. It's Freedom of Religion, in my mind at least.

I live in the heart of Cajun country. The population where I live now and where I grew up is very heavily Catholic. This debate was had on several of my friend's Facebook pages. For the most part the guys stayed out of the debate as the women did most of the heavy lifting. A large majority of those women are Catholic and most of them are totally and vehemently against the government forcing the Catholic church to pay for services that are contradictory to their core values.


My actual gut feeling on the issue is that if the church chooses to run secular institutions like hospitals and daycares and hire non-Catholic employees than they shouldn't be able to deny those employees certain things because of religion. It is almost as they are forcing their religion on these secular employees. Of course, I do realize there is a counter argument that if people choose to work at a place the church owns they should expect to be held to the church's standards.

BTW, I see from other posts that you are a Republican. Are you disappointed in their handling of this issue? They went from having a strong argument and seeming to be the defenders of religious freedom to expanding the issue to outlawing birth control altogether and seeming to be the enemy of women everywhere.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:50:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
gpjunk wrote:


My actual gut feeling on the issue is that if the church chooses to run secular institutions like hospitals and daycares and hire non-Catholic employees than they shouldn't be able to deny those employees certain things because of religion. It is almost as they are forcing their religion on these secular employees. Of course, I do realize there is a counter argument that if people choose to work at a place the church owns they should expect to be held to the church's standards.

BTW, I see from other posts that you are a Republican. Are you disappointed in their handling of this issue? They went from having a strong argument and seeming to be the defenders of religious freedom to expanding the issue to outlawing birth control altogether and seeming to be the enemy of women everywhere.


I don't think I've posted anywhere that I'm a Republican. The Republican party has not said that they want to ban birth control altogether. Nope. I'm not a Republican, although i was listed as such earlier in life. On most social issues I am left of center. On matters of a fiscal basis I am right of center. You can do almost anything you want to do, just don't make me pay for it.

There are some out there who argue, quite simplisticly that for years we've heard something to the effect of "A woman's body is her own to do with as she chooses. The governement cant tell me what to do with my body and needs to stay out of my vagina and uterus." Yet now government is exactly what is being used to force coverage of b/c by an institution that is opposed to it.

I think you've been drinking the PC kool-aid. Republicans are not the enemy of women everywhere. That's very very broad generalization. It's easier to discount the views of one group of people if they can all be designated the enemy, or stupid, or backwoods rednecks, or unevolved. Likewise, poeple on the right that assert that Liberals are all enemies of religion and democracy are shortsighted. Labels and total disregard for opposing views are splitting this country in two. Instead of conscientious debate and compromise we have devisiveness and labeling. Most of our country is full of people who are right on some issues and left on others. But our politicians ignore that and try to swing every issue, every topic fully to their side. Bipartisanship is a myth.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:20:19 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,327
lafayettemister wrote:


I don't think I've posted anywhere that I'm a Republican. The Republican party has not said that they want to ban birth control altogether. Nope. I'm not a Republican, although i was listed as such earlier in life. On most social issues I am left of center. On matters of a fiscal basis I am right of center. You can do almost anything you want to do, just don't make me pay for it.

There are some out there who argue, quite simplisticly that for years we've heard something to the effect of "A woman's body is her own to do with as she chooses. The governement cant tell me what to do with my body and needs to stay out of my vagina and uterus." Yet now government is exactly what is being used to force coverage of b/c by an institution that is opposed to it.

I think you've been drinking the PC kool-aid. Republicans are not the enemy of women everywhere. That's very very broad generalization. It's easier to discount the views of one group of people if they can all be designated the enemy, or stupid, or backwoods rednecks, or unevolved. Likewise, poeple on the right that assert that Liberals are all enemies of religion and democracy are shortsighted. Labels and total disregard for opposing views ware splitting this country in two. Instead of conscientious debate and compromise we have devisiveness and labeling. Most of our country is full of people who are right on some issues and left on others. But our politicians ignore that and try to swing every issue, every topic fully to their side. Bipartisanship is a myth.


My bad didn't read a post closely enough to see that you never actually said you were a Republican. And please notice that I used the word "seeming" is my argument. I never said that any Republican is a "stupid, or backwoods rednecks, or unevolved." I understand that there aren't any broad generalizations that can be made across any groups in our society. I was speaking of perception. The party took an issue where they were perceived as right and then with Santorum, who does think the world would be better off without birth control, and ol' Rush spouting their nonsense the party has turned that strong issue into a weakness for them. Mine was an observation on the political strategy not on the actual positions.

Also, I get very tired of the whole pc line. There are observations that can be made of both parties both positive and negative and making them isn't being politically correct or incorrect. It is just making observations.
VanGogh
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:39:29 PM

Rank: Sarcastic Coffee Aficionado

Joined: 2/10/2012
Posts: 3,039
Location: Vancouver, Canada
now I am at the point .... who cares??

I mean, this whole thread that started out with someone questioning the insurance coverage of the Catholic Church .... to viagra .... to the hypothetical.

sigh

Whistle

A Milf series combined with Office Sex *fans face* .... The Secretary and The Student
starting with The Secretary and The Student - first part

Enjoy!!

For the Anal Lovers .... come enjoy my RR honoured An Alluring Ass

Another Sex in the Office Poem (I know you love those!!) In Your Office

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.