Doctors oaths and personal religion.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Doctors oaths and personal religion.

Catholic hospitals are protesting "freedom of religion" in regards to refusing to hand out birth control. Now where the fuck is their free speech violated. The law as far as I know says if you ask for public funding then you cannot discriminate if you want that money. Now if these are private hospitals, they can cut ties with the government and discriminate. No one is shutting them down.

BUT regardless, even in a private hospital without public funding, I think any doctor that cant follow their oath should not be a fucking doctor. It isnt about you, the doctor, it is about the patient. I don't want any doctor who cannot separate their personal beliefs from my care. My care comes first as a patient, not your politics or your religion.

Would these idiots like it if an atheist doctor refused to give care to a believer merely because they didn't like the fact that the patient believed.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT your right to believe what you want. This is about if you ask government for money, AND NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO DO THAT, then when you accept money from the government, you have to obey the same laws anyone else would.

Dont ask for the money if you don't want to, but that is not a violation of your freedom of religion.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Could I get a mod to delete

Could I get a mod to delete the repeated posts.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4280
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 The regulation the

 The regulation the catholic church is bitching about has nothing to do with whether or not they get government money. It requires ALL employers to provide health insurance policies that cover contraception including the morning after pill. It is part of what the government is decreeing to be essential services. While this particular issue is minor to me, it does point out the absurdity of the government insisting that everyone essentially have the same health insurance policy.

 

High deductible insurance policies with things like Health Savings Accounts or Flexible Spending benefits will become a thing of the past when the medical loss ratio provisions kick in. Those require insurance companies spend 80-85% of the premiums on clinical care. The effect is that low cost high deductible policies won't qualify. In fact the individual health insurance market will be significantly cut down as the current average MLR is 73% a far cry from the required 80%. Only the largest health insurance companies will be able to operate in the individual market at those margins. 

 

Also, insurance agents are already seeing large cuts to their pay. Health insurance agents generally get paid 4-6% commission. Rather low when you consider property & casualty commissions are usually in the 10-20% range and life insurance commissions are anywhere from 40-140% the first year with 4-6% renewals. I think that is sad considering that many companies have been pushing their agents out anyway in favor of 24/7 call centers and internet sales. I believe that an agent provides a much better customer experience and has a more personal interest in making sure the customer gets taken care of when they need to collect benefits.   

 

The practical effect is that insurance companies are going to be forced to cover whatever is specifically mandated by the government, but in an effort to keep their costs down they are unlikely to cover anything that is not explicitly required. Currently the United States Preventative Services Task Force is deciding what should and what should not be covered. That is why it was such a big deal when they declared women under 49 didn't need breast cancer screenings. The logical result is that when the coverage mandates go into effect large insurance companies will simply stop covering mammograms for women under 49 because they will have to cover contraception, probably maternity, viagra and whatever other bullshit is declared mandatory. 

 

I suspect Bamacare will eventually lead to dictocrats like the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) which is a panel of 15 appointees who are tasked with cutting medicare spending by 2/3 by deciding how much will be paid for which medical services and what services are not deemed necessary. That is admittedly a long term prediction on my part but when the costs of Bamacare go out of control like the costs of medicare have, I think it is rational to expect the government to respond in a similar fashion. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
The prepetual social

The prepetual social engineering problem: "Where does it end, and on who's dime?"

Preferably not mine.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: The

Beyond Saving wrote:

 The regulation the catholic church is bitching about has nothing to do with whether or not they get government money. It requires ALL employers to provide health insurance policies that cover contraception including the morning after pill. It is part of what the government is decreeing to be essential services. While this particular issue is minor to me, it does point out the absurdity of the government insisting that everyone essentially have the same health insurance policy.

 

High deductible insurance policies with things like Health Savings Accounts or Flexible Spending benefits will become a thing of the past when the medical loss ratio provisions kick in. Those require insurance companies spend 80-85% of the premiums on clinical care. The effect is that low cost high deductible policies won't qualify. In fact the individual health insurance market will be significantly cut down as the current average MLR is 73% a far cry from the required 80%. Only the largest health insurance companies will be able to operate in the individual market at those margins. 

 

Also, insurance agents are already seeing large cuts to their pay. Health insurance agents generally get paid 4-6% commission. Rather low when you consider property & casualty commissions are usually in the 10-20% range and life insurance commissions are anywhere from 40-140% the first year with 4-6% renewals. I think that is sad considering that many companies have been pushing their agents out anyway in favor of 24/7 call centers and internet sales. I believe that an agent provides a much better customer experience and has a more personal interest in making sure the customer gets taken care of when they need to collect benefits.   

 

The practical effect is that insurance companies are going to be forced to cover whatever is specifically mandated by the government, but in an effort to keep their costs down they are unlikely to cover anything that is not explicitly required. Currently the United States Preventative Services Task Force is deciding what should and what should not be covered. That is why it was such a big deal when they declared women under 49 didn't need breast cancer screenings. The logical result is that when the coverage mandates go into effect large insurance companies will simply stop covering mammograms for women under 49 because they will have to cover contraception, probably maternity, viagra and whatever other bullshit is declared mandatory. 

 

I suspect Bamacare will eventually lead to dictocrats like the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) which is a panel of 15 appointees who are tasked with cutting medicare spending by 2/3 by deciding how much will be paid for which medical services and what services are not deemed necessary. That is admittedly a long term prediction on my part but when the costs of Bamacare go out of control like the costs of medicare have, I think it is rational to expect the government to respond in a similar fashion. 

How did I know you'd bring this up.

Ok, your mantra is all about private sector and private sector rights.

YES IT DOES have to do with public funding. Many hospitals are PRIVATE religious hospitals. You are such a whore for private business, why not a private religious charity?

You want to claim that these PRIVATE hospitals can do what they want, AND THEY CAN, but what they CANNOT do is get government subsidies IF they discriminate against employees or patients.

If these assholes don't want to give out birth control at the patience request, they DONT HAVE TO. But they damned sure cannot use a religious excuse to deny it and still ask for government money.

You are an idiot if you think because they are "Private" that they don't take some sort of government money to compensate for their workers or patients costs.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: The

Beyond Saving wrote:

 The regulation the catholic church is bitching about has nothing to do with whether or not they get government money. It requires ALL employers to provide health insurance policies that cover contraception including the morning after pill. It is part of what the government is decreeing to be essential services. While this particular issue is minor to me, it does point out the absurdity of the government insisting that everyone essentially have the same health insurance policy.

 

High deductible insurance policies with things like Health Savings Accounts or Flexible Spending benefits will become a thing of the past when the medical loss ratio provisions kick in. Those require insurance companies spend 80-85% of the premiums on clinical care. The effect is that low cost high deductible policies won't qualify. In fact the individual health insurance market will be significantly cut down as the current average MLR is 73% a far cry from the required 80%. Only the largest health insurance companies will be able to operate in the individual market at those margins. 

 

Also, insurance agents are already seeing large cuts to their pay. Health insurance agents generally get paid 4-6% commission. Rather low when you consider property & casualty commissions are usually in the 10-20% range and life insurance commissions are anywhere from 40-140% the first year with 4-6% renewals. I think that is sad considering that many companies have been pushing their agents out anyway in favor of 24/7 call centers and internet sales. I believe that an agent provides a much better customer experience and has a more personal interest in making sure the customer gets taken care of when they need to collect benefits.   

 

The practical effect is that insurance companies are going to be forced to cover whatever is specifically mandated by the government, but in an effort to keep their costs down they are unlikely to cover anything that is not explicitly required. Currently the United States Preventative Services Task Force is deciding what should and what should not be covered. That is why it was such a big deal when they declared women under 49 didn't need breast cancer screenings. The logical result is that when the coverage mandates go into effect large insurance companies will simply stop covering mammograms for women under 49 because they will have to cover contraception, probably maternity, viagra and whatever other bullshit is declared mandatory. 

 

I suspect Bamacare will eventually lead to dictocrats like the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) which is a panel of 15 appointees who are tasked with cutting medicare spending by 2/3 by deciding how much will be paid for which medical services and what services are not deemed necessary. That is admittedly a long term prediction on my part but when the costs of Bamacare go out of control like the costs of medicare have, I think it is rational to expect the government to respond in a similar fashion. 

How did I know you'd bring this up.

Ok, your mantra is all about private sector and private sector rights.

YES IT DOES have to do with public funding. Many hospitals are PRIVATE religious hospitals. You are such a whore for private business, why not a private religious charity?

You want to claim that these PRIVATE hospitals can do what they want, AND THEY CAN, but what they CANNOT do is get government subsidies IF they discriminate against employees or patients.

If these assholes don't want to give out birth control at the patience request, they DONT HAVE TO. But they damned sure cannot use a religious excuse to deny it and still ask for government money.

You are an idiot if you think because they are "Private" that they don't take some sort of government money to compensate for their workers or patients costs.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4280
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:How did I know

Brian37 wrote:

How did I know you'd bring this up.

Ok, your mantra is all about private sector and private sector rights.

YES IT DOES have to do with public funding. Many hospitals are PRIVATE religious hospitals. You are such a whore for private business, why not a private religious charity?

You want to claim that these PRIVATE hospitals can do what they want, AND THEY CAN, but what they CANNOT do is get government subsidies IF they discriminate against employees or patients.

If these assholes don't want to give out birth control at the patience request, they DONT HAVE TO. But they damned sure cannot use a religious excuse to deny it and still ask for government money.

You are an idiot if you think because they are "Private" that they don't take some sort of government money to compensate for their workers or patients costs.

 

No, you are factually wrong, private hospitals cannot do whatever they want. The law does not say if you are private and accept no government money that you can buy whatever health insurance policy your heart desires for your employees. If you hire more than 50 employees (which I'm pretty sure 100% of hospitals do) you MUST purchase health insurance that covers contraception.

http://housedocs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr3590_engrossed.pdf 

 

Maybe you listened to Rush Limbaugh today because he was conflating what the catholic church is mad about today with the amendment to the "conscience clause" that Obama made last year which did only apply to hospitals that get federal money. It might surprise you to learn that Rush was factually wrong, the catholic church isn't screaming about what happened last year, they are talking about the decision that religious hospitals/charities don't get an exception to the requirements that employers provide health insurance that covers contraception. This was a rule that was announced on January 20th of this year by Secretary Sebelius. (Which brings up another main concern of mine that all these rules are at the whim of whoever is secretary of HHS, they are not voted on by congress) 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-05/Kathleen-Sebelius-contraception-exemption/52975092/1 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-05/contraception-mandate-religious-freedom/52975796/1?loc=interstitialskip

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72547.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9064926/Roman-Catholic-leaders-criticise-Barack-Obama-over-healthcare.html

 

Although even if it was limited to only hospitals that receive money from the government that would still include almost all of them since almost 25% of people receive their health coverage from the government and 77% of seniors do. I know the Mayo Clinic in Arizona decided to stop accepting medicare patients, I'm not really sure how that is working for them. Too lazy to google it now.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125417/americans-reliant-government-healthcare-2009.aspx

 

 

 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

How did I know you'd bring this up.

Ok, your mantra is all about private sector and private sector rights.

YES IT DOES have to do with public funding. Many hospitals are PRIVATE religious hospitals. You are such a whore for private business, why not a private religious charity?

You want to claim that these PRIVATE hospitals can do what they want, AND THEY CAN, but what they CANNOT do is get government subsidies IF they discriminate against employees or patients.

If these assholes don't want to give out birth control at the patience request, they DONT HAVE TO. But they damned sure cannot use a religious excuse to deny it and still ask for government money.

You are an idiot if you think because they are "Private" that they don't take some sort of government money to compensate for their workers or patients costs.

