TechWife Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 That is impossible under the current system. If that was possible, the smart play would be to insure at the minimum until you had a health issue, and then increase coverage to what was needed. It would be similar to allowing car owners to increase their coverage limits after an accident, and goes against the basic concept of insurance. You're right, it won't work under the current system. I'm not talking about the current system, nor do I propose to have all the kinks worked out of my imaginary system. Car owners can increase their coverage limits after an accident, just not retroactively. I'm not proposing retroactive health insurance, either. I'm just proposing that people shouldn't have to wait for such an infrequent enrollment period to roll around. Perhaps allowing people to change their coverage on a semi-annual or quarterly basis would be helpful. I don't know. Like I said, it's an imaginary system that has kinks in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 How is that going to work, economically? I'm not sure. It's my imaginary system. It's not fully developed and probably never will be - I'm just considering different possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Rastafarians are vegans, isn't that considered a religion? Perhaps they should take it to court, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Perhaps they should take it to court, then. I doubt they would. Rastafarians have a pretty strong conviction of hurting nobody. I don't think they would actually impose their will on another person's medical situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmichigan Posted July 4, 2014 Author Share Posted July 4, 2014 This is a temporary injunction that gives Wheaton relief while their court case makes it's way through the system. Instead of reading the NY Times, read the order! "Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of theapplicant’s employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives. The Government contends that the applicant’s health insuranceissuer and third-party administrator are required byfederal law to provide full contraceptive coverage regardless whether the applicant completes EBSA Form 700" I have read the order. I understand that's it's a temporary injunction. It is listed as such in the NY Times. The Eden Food judgement will also now make it's way through the system, but both were in response to the Hobby Lobby ruling. I'm confused about what point you are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I have read the order. I understand that's it's a temporary injunction. It is listed as such in the NY Times. The Eden Food judgement will also now make it's way through the system, but both were in response to the Hobby Lobby ruling. I'm confused about what point you are making. That the NY Times is a liberal rag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think there's a difference between a 'walk in service,' like a bus, lunch counter, ect. and a custom service such as a special order cake. If a couple walked into a bakery and wanted to purchase a ready-made cake, then it's way worse for the proprietor to refuse to sell the cake then it is for the proprietor to refuse to contract for a special order. Don't get me wrong. Racism is horrible. But I think that situations like the one forcing the bakery to make a custom cake for a couple they don't wish to contract with cause too many potential problems. Situations like black people on a bus don't involve anyone condoning anyone's behavior. Situations like Asians, Latinos, and Jews in a grocery store don't involve condoning anyone's behavior. I think the bakery feels like that in making the cake, they'd be condoning homosexuality. I see a difference there. OK, so then you are fine for that bakery to reject cakes for any sort of couple. If they don't like Christian couples then no cake for them. If they do not like mixed race couples then no cake for them. If they do not like a couple because they are elderly then no cake for them. If they do not like the couple because they are mixed religions then no cake for them. If they do not like the couple because they are Red Sox fans then no cake for them. Making a cake is not "condoning" who the couple is. It is providing a service for paying customers. And if you can't handle that base level of human decency then you are in the wrong business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I doubt they would. Rastafarians have a pretty strong conviction of hurting nobody. I don't think they would actually impose their will on another person's medical situation. I have been listening to Bob Marley and Jimmy Cliff all afternoon, inspired by you. And I feel way better! I highly recommend some reggae for mood lifting and inspiring a positive attitude. So thank you Mrs Mungo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Yes. That's the whole reason for the pre-existing coverage exclusion The ACA is getting rid of pre-existing condition coverage exclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The ACA is getting rid of pre-existing condition coverage exclusion. Which, is TRULY a great relief to parents of children with serious medical conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I have been listening to Bob Marley and Jimmy Cliff all afternoon, inspired by you. And I feel way better! I highly recommend some reggae for mood lifting and inspiring a positive attitude. So thank you Mrs Mungo. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 The ACA is getting rid of pre-existing condition coverage exclusion. Yes, I know. That's one reason why insurance is going up in price. Please note that I'm not saying that getting rid of pre-existing condition exclusion is a bad thing. Every decision has tradeoffs and costs, and nothing is going to be unambiguously either good or bad. I think it's a great benefit to many people. But it was an entirely rational business decision for the insurance companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfknitter.# Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I also cited a study from 2007 and an Oxford Journal Human Reproduction Update from 2008. If there's more recent research specifically on the post-fertilization effects of IUD's, I'm not aware of it. I'm beginning to think there's no pleasing you people. ;) I believe all of the studies I've cited in this thread have been in reference to IUD's. Mrs. Mungo, I only recall you posting links about Plan B. (I could be wrong. There's no way I'm reading through that whole thread again. :)) I'm bowing out of this. And simple arithmetic says those are older than 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfknitter.# Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.) Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service. :glare: I don't care if the couple is gay or straight. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! Wasn't there some hotel thread recently with people stating the customer is always right? Perhaps they meant only in certain cases... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horsellian Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Thank you for clarifying that these items are not free, just that there is no charge for them at the point of need. It's a far cry from providing "free contraceptives" and "free maternity care." But the key point, particularly for maternity and neonatal care, is that there is no charge related to the care that you get. No-one has to go without maternity care because they can't afford it, and no-one is bankrupted by the birth of an extremely sick or premature child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 True. Good point. Honestly, I think it's important for businesses to be able to refuse service. But I also think we should be kind and loving to everyone. However, I think it's possible to be loving and kind to the person and yet not wish to provide a service to them that the business owner perceives to be condoning a behavior they think is wrong. It's like what I said on the last thread about being able to love and hurt with women who have been terribly wronged by rape but still not support abortion for them. It is a difficult, hot-button issue. I even find it difficult to express exactly what I do think because it is so complex. I think that usually, there aren't many problems with businesses and their right to refuse service EXCEPT when the case involves some sort of moral conflict for the business owner. This all comes right back to the HL case. . . You strike me as quite sincere in your beliefs. The fact that you think that businesses don't refuse service except where there is a moral conflict for the business owner is just completely not true, however. Unless you really are willing to lump in racists beliefs, homophobic beliefs, sexists beliefs all under "moral code." People who fought in favor of segregation clearly thought it was a "moral issue" that they not be forced to accommodate black clients in restaurants, hotels, and other businesses. History in America is that people fight change by claiming "moral code" or "religious freedom" to discriminate. And history has shown those fighting against inclusion to be wrong. Men used "moral code" to try to keep women from voting, from working, from taking part in society. Businesses now use "moral code" to try and not provide their business services to gap people. There is NO difference. Progress in American only happens when we can overcome closed-minded thinking and push forwards towards progress and inclusivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Wouldn't all of this just make employers compete more for employees? If you really want birth control for free, then go to work for someone who offers it. If you are against birth control, then go to work for someone like this. What's the big deal? Most employers in this country are going to offer it all. Employer based insurance services do not provide free services. Insurance is part of a benefits package; paid for directly by the labor of the employee. Therefore HL is telling employees exactly how to spend/utilize their compensation. Absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom31257 Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Employer based insurance services do not provide free services. Insurance is part of a benefits package; paid for directly by the labor of the employee. Therefore HL is telling employees exactly how to spend/utilize their compensation. Absurd. Then doesn't every employer do that when they pick the plan they will offer? One employer's plan may have higher co-pays than other employers' plans. One employer's plan may have higher deductibles than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leav97 Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Wouldn't all of this just make employers compete more for employees? If you really want birth control for free, then go to work for someone who offers it. If you are against birth control, then go to work for someone like this. What's the big deal? Most employers in this country are going to offer it all. 90% of companies in the USA are closely held. This ruling applies to MILLIONS of people. And really how many companies pay for 100% of medical insurance. I have an incredible insurance plan and I'm still paying $570 a month. Why should by boss's religion dictate my medical decisions instead of it being a decision between my Dr. and me. There is a reason birth control is considered basic preventative care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leav97 Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I've needed a lot of pills for things that have zero to do with my sex life. Should I get those for "free" when I pick up my prescriptions? Will they help promote the public welfare and reduce the overall cost of medical spending in the country? Are they considered and integral part of preventative medicine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 But the key point, particularly for maternity and neonatal care, is that there is no charge related to the care that you get. No-one has to go without maternity care because they can't afford it, and no-one is bankrupted by the birth of an extremely sick or premature child. Are there not premiums or taxes that are paid by the citizens in exchange for this "free" care? If so, then it isn't free! That's my point. Free at the "point of need" does not mean it's free. To propose that it is, quite frankly, is a denial of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Will they help promote the public welfare and reduce the overall cost of medical spending in the country? Are they considered and integral part of preventative medicine? Actually, yes they would meet all of those qualifications, very easily. I doubt anyone would debate me on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Are there not premiums or taxes that are paid by the citizens in exchange for this "free" care? If so, then it isn't free! That's my point. Free at the "point of need" does not mean it's free. To propose that it is, quite frankly, is a denial of reality.I am mystified why you are stuck on this. You call 911 and police come- free. Tornado is on the way and the weather service issues a warning- free. It's a denial of reality to say those things are free; they are funded by taxes. But they are indeed free. Our elected officials determined these things are worth providing for free. Contraception too. You can dislike that and encourage your officials to change legislation, or vote in folks who feel differently , or take it to court. Doesn't change the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Are there not premiums or taxes that are paid by the citizens in exchange for this "free" care? If so, then it isn't free! That's my point. Free at the "point of need" does not mean it's free. To propose that it is, quite frankly, is a denial of reality. Free at the point of need does matter. Unlike US insurance, it makes healthcare a fixed cost for many procedures - you pay $X/year in taxes, and if you need Y service you do not pay any additional fee. It certainly makes the difference to a low income woman who if she gets pregnant does not have to worry about coming up with the money for maternity care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I am mystified why you are stuck on this. You call 911 and police come- free. Tornado is on the way and the weather service issues a warning- free. It's a denial of reality to say those things are free; they are funded by taxes. But they are indeed free. Our elected officials determined these things are worth providing for free. Contraception too. You can dislike that and encourage your officials to change legislation, or vote in folks who feel differently , or take it to court. Doesn't change the facts. You are contradicting yourself "It's a denial of reality to say those things are free; they are funded by taxes. But they are indeed free." When taxes pay for something, either a service, such as the police, or a product, such as a well maintained road, it is not free. Everyone who pays the taxes is footing the bill. If people didn't pay taxes, those services would not be there. People who receive "free" contraceptives are either paying insurance premiums in return for that "free" product, or they are part of a Medicaid system, which is being paid for through taxes. In either case, the products are not "free." Additionally, you are the one up in arms about court cases, not me. I like the checks & balances system in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Free at the point of need does matter. Unlike US insurance, it makes healthcare a fixed cost for many procedures - you pay $X/year in taxes, and if you need Y service you do not pay any additional fee. It certainly makes the difference to a low income woman who if she gets pregnant does not have to worry about coming up with the money for maternity care. I didn't say it didn't matter. I am just saying that the service, even though "free at the point of need," is not truly free. As you stated here, "you pay $X/year in taxes." That's not free! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I didn't say it didn't matter. I am just saying that the service, even though "free at the point of need," is not truly free. But again, the statement made was "free at the point of need", which does matter and is an accurate statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 But again, the statement made was "free at the point of need", which does matter and is an accurate statement. I never stated that it was inaccurate, nor did I state that it doesn't matter. I don't think you're following the conversation. I distinctly remember thanking Laura for using this terminology instead of stating that something was "free." There is a big difference between "free" and "free at the point of need." That is all - a recognition of the difference between "free" and "free at the point of need." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 so still, no one, on either end of the political spectrum, can explain to me why they won't send in the form saying they won't provide birth control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 so still, no one, on either end of the political spectrum, can explain to me why they won't send in the form saying they won't provide birth control? I sure can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 so still, no one, on either end of the political spectrum, can explain to me why they won't send in the form saying they won't provide birth control? Because they're deeply mired in "NA NA NA NA YOU CAN'T MAKE ME"? Oh, sorry, you wanted a reasonable explanation. Because they're trying to score political points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Because they're deeply mired in "NA NA NA NA YOU CAN'T MAKE ME"? Oh, sorry, you wanted a reasonable explanation. Because they're trying to score political points? I think the bolded is the actual answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nansk Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 so still, no one, on either end of the political spectrum, can explain to me why they won't send in the form saying they won't provide birth control? From here: In Hobby Lobby, Justice Alito wrote that this solution “achieves all of the government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.†Wheaton, however, along with many other religious not-for-profits, have long objected to this very workaround. They filed lawsuits claiming that the mere fact of signing a form noting their religious objection to contraception coverage triggered third parties to provide the contraception, which triggered women to have access to morning-after pills and IUDs, which in their view were akin to abortions, and thus violated their religious consciences. Signing the form, they said, was the same as actually providing the contraceptives themselves. It’s the butterfly effect of contraception. Any time Wheaton flaps its religious-conscience wings, a woman somewhere ends up with an IUD, and Wheaton’s religious liberties are violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 You are contradicting yourself "It's a denial of reality to say those things are free; they are funded by taxes. But they are indeed free." When taxes pay for something, either a service, such as the police, or a product, such as a well maintained road, it is not free. Everyone who pays the taxes is footing the bill. If people didn't pay taxes, those services would not be there. People who receive "free" contraceptives are either paying insurance premiums in return for that "free" product, or they are part of a Medicaid system, which is being paid for through taxes. In either case, the products are not "free." Additionally, you are the one up in arms about court cases, not me. I like the checks & balances system in the US. I was trying to think if anything 'free' by the govt and could not come up with anything. As for checks and balances , Congress passed ACA, it was challenged, the Roberts court allowed it. So in that sense it is a perfect example of elected officials legislating and getting checked by the judicial branch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 From here: In Hobby Lobby, Justice Alito wrote that this solution “achieves all of the government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.†Wheaton, however, along with many other religious not-for-profits, have long objected to this very workaround. They filed lawsuits claiming that the mere fact of signing a form noting their religious objection to contraception coverage triggered third parties to provide the contraception, which triggered women to have access to morning-after pills and IUDs, which in their view were akin to abortions, and thus violated their religious consciences. Signing the form, they said, was the same as actually providing the contraceptives themselves. It’s the butterfly effect of contraception. Any time Wheaton flaps its religious-conscience wings, a woman somewhere ends up with an IUD, and Wheaton’s religious liberties are violated. So if the insurance company pays for it then Wheaton's religious liberty is being violated, but if the employee herself pays for it then Wheaton's religious liberty remains pure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horsellian Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Are there not premiums or taxes that are paid by the citizens in exchange for this "free" care? If so, then it isn't free! That's my point. Free at the "point of need" does not mean it's free. To propose that it is, quite frankly, is a denial of reality. Correct - but in the UK we pay the same per head of population in taxes for medical care as you do in the US, but we get care for the whole population, while you're only paying for whatever portion of the population are on Medicare & Medicaid. So essentially it is 'free' because you're paying the same amount in your taxes but not getting anything back, as most people then have to pay extra for insurance/co-pays etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leav97 Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Actually, yes they would meet all of those qualifications, very easily. I doubt anyone would debate me on it. Then talk to your congressman. Petition DHS for them to be included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetoread Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 So if the insurance company pays for it then Wheaton's religious liberty is being violated, but if the employee herself pays for it then Wheaton's religious liberty remains pure? Well no, not even then because Wheaton gave the employee the salary that allowed her to buy them, so really the only way Wheaton's religious liberty is not violated is if contraceptives are banned altogether. Then their conscience is really clear (which is what all we women really need to be concerned about - Wheaton's conscience). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Well no, not even then because Wheaton gave the employee the salary that allowed her to buy them, so really the only way Wheaton's religious liberty is not violated is if contraceptives are banned altogether. Then their conscience is really clear (which is what all we women really need to be concerned about - Wheaton's conscience). Thank you for clearing that up for me lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I was trying to think if anything 'free' by the govt and could not come up with anything. As for checks and balances , Congress passed ACA, it was challenged, the Roberts court allowed it. So in that sense it is a perfect example of elected officials legislating and getting checked by the judicial branch. Exactly. Nothing is free. Checks and balances were at work in the HL case as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenNC Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I wonder what things would look like if we could take the tax money religious organizations would generate without subsidies and exemptions and use it to create an actual safety net and healthcare that was available to everyone, allowing religious groups to apply to open tax-exempt nonprofit shelters, soup kitchens, etc on the same footing as non-religious groups, but not making the practice of religion (any religion) per se tax exempt? What it might look like if we stop empowering religious officials as agents of the state in marriage, have all get civil marriages for legal purposes and leave it up to the individuals to get their marriage blessed (or not) by the religious body of their choice? Maybe it would get the government out of the business of deciding over and over and over which religions and religious beliefs are valid enough to trump laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Then talk to your congressman. Petition DHS for them to be included. It's been done, however, DHS doesn't see things the same way. There are a host of medications and medical conditions that meet the criteria you set forth. The problem is that most people don't want their taxes and/or premiums to go up in order to have "free at the point of need" care. Healthcare reimbursement has been a mess in the US and remains a mess. I don't think that ACA will solve any problems in the long run. I think the end result of the ACA will be that the insurance companies get to make and keep more money and big pharma will do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Exactly. Nothing is free. Checks and balances were at work in the HL case as well. And yet I an incredibly glad to have many free services. Safety, education, health, transportation. I love the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 From here: In Hobby Lobby, Justice Alito wrote that this solution “achieves all of the government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.†Wheaton, however, along with many other religious not-for-profits, have long objected to this very workaround. They filed lawsuits claiming that the mere fact of signing a form noting their religious objection to contraception coverage triggered third parties to provide the contraception, which triggered women to have access to morning-after pills and IUDs, which in their view were akin to abortions, and thus violated their religious consciences. Signing the form, they said, was the same as actually providing the contraceptives themselves. It’s the butterfly effect of contraception. Any time Wheaton flaps its religious-conscience wings, a woman somewhere ends up with an IUD, and Wheaton’s religious liberties are violated. So they are, in fact, trying to deny access to women. It is not as simply as some would have us believe that the woman ca just go get it herself. The end goal is to deny access. Hmm color me shocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I wonder what things would look like if we could take the tax money religious organizations would generate without subsidies and exemptions and use it to create an actual safety net and healthcare that was available to everyone, allowing religious groups to apply to open tax-exempt nonprofit shelters, soup kitchens, etc on the same footing as non-religious groups, but not making the practice of religion (any religion) per se tax exempt? What it might look like if we stop empowering religious officials as agents of the state in marriage, have all get civil marriages for legal purposes and leave it up to the individuals to get their marriage blessed (or not) by the religious body of their choice? Maybe it would get the government out of the business of deciding over and over and over which religions and religious beliefs are valid enough to trump laws. Let me see if I understand your proposal. If I do, it is certainly an interesting idea. 1 - religious organizations would not be tax exempt due to their religious nature 2 - the money generated by taxing the religious organizations would be used to provide a safety net of services Can't churches already open tax-exempt non-profit shelters? Or would this provision become necessary because the church itself is no longer tax-exempt under your proposal? Also, what would prevent the government from re-directing the funds at a later time (I'm thinking about all of those "education" lotteries)? Now, in my imaginary world/economy, the churches would already be providing that safety net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Let me see if I understand your proposal. If I do, it is certainly an interesting idea. 1 - religious organizations would not be tax exempt due to their religious nature 2 - the money generated by taxing the religious organizations would be used to provide a safety net of services Can't churches already open tax-exempt non-profit shelters? Or would this provision become necessary because the church itself is no longer tax-exempt under your proposal? Also, what would prevent the government from re-directing the funds at a later time (I'm thinking about all of those "education" lotteries)? Now, in my imaginary world/economy, the churches would already be providing that safety net. I agree with you on that last point. See Joel Ornsteed thread for why that is a pipe dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenNC Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Let me see if I understand your proposal. If I do, it is certainly an interesting idea. 1 - religious organizations would not be tax exempt due to their religious nature 2 - the money generated by taxing the religious organizations would be used to provide a safety net of services Can't churches already open tax-exempt non-profit shelters? Or would this provision become necessary because the church itself is no longer tax-exempt under your proposal? Also, what would prevent the government from re-directing the funds at a later time (I'm thinking about all of those "education" lotteries)? Now, in my imaginary world/economy, the churches would already be providing that safety net. Not quite. Not that religious organizations would be specifically taxed to provide the safety net, just that they would no longer have the huge amounts of pretty automatic tax subsidies they currently enjoy and be subject to the same taxes as other businesses/organizations and thereby increasing the tax base overall. Yes, they can already open tax-exempt programs, I was wondering what it would look like if those sorts of programs were the only parts that were tax exempt, not the religious worship programs, and they were subject to the same reporting requirements as other nonprofits. I'm not sure I see enough of a specific benefit to society in general in the act of religious worship to warrant subsidizing it. Overall, honestly, I think the entire nonprofit section of tax law needs a major overhaul and re-examination of whether there is enough of an argument that they provide such sufficient overall societal benefit that they should be exempt (among many other areas of tax law that I think need addressing :) ). I am speaking as a person who is a member of several different non-profit organizations, religious and otherwise, and who does take full advantage of the tax exemption for donations to all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leav97 Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Well no, not even then because Wheaton gave the employee the salary that allowed her to buy them, so really the only way Wheaton's religious liberty is not violated is if contraceptives are banned altogether. Then their conscience is really clear (which is what all we women really need to be concerned about - Wheaton's conscience). No, they just need women to work for free. Then they wouldn't have to compromise their morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmichigan Posted July 5, 2014 Author Share Posted July 5, 2014 That the NY Times is a liberal rag? Ok, so up thread the same basics I pulled were pulled from Slate. Which side are they on? I am obviously really behind on the news bias. :) My intention was to quote the SCOTUS justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 nm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts