What does religious freedom mean?

[Greta]

I have private insurance. They tell me which medications they will pay for and which doctors they will pay for. Why should birth control be any different? Because birth control is a delicate princess thing and nothing else is? Cancer, Lupus, Autism, stroke, fertility, cardiac, etc etc etc...those things are just not as delicate or important as which birth control someone uses? No one told a woman which birth control she is allowed to use. They only told her they would not pay for it, she will have to pay for it herself.

 

You're comparing a business deciding what it will provide based on its costs, to a third party stepping in and telling that business what it can provide based on religious beliefs.  You don't see the difference?

 

And as to your last sentence, no they are not telling her "they" will not pay for it.  They are telling her that SHE can't pay for it using the health insurance that she earned in compensation for the job that she performed for them.  

 

The healthcare plan is part of the currency that she earned in exchange for her time and work.  The companies aren't just giving it away out of the goodness of their hearts, you know.  The employees are earning it.  It belongs to the employees.  It is their property, just like the salary that they've earned.  Just like the paid vacation time that they've earned.  You would agree that the salary belongs to the employee, yes?  How are the benefits that she earned any different?

 

Honestly, I don't see how this is any different from a company saying its employees cannot spend their vacation time in Las Vegas because the company has a "sincerely held religious belief" against gambling.  I've earned my vacation time.  It is mine to do with as I please.  Why should it still be under my employer's control?

[UmmIbrahim]

That being said, I think burkas are abuse. 

 

 

I am a Muslim woman who chooses to cover my hair for my faith. I live with my mother-in-law who chooses to wear a burqa for what she believes. She only started doing this at age 60 because of some personal convictions that she developed. No one in our family was happy with this choice. Let me tell you we have some "fun" times here in the US when we go out in public as a family. My father-in-law would love for her to stop wearing it, her children would love for her to stop wearing it, and I would love for her to stop wearing it because I don't agree with her personal convictions about doing so. However, she is free to make her own choices and we support her right to choose attire, even if we disagree with it.

 

I always wonder when we start heading down the road of prescriptivism regarding "she shouldn't wear this" or "women shouldn't be able to wear this" or "wearing this surely indicates coercion" or "she must be an abused woman to be wearing this." It sounds all too reminiscent of the mentality of "I, the enlightened Western woman, will help you, poor, abused Eastern woman to be 'free'" Is your cultural norm to be forced upon others? Is there only one single cultural norm? Are long skirts okay? Are loose shirts okay? Is covering the hair okay (and is it only okay for some religions to do this and not others)?  Where do we draw the line? Women continue to be vilified for all kinds of clothing decisions. "Her skirt is too short, she was asking for it." "Didn't you see the revealing dress she was wearing?"

 

We have a long way to go as a society towards accepting all women and all of their choices regarding attire.

[Mergath]

When the UK needed to draft a bill on Human Fertility and Embryology some years ago, they called in a moral philosopher to lead the task.  Values are definitely involved, but are they necessarily religious values?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Warnock,_Baroness_Warnock#Public_policy

 

If anyone is interested in learning more about this, btw, she gives a great interview about it on an episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. It's really interesting. 

[Carrie12345]

I am a Muslim woman who chooses to cover my hair for my faith. I live with my mother-in-law who chooses to wear a burqa for what she believes. She only started doing this at age 60 because of some personal convictions that she developed. No one in our family was happy with this choice. Let me tell you we have some "fun" times here in the US when we go out in public as a family. My father-in-law would love for her to stop wearing it, her children would love for her to stop wearing it, and I would love for her to stop wearing it because I don't agree with her personal convictions about doing so. However, she is free to make her own choices and we support her right to choose attire, even if we disagree with it.

 

 

When we visited a friend's Masjid for a lovely tour/info session, several of the women discussed their decisions to cover in public, some despite their husbands' suggestions to refrain for their own safety.  It's heartbreaking to realize the enormity of their choice (for the safety aspect) but it was also reassuring to see and understand that it was due to their own personal convictions and not someone else's.

 

Adding, I realize not every Muslim women in every part of the world (or even in the US) is necessarily in the position to choose.  The fabric itself doesn't dictate choice or lack of choice, so I see no reason to villainize an inanimate object.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Carrie12345

[FaithManor]

You're comparing a business deciding what it will provide based on its costs, to a third party stepping in and telling that business what it can provide based on religious beliefs.  You don't see the difference?

 

And as to your last sentence, no they are not telling her "they" will not pay for it.  They are telling her that SHE can't pay for it using the health insurance that she earned in compensation for the job that she performed for them.  

 

The healthcare plan is part of the currency that she earned in exchange for her time and work.  The companies aren't just giving it away out of the goodness of their hearts, you know.  The employees are earning it.  It belongs to the employees.  It is their property, just like the salary that they've earned.  Just like the paid vacation time that they've earned.  You would agree that the salary belongs to the employee, yes?  How are the benefits that she earned any different?

 

Honestly, I don't see how this is any different from a company saying its employees cannot spend their vacation time in Las Vegas because the company has a "sincerely held religious belief" against gambling.  I've earned my vacation time.  It is mine to do with as I please.  Why should it still be under my employer's control?

Exactly. In terms of compensation, it would be no different than an employer dictating to the employee what he/she can or can not do on vacation, where he/she can or cannot go.

 

No one would stand for it! Why? Because the vacation time is not a gift, it is part of the compensation package guaranteed to the employer as pay for work completed. Period. 

[TranquilMind]

And there are ways to 100 percent avoid paying for someone else's birth control, including not owning a business. Of course, they individual may not LIKE the option of closing their business.....

 

Why on earth do you think anyone should get free birth control?

 

Geez, get it yourself, fertile women.  We did, when we needed it. 

 

Not once in my entire childbearing years did I rely on someone else for MY birth control of choice at any given moment.  

 

The entitlement today just flummoxes me. 

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

What if it would be life threateningly dangerous for a woman to get pregnant?  That is a definite reason to have a tubal.

 

A family member of mine opted to get a tubal because she has a severe mental illness.  But you know she is still a real person with feelings who wants to live some sort of a normal life.  She is married.  It is a very bad idea for her to have children.  But, again, she tries to live her life as best she can.  You really don't think she made a good decision?  Or do you think she should have just not gotten married....maybe go live in a mental institution or something.  

 

I think that anyone should be able to get anything they need.  If she needs it, she should get it. 

Her insurance refused to pay for this despite a doctor recommendation? 

 

[TranquilMind]

Oh and free to use one's own money.  Right.  Because medical care of any kind is within the range of affordable for most people.  If that were the case, why would we need insurance at all?

 

We don't need insurance.  We need to eliminate the profit-making insurance entirely.  Then, if you weren't paying $12-20,000 per year to some company, you'd have it if you needed a surgery.

But I doubt this will happen because of the money interests involved. 

[TranquilMind]

Oh and free to use one's own money.  Right.  Because medical care of any kind is within the range of affordable for most people.  If that were the case, why would we need insurance at all?

 

We don't need insurance.  We need to eliminate the profit-making insurance entirely.  Then, if you weren't paying $12-20,000 per year to some company, you'd have it if you needed a surgery.  If doctors and hospitals weren't spending thousands of hours/dollars per year dealing with this insurance nonsense, they would not need to overcharge so ridiculously much. 

But I doubt this will happen because of the money interests involved. 

[hornblower]

Why on earth do you think anyone should get free birth control?

 

Geez, get it yourself, fertile women.  We did, when we needed it. 

 

Not once in my entire childbearing years did I rely on someone else for MY birth control of choice at any given moment.  

 

The entitlement today just flummoxes me. 

 

 

 

I'm curious -

 

Do you think viagra should be covered under health insurance? 

 

Do you think fertility treatments should be covered? 

[TranquilMind]

I'm curious -

 

Do you think viagra should be covered under health insurance? 

 

Do you think fertility treatments should be covered? 

 

They are not covered now, for the most part. 

 

No, not really. 

But then again, I'm for eliminating insurance altogether and going direct where possible.  It's an evil system that keeps the door. 

[Leav97]

Why on earth do you think anyone should get free birth control?

 

Geez, get it yourself, fertile women.  We did, when we needed it. 

 

Not once in my entire childbearing years did I rely on someone else for MY birth control of choice at any given moment.  

 

The entitlement today just flummoxes me. 

 

 

If you think it's "free" you haven't seen my health care premiums.

[Greta]

Why on earth do you think anyone should get free birth control?

 

Geez, get it yourself, fertile women.  We did, when we needed it. 

 

Not once in my entire childbearing years did I rely on someone else for MY birth control of choice at any given moment.  

 

The entitlement today just flummoxes me. 

 

 

How is it "free" if it's part of an earned employment compensation package?

 

Yes, I do feel "entitled" to the things that I work for, earn, and own.

 

 

We don't need insurance.  We need to eliminate the profit-making insurance entirely.  Then, if you weren't paying $12-20,000 per year to some company, you'd have it if you needed a surgery.  If doctors and hospitals weren't spending thousands of hours/dollars per year dealing with this insurance nonsense, they would not need to overcharge so ridiculously much. 

But I doubt this will happen because of the money interests involved. 

 

 

I actually wholeheartedly agree with you on this.  Insurance makes sense for things like car accidents which are uncommon in the life of an individual.  I realize car accidents happen everyday, but what I mean is, I have had one, minor one, in my life so far (knock on wood!), and a person could go their entire life without one.  My overall risk for an accident isn't that high, so insurance to help me manage that risk makes sense.  But *everybody* needs healthcare, and it's quite common to need it frequently.  So insurance is not the best way of approaching that situation.  

 

Unfortunately, however, I fear we are stuck.  ETA: and I also fear I'm diverting too much energy to this topic, which wasn't really the point of the thread.  So I'll quit now.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Greta

[TranquilMind]

If you think it's "free" you haven't seen my health care premiums.

 

No, but I've seen mine.  Beyond Outrageous, especially considering the minimal amount of interaction we try to have with the allopathic medical community.

 

 

[TranquilMind]

How is it "free" if it's part of an earned employment compensation package?

 

Yes, I do feel "entitled" to the things that I work for, earn, and own.

 

 

 

 

I actually wholeheartedly agree with you on this.  Insurance makes sense for things like car accidents which are uncommon in the life of an individual.  I realize car accidents happen everyday, but what I mean is, I have had one, minor one, in my entire life, and a person could go their entire life without one.  My overall risk for an accident isn't that high, so insurance to help me manage that risk makes sense.  But *everybody* needs healthcare, and it's quite common to need it frequently.  So insurance is not the best way of approaching that situation.  

 

Unfortunately, however, I fear we are stuck.  ETA: and I also fear I'm diverting too much energy to this topic, which wasn't really the point of the thread.  So I'll quit now.

 

Um, you didn't work for and own birth control.  You worked for insurance coverage, whatever that is, at your place of employment.

 

At least we agree on one point.  Insurance is not the best way at all.  

[TranquilMind]

Exactly. In terms of compensation, it would be no different than an employer dictating to the employee what he/she can or can not do on vacation, where he/she can or cannot go.

 

No one would stand for it! Why? Because the vacation time is not a gift, it is part of the compensation package guaranteed to the employer as pay for work completed. Period. 

 

Why do they stand for insurance at all?

 

It doesn't benefit us.  It lines pockets. 

 

[hornblower]

 

The state could choose to make the pill otc.  I've read some credible arguments that it's less dangerous than many otc pain relievers.  That would take this right off the table as it would no longer be insurable. 

 

Of course putting that much control in the hands of women threatens many people. (& then you'd get  some pharmacists refusing to sell it... ) 

 

 

[FaithManor]

They are not covered now, for the most part. 

 

No, not really. 

But then again, I'm for eliminating insurance altogether and going direct where possible.  It's an evil system that keeps the door. 

My dd has been on BCBS through her EMS company here in Michigan and viagra was covered as well as some fertility treatment. Her insurance with her EMS company in New Jersey covered ALL birth control, all blue pills, all fertility treatments though that had a lifetime max of something like $50,000.00 if memory serves. She has insurance now through her husband's place of work in NY - Lockheed Martin - and she has full coverage as fertility issues are considered part of women's health care. Her doctors and midwives practice at a women's health hospital, and anything they've done to preserve her fertility has never been denied.

 

Even our own insurance here which is not as robust as hers pays for $25,000 in fertility health.

[Pam in CT]

I don't think it's possible to discuss what religious freedom "means" without getting into the differences between the majority vs. minority status of different (or no) faith traditions.  Much of the difference between "freedom to" practice as per beliefs vs. "freedom from" the effects of others' practices / beliefs comes down to which side of that line a person happens to fall.  Many (most?) of the tensions that play out in the public sphere come down to balancing "freedom to" of the majority strand against "freedom from" of the minority (or no) strands -- collective prayer in public schools or at official events, religious symbols on municipal greens or in government buildings, non-discriminatory requirements associated with tax exempt status and so on.

 

Both the burka/head covering discussion, and also the health insurance coverage question, exemplify the freedom to/freedom from, majority/minority tension.  There is a real difference between a woman -- be it MercyA or umsami or YaelAldrich or anyone else, coming from any religious tradition, choosing to cover... versus social norms or laws that coercively require women to cover whether or not they are individually moved to do so or even if they belong to the majority faith tradition.  Such norms and laws do exist in some other societies with different majority faith traditions, and IMNSHO cannot be thought of as expression of the majority's Freedom To practice religion -- the coercive element pushes it over to Coercive Control in the name of religion.

 

While there's enough diversity within the majority Christian faith tradition in the US that our Tyranny of the Majority religion examples -- Sunday blue laws, Comstock laws, Christmas calendar for schools and many businesses, etc -- are fewer and less extreme, the contraception debate takes us into similar territory.  Employer insurance, when it exists, is as amply discussed above, part of the employees' earned compensation package.  Like wages, the benefit is for the employees to use as they and their medical providers see fit.  For employers to use insurance coverage to extend their religious beliefs into their employees' medical decisions is to move out of Freedom To territory, and over into Coercive Control in the name of.  

 

Ironically, the longterm effect of such overreach in the name of religion is in my view likely to end with more support for a secular single payer health care system.  

 

 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

My dd has been on BCBS through her EMS company here in Michigan and viagra was covered as well as some fertility treatment. Her insurance with her EMS company in New Jersey covered ALL birth control, all blue pills, all fertility treatments though that had a lifetime max of something like $50,000.00 if memory serves. She has insurance now through her husband's place of work in NY - Lockheed Martin - and she has full coverage as fertility issues are considered part of women's health care. Her doctors and midwives practice at a women's health hospital, and anything they've done to preserve her fertility has never been denied.

 

Even our own insurance here which is not as robust as hers pays for $25,000 in fertility health.

That's pretty interesting. 

 

I read that only about 27% were covered for such things.

 

I guess she got the right insurance for her.

 

Completely excluded here.  I just looked it up. 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

The state could choose to make the pill otc.  I've read some credible arguments that it's less dangerous than many otc pain relievers.  That would take this right off the table as it would no longer be insurable. 

 

Of course putting that much control in the hands of women threatens many people. (& then you'd get  some pharmacists refusing to sell it... ) 

 

 

 

I agree.  I think everything should be freely available on the shelf.  Everything.  One reasonable price.  Everything on the shelf, buy what you need or want. 

 

If you are dumb enough to overdo it, it is your choice.  The only issue there would be stupid people driving under the influence, but they do that now with alcohol, which is freely legal and available to anyone over 18 (or 21,  in some states). 

[Miss Peregrine]

I agree. I think everything should be freely available on the shelf. Everything. One reasonable price. Everything on the shelf, buy what you need or want.

 

If you are dumb enough to overdo it, it is your choice. The only issue there would be stupid people driving under the influence, but they do that now with alcohol, which is freely legal and available to anyone over 18 (or 21, in some states).

Yes, please. Especially meds for pink eye. Thank you.

[TranquilMind]

Yes, please. Especially meds for pink eye. Thank you.

 

I wish.  But that would require that the powers-that-be think that we adults have common sense. 

 

So many don't, so we all suffer. 

 

Pink eye is a major one for which you do not want to visit the doctor in his office and risk picking up some nasty thing from all the sick people in the waiting room, just because you need drops.

 

I just hate the current stupid gatekeeper system. 

 

 

Like the Bible says, the law is for lawbreakers. 

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

The state could choose to make the pill otc.  I've read some credible arguments that it's less dangerous than many otc pain relievers.  That would take this right off the table as it would no longer be insurable. 

 

Of course putting that much control in the hands of women threatens many people. (& then you'd get  some pharmacists refusing to sell it... ) 

 

 

Amen.

 

Seriously.  Nothing should be restricted. 

[hornblower]

Amen.

 

Seriously.  Nothing should be restricted. 

 

 

what about the abuse of antibiotics which is causing antibiotic resistance & threatening the health of all of us? 

[Miss Peregrine]

what about the abuse of antibiotics which is causing antibiotic resistance & threatening the health of all of us?

Maybe better education for doctors. I've been prescribed abx many times and not used them after my own research.

[PeacefulChaos]

Maybe better education for doctors. I've been prescribed abx many times and not used them after my own research.

 

 

Slightly unrelated, but on this trend... there is a local doctor who is very free with giving out antibiotics for... everything.

 

DH went in one time with an earache, and the doctor was like, 'Well, it might be something antibiotics can help, or not.  So basically it's up to you.  Do you want some?'

 

Much later, just about a year ago, a friend of mine (her/her kids are patients of his) called him from my van while we were on a field trip and was talking to his wife/head nurse: 'Hey, ____ has a stomachache today and says she doesn't feel good.'  The wife was like, 'Hmm, so what do you think it is?' and they talked for a bit and the wife said she'd talk to the doctor and get back to her.  So then when they call back they're like 'Hey so it's really up to you.  Do you think she needs an antibiotic for it?'

 

And stuff like that leaves me :blink:  

[FaithManor]

Yes, please. Especially meds for pink eye. Thank you.

It is profoundly stupid in my not so humble opinion that pink eye meds are prescription only. Of all the things that are safe to use and easily diagnostic by parent, it is pink eye.

[Miss Peregrine]

Slightly unrelated, but on this trend... there is a local doctor who is very free with giving out antibiotics for... everything.

 

DH went in one time with an earache, and the doctor was like, 'Well, it might be something antibiotics can help, or not. So basically it's up to you. Do you want some?'

 

Much later, just about a year ago, a friend of mine (her/her kids are patients of his) called him from my van while we were on a field trip and was talking to his wife/head nurse: 'Hey, ____ has a stomachache today and says she doesn't feel good.' The wife was like, 'Hmm, so what do you think it is?' and they talked for a bit and the wife said she'd talk to the doctor and get back to her. So then when they call back they're like 'Hey so it's really up to you. Do you think she needs an antibiotic for it?'

 

And stuff like that leaves me :blink:

Crazy.

 

 

I guess it's naive of me to assume that people actually take charge of their own health care and research things. If doctors can't even be bothered to do that I'm certainly not going to blame abx resistance on the patients.

[TranquilMind]

what about the abuse of antibiotics which is causing antibiotic resistance & threatening the health of all of us? 

Um, use common sense? 

 

Research something before you use it?  I've headed off prescriptions of certain types before that drug was yanked off the market.  I expect people to use common sense and for doctors to always inform their patients of drug side effects and contraindications.

 

Neither expectation is met, much of the time. 

[TranquilMind]

Slightly unrelated, but on this trend... there is a local doctor who is very free with giving out antibiotics for... everything.

 

DH went in one time with an earache, and the doctor was like, 'Well, it might be something antibiotics can help, or not.  So basically it's up to you.  Do you want some?'

 

Much later, just about a year ago, a friend of mine (her/her kids are patients of his) called him from my van while we were on a field trip and was talking to his wife/head nurse: 'Hey, ____ has a stomachache today and says she doesn't feel good.'  The wife was like, 'Hmm, so what do you think it is?' and they talked for a bit and the wife said she'd talk to the doctor and get back to her.  So then when they call back they're like 'Hey so it's really up to you.  Do you think she needs an antibiotic for it?'

 

And stuff like that leaves me :blink:

 

So, don't take them.  Or take the prescription, just in case it turns out to be bacterial and not viral.  This isn't rocket science.  There are some pretty easy markers to determine when it is best to take the antibiotic just in case. 

 

I think we should be able to get our own at any time. But then I'm very Libertarian, especially in the realm of "health" care.  It's really sick care in this country.  I've met doctors who wouldn't know a thing about maintaining good health if it bit them, including the specialist who told me that "losing any weight has no impact on your health" when I told him my mother had decided to lose 20 pounds instead of jump on the prescription drug bandwagon and it worked for her condition". 

 

[FaithManor]

Crazy.

 

 

I guess it's naive of me to assume that people actually take charge of their own health care and research things. If doctors can't even be bothered to do that I'm certainly not going to blame abx resistance on the patients.

Yes, I agree. Not only that, its really bad with my parents and many of their friends. They were the first generation to get those life saving antibiotics, and want to pop them like candy for any and all sniffles, aches, pains, running noses, you name it. As far as I can tell, their family physicians are under a lot of pressure to prescribe for things that shouldn't be prescribed for as a rule.

 

My mother just about demands antibiotics for everything. EVERYTHING! Is is insane, and of course she's so resistant she will probably die of something like bronchitis some day because nothing is going to work. 

[Miss Peregrine]

Yes, I agree. Not only that, its really bad with my parents and many of their friends. They were the first generation to get those life saving antibiotics, and want to pop them like candy for any and all sniffles, aches, pains, running noses, you name it. As far as I can tell, their family physicians are under a lot of pressure to prescribe for things that shouldn't be prescribed for as a rule.

 

My mother just about demands antibiotics for everything. EVERYTHING! Is is insane, and of course she's so resistant she will probably die of something like bronchitis some day because nothing is going to work.

My in laws were the same.

[PeacefulChaos]

So, don't take them.  Or take the prescription, just in case it turns out to be bacterial and not viral.  This isn't rocket science.  There are some pretty easy markers to determine when it is best to take the antibiotic just in case. 

 

I think we should be able to get our own at any time. But then I'm very Libertarian, especially in the realm of "health" care.  It's really sick care in this country.  I've met doctors who wouldn't know a thing about maintaining good health if it bit them, including the specialist who told me that "losing any weight has no impact on your health" when I told him my mother had decided to lose 20 pounds instead of jump on the prescription drug bandwagon and it worked for her condition". 

 

 

 

Um.... we didn't.  The guy isn't our doctor.... DH saw him once and never again for that reason.

 

That doesn't change the fact that it's irresponsible of him to actually ask mom if a kid needs an antibiotic without ever seeing her.   :001_huh:

 

SaveSave

Edited July 1, 2016 by PeacefulChaos

[TranquilMind]

Um.... we didn't.  The guy isn't our doctor.... DH saw him once and never again for that reason.

 

That doesn't change the fact that it's irresponsible of him.   :001_huh:

SaveSave

 

We don't really know then if it is his practice to hand out antibiotics to anyone or everyone.  Your husband was just asked if he wanted some for this ambiguous situation.

He didn't. 

That doesn't make the doctor irresponsible.  Unless you like to pay for lab tests and wait several days to let an infection really take hold.  Maybe that is what the doctor was thinking. 

[TranquilMind]

Yes, I agree. Not only that, its really bad with my parents and many of their friends. They were the first generation to get those life saving antibiotics, and want to pop them like candy for any and all sniffles, aches, pains, running noses, you name it. As far as I can tell, their family physicians are under a lot of pressure to prescribe for things that shouldn't be prescribed for as a rule.

 

My mother just about demands antibiotics for everything. EVERYTHING! Is is insane, and of course she's so resistant she will probably die of something like bronchitis some day because nothing is going to work. 

 

That's really interesting.  My mom rarely took an antibiotic ever.

And we sure don't, unless it is warranted. 

 

So I really don't know any of these people who pop them like candy.

 

[PeacefulChaos]

We don't really know then if it is his practice to hand out antibiotics to anyone or everyone.  Your husband was just asked if he wanted some for this ambiguous situation.

He didn't. 

That doesn't make the doctor irresponsible.  Unless you like to pay for lab tests and wait several days to let an infection really take hold.  Maybe that is what the doctor was thinking. 

 

 

I edited and clarified.  

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

You are telling people "Hey, no one says you have to work that job" if they want birth control. I'm saying the very same thing....no one says you have to work that job. The only difference is one person's job is as an employee and one is as an employer, but either way, no one forced them to have that job. If they don't want to follow the laws, choose a different job. Be a manager instead of an owner. Whatever. 

I'm not saying that, although others are.

 

What I'm saying is, it's not a big burden on someone to go and get birth control or even an abortion from PP for whatever they can afford (free even), or to go buy condoms or Plan B at a drugstore (isn't that OTC now?) compared with a burden on a private employer to be forced to go against their conscience in providing this.  The issue is not whether someone can get this, cheaply and easily.  It is whether all employers should be forced to provide it as part of their medical insurance, which was never a requirement before the ACA.  And actually, ironically enough, it's probably cheaper even for many with medical insurance to go to PP for it, since ACA insurance typically has very high deductibles that few ever meet, so they are going through private doctors (expensive) and paying out of pocket (nutsy expensive.) 

[Audrey]

 

 

Audrey, I'd be more likely to listen to you if left the condescension out of the conversation. Honestly, what was the purpose of this remark? I made a mistake. I wasn't reading/thinking carefully when I responded to you. It happens. 

You quoted something I didn't say to you.  I was speaking to Sparkly.  I think you are reading personal things into posts that have nothing to do with you.

[Murphy101]

I agree. I think everything should be freely available on the shelf. Everything. One reasonable price. Everything on the shelf, buy what you need or want.

 

If you are dumb enough to overdo it, it is your choice. The only issue there would be stupid people driving under the influence, but they do that now with alcohol, which is freely legal and available to anyone over 18 (or 21, in some states).

It is not always a question of persons choosing to overdo things for themselves.

 

Someone in your life thinks you shouldn't be pregnant? Well they can buy this stuff over the counter that will cause a miscarriage if they slip it in your drink.

 

Date rape drugs.

 

General murder too.

 

I do think we should do away with insurance, especially via employers.

 

I do think we could probably make more medications available easier and cheaper, both OTC or via Rx.

 

But no, I'm not for having everything OTC. Especially when people just getting routine care is just a huge problem. I think there'd be a lot of people skipping medical evaluations and just using what so and so said worked for them. There are a LOT of otherwise perfectly safe medications that can be extremely dangerous when used in certain conditions. And without regular routine care, many people never know they have those conditions until it lands them in an ER.

 

I have no issue with a pharmacist refusing to carry and or give out things they view as unethical.

 

Profit is usually King, so I highly doubt that there will be more pharmacists refusing the sale than those who are happy to take money for it.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Murphy101

[Audrey]

 

I do think we should do away with insurance, especially via employers.

 

Just to the above...  I think that's the crux of the whole issue -- that insurance is tied to employment, and the only other alternative is a patchwork of aid programs.  

 

I don't have a solution for that.  It's not my fight.   But, what it always seems to boil down to for those in the US is that access to healthcare is dictated by such a huge number of players -- employers, insurance companies, state programs, federal programs, local programs, individual service providers -- that the arguments all fly past each other and in the end, solve nothing because they mean nothing.  It's not a problem that can be pinned on one factor.  You need a lot more pins to even begin to fix this. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We don't need insurance. We need to eliminate the profit-making insurance entirely. Then, if you weren't paying $12-20,000 per year to some company, you'd have it if you needed a surgery.

But I doubt this will happen because of the money interests involved.

It doesn't happen because most people can't on average self insure at the level needed for serious medical conditions.

I do agree that a for-profit insurance model is not part of the solution.

[ktgrok]

a drugstore (isn't that OTC now?) compared with a burden on a private employer to be forced to go against their conscience in providing this.  The issue is not whether someone can get this, cheaply and easily.  It is whether all employers should be forced to provide it as part of their medical insurance, which was never a requirement before the ACA.  

 

No, the issue is wether you can break the law if you say it is because of your religion. 

[MercyA]

You quoted something I didn't say to you.  I was speaking to Sparkly.  I think you are reading personal things into posts that have nothing to do with you.

 

Eh, never mind.  :)

 

I apologize if I misread you.

Edited July 1, 2016 by MercyA

[Mergath]

what about the abuse of antibiotics which is causing antibiotic resistance & threatening the health of all of us?

Not to mention that people would have to calculate their own dosages for the meds based on body weight. I'd imagine that if everything was available otc, we'd start seeing a lot of accidental overdoses from calculation errors, especially among the elderly population.

[Miss Peregrine]

Not to mention that people would have to calculate their own dosages for the meds based on body weight. I'd imagine that if everything was available otc, we'd start seeing a lot of accidental overdoses from calculation errors, especially among the elderly population.

Pharmacists could still "fill" them.

[hornblower]

What's next? doing our own surgery?  :huh: 

 

[Mergath]

Pharmacists could still "fill" them.

To protect themselves from lawsuits though, they'd likely have to weigh you in the pharmacy and keep your medical records on hand in case of allergies or interactions.

[FaithManor]

I'm not saying that, although others are.

 

What I'm saying is, it's not a big burden on someone to go and get birth control or even an abortion from PP for whatever they can afford (free even), or to go buy condoms or Plan B at a drugstore (isn't that OTC now?) compared with a burden on a private employer to be forced to go against their conscience in providing this.  The issue is not whether someone can get this, cheaply and easily.  It is whether all employers should be forced to provide it as part of their medical insurance, which was never a requirement before the ACA.  And actually, ironically enough, it's probably cheaper even for many with medical insurance to go to PP for it, since ACA insurance typically has very high deductibles that few ever meet, so they are going through private doctors (expensive) and paying out of pocket (nutsy expensive.) 

The problem I see is that the issue in the courts has not been that of sole proprietors. It has been that of corporations. Things. Things that have boards of directors, and trustees, and investors, and so on. Where do we end being allowed to discriminate? On top of which, when did a thing get a closely held belief? It's a thing. What bothers me most about it is that owners incorporate under the LLC in order to totally eliminate their personal liability if anything goes wrong with the company. So if they are ceding their rights and privileges of being sole proprietorships, why should they then suddenly get religious rights? They want their cake and eat it too, screw the employees, the public, the law.

 

If they want to own a business and want to exercise religious freedom in the conducting of their business, then they need to take personal responsibility for their business and that means not incorporating in order to retain sole, personal control. Or they can start a non profit religious organization in which they'll be exempt from such laws. What they should not get to do is say, "Oh, I have no responsibility. You can't sue me. You can't take my house. You can't come after me if something bad happens at the business. But, but, but, but, but....I better darn well get to claim my personal religious beliefs whenever I want, and no liability to me!" 

 

No thanks.  It is profoundly sad that this is what the nation has descended to with court approval. 

[PeacefulChaos]

What's next? doing our own surgery?  :huh: 

 

 

 

 

Totally random and, again, not related, but yesterday when I got home from a doctor's appointment I was telling DH I just wish I could actually physically SEE my kidneys and hold them in my hands.  Not in a picture, or on an ultrasound, or a CT, or anything else - I want to actually see them.  

It's a weird one, and obviously not possible, but yeah.  :lol:  This comment just made me think of that.