 

No, you are factually wrong, private hospitals cannot do whatever they want. The law does not say if you are private and accept no government money that you can buy whatever health insurance policy your heart desires for your employees. If you hire more than 50 employees (which I'm pretty sure 100% of hospitals do) you MUST purchase health insurance that covers contraception.

http://housedocs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr3590_engrossed.pdf 

 

Maybe you listened to Rush Limbaugh today because he was conflating what the catholic church is mad about today with the amendment to the "conscience clause" that Obama made last year which did only apply to hospitals that get federal money. It might surprise you to learn that Rush was factually wrong, the catholic church isn't screaming about what happened last year, they are talking about the decision that religious hospitals/charities don't get an exception to the requirements that employers provide health insurance that covers contraception. This was a rule that was announced on January 20th of this year by Secretary Sebelius. (Which brings up another main concern of mine that all these rules are at the whim of whoever is secretary of HHS, they are not voted on by congress) 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-05/Kathleen-Sebelius-contraception-exemption/52975092/1 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-05/contraception-mandate-religious-freedom/52975796/1?loc=interstitialskip

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72547.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9064926/Roman-Catholic-leaders-criticise-Barack-Obama-over-healthcare.html

 

Although even if it was limited to only hospitals that receive money from the government that would still include almost all of them since almost 25% of people receive their health coverage from the government and 77% of seniors do. I know the Mayo Clinic in Arizona decided to stop accepting medicare patients, I'm not really sure how that is working for them. Too lazy to google it now.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125417/americans-reliant-government-healthcare-2009.aspx

 

 

Wow, you actually criticized Rush? Humn, maybe there is a dog?

You're entire mantra, on this issue and on others is "get government out of my life".

Sounds nice on paper. But life is never black or white. I'd suggest the way to avoid things like this is to make health care affordable by breaking the monopolies, and make it about the patent and doctor. But as long as costs are out of the galaxy, people WILL look wherever they can to get it.

I see nothing on the private sector's part that would indicate it cares anything about cost to society. So people will turn to government. Introspection and self regulation is the only cure. What will not happen is pretending you don't want government in our lives, but you have no problem supporting policies that allow the costs to explode.

The reality is "get government out of my life, unless I am the one making the laws", is your attitude. As long as all you care about is protecting money and profits, people of your mindset will create the very thing you say you don't want.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4280
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Wow, you

Brian37 wrote:

Wow, you actually criticized Rush? Humn, maybe there is a dog?

I criticize El Rushbo quite often, just not much point on these forums since no one here is going to defend him.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You're entire mantra, on this issue and on others is "get government out of my life".

Congratulations, for once your characterization of my views is close to the truth, if a bit simplified.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Sounds nice on paper. But life is never black or white. I'd suggest the way to avoid things like this is to make health care affordable by breaking the monopolies, and make it about the patent and doctor. But as long as costs are out of the galaxy, people WILL look wherever they can to get it.]

If you think the solution is breaking monopolies then why do you support a law that does the opposite by making the health insurance industry harder to enter? If you took the time to actually read and understand the law I linked to above you would find that it is not consistent with the values you support. Yet you support it blindly because Bama claims that it will help you. In fairness to Bama, I doubt he has read the law any more than the people who voted for it. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I see nothing on the private sector's part that would indicate it cares anything about cost to society. So people will turn to government. Introspection and self regulation is the only cure.

 

Have you seen anything on governments part that makes you believe the politicians give a shit about you or the cost to society? Have you SEEN the budget? My 4 year old nephew has more fiscal discipline than congress. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

What will not happen is pretending you don't want government in our lives, but you have no problem supporting policies that allow the costs to explode.

 

What policy that I support would cause costs to explode?

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The reality is "get government out of my life, unless I am the one making the laws", is your attitude. As long as all you care about is protecting money and profits, people of your mindset will create the very thing you say you don't want.

Really? What law have I ever supported/proposed that creates a larger more intrusive government? I believe this claim is true for most republican politicians- they talk about small government until they control it, then grow it exponentially. I am not republican. I don't vote for them, I don't participate inside the party, I don't donate money. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken