| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2012 02:43:01 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
On the flip side NGOs, out doing good works for the world that aren't prescribing to any religion, are required to pay taxes on city, state and federal level... though I'm researching now there are ways to get tax-exemption on the federal level. Maybe I don't know enough about it. |
In the US, many types of charitable and educational non-profit organizations are also tax-exempt under IRS Code Section 501(c)3 (you'll hear "we're a five-oh-one-cee-three organization" in all those ads asking you to donate your car, etc.). It can take as few as three people and not too much money to set one up; legal instructions and forms are available, for example How To Form A Non-Profit Corporation at Nolo Press.
There are some differences in the laws governing religious and other non-profit corporations, but they are pretty similar in most respects. BTW: both can be required to pay taxes on certain income derived from activities not related to their primary charitable function. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 02:45:34 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
On the flip side NGOs, out doing good works for the world that aren't prescribing to any religion, are required to pay taxes on city, state and federal level... though I'm researching now there are ways to get tax-exemption on the federal level. Maybe I don't know enough about it. |
In the US, many types of charitable and educational non-profit organizations are also tax-exempt under IRS Code Section 501(c)3 (you'll hear "we're a five-oh-one-cee-three organization" in all those ads asking you to donate your car, etc.). It can take as few as three people and not too much money to set one up; legal instructions and forms are available, for example How To Form A Non-Profit Corporation at Nolo Press.
There are some differences in the laws governing religious and other non-profit corporations, but they are pretty similar in most respects. BTW: both can be required to pay taxes on certain income derived from activities not related to their primary charitable function. |
Cool. Well that makes me feel better actually. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 03:00:08 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I'm no ob/gyn, but I think they also have more side effects. My guess is there is a downside or they would be much more popular. |
Screwing around with a woman's hormones has side effects. Having a piece of platic and metal lodged in a woman's uterus has side effects. Both can have "serious" (deadly) side effects, most often stroke and cancer for the pill, PID for the IUD.
If you want to know why IUDs are less popular, perhaps you (not you personally) would want to try out this revolutionary method of birth control which will "inactivate" sperm prior to ejaculation -- just vist your urologist and let him shove a piece of plastic up your urethrea and stick it into your prostate ... oh, wait, or you can take this pill ...
Diaphragms and cervical caps and the associated spermicides can also get pretty expensive, and require a pelvic exam as well.
Funny that condoms are freely available (often for free), are safe and easy to use, yet I don't hear a male chorus of "Oh don't worry if they don't pay for birth control -- I'll take care of it" ...
Message edited by author 2012-02-16 03:02:26. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 03:23:36 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. |
You did see where Target has the pill for $4/month right? You know about planned parenthood right? You are raising a pretend barrier. If such a barrier exists, then show me the evidence in the current population of university or hospital workers... |
Which version of the pill does Target have for $4/mo? There are several, with varying costs. What if the pill isn't a good choice and an IUD is better?
BTW, I got the $50 as the high end of the cost range for the pill from the planned parenthood website. |
I dunno. Why is an IUD better? How much are ey and what does that average over the life of the device? We seem to be trying really hard to make an issue. Again, show me how this is affecting the current employees. |
IUD's are good for women who don't have a routine conducive to taking a pill everyday at the same time or that forget to take them daily. It's the "set it and forget it" approach to birth control. Also, many of them release a steady dose of hormones so they're doubly effective.
My very rough estimate says the IUD averages about the same as the pill on a per month basis, but the several hundred dollar initial cost would be a significant barrier to many employees. How would it NOT affect employees?
If you're not paying out of pocket for something and then you have to pay for that thing, it affects your bottom line. Maybe for the better paid employees, an additional $50/mo would mean one less meal out, but for those employees making lower wages $50/mo might as well be $500.
Message edited by author 2012-02-16 03:42:53. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 03:32:21 AM · #205 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I'm no ob/gyn, but I think they also have more side effects. My guess is there is a downside or they would be much more popular.
Well, I think Obama's compromise is just fine. My guess is all the further fretting is just posturing with a bit of "and don't come back!". Obama really stepped in it with this particular group. |
Obama just made a minor change to an existing mandate and the Republicans went nuclear. The coverage of birth control that they're objecting to was already in the mandate that was endorsed, if not created by the Republicans themselves.
They seem to have reformed themselves in the "We won't tell what we should do, but DAMN that Obama guy is the worst ever." |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 07:33:50 AM · #206 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I'm no ob/gyn, but I think they also have more side effects. My guess is there is a downside or they would be much more popular.
Well, I think Obama's compromise is just fine. My guess is all the further fretting is just posturing with a bit of "and don't come back!". Obama really stepped in it with this particular group. |
My daughter has one. They are very reliable and good for 5 years. The upside is no side effects from hormones. If you choose to have a child you can have it removed and start right away, not months later after the chemicals have left your body. The pill does have terrible side effects for some. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 10:01:48 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But this is a clear case of an employer being about to exert control over employees based on their beliefs. |
I don't think this is the case. The only employers who are up in arms are Catholic employers. They currently don't provide birth control coverage to their employees. I'm sure this discussed in the interview process. Now the government comes along and tells these companies they have to cover this.
They don't care about what other companies or people do. They don't want the government telling them to go against their conscience.
Look at what organizations have sued so far:
EWTN: Catholic TV & Radio
NC Register: Catholic news
Priests for Life |
Not quite true. 22 states have mandates that employers provide birth control. The existing Federal mandate which predates Obama and GW Bush (who never opposed it either). All of these mandates only exempted an institution if it "has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," in other words; churches. Not hospitals, not universities. The ONLY change Obama made was to make coverage for birth control equivalent to preventative care so that it was affordable. Many of the existing mandates were endorsed by Republican governors. |
I can't claim to know the laws, but GW Bush had conscience protection laws in place and Obama removed. Also those existing federal mandates didn't cover privately funded health plans. Now Obama wants all plans (even privately funded) to cover birth control. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 10:09:57 AM · #208 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. Or an even higher cost for other methods like an IUD. Those don't have a monthly cost, but they can cost several hundred dollars up front. |
I really don't get this. Birth control isn't necessary for survival. If you can't pay for it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it. |
WHAT? Wow... that's not a classist statement at all. No sex for the poor then? |
Well, you're talking to someone who doesn't believe you should use birth control no matter what class you are. These are my beliefs.
If you choose to use birth control, you find a health plan that covers it. When you get a job, make sure they have a health plan that covers it. Don't force me to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 10:13:31 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But this is a clear case of an employer being about to exert control over employees based on their beliefs. |
I don't think this is the case. The only employers who are up in arms are Catholic employers. They currently don't provide birth control coverage to their employees. I'm sure this discussed in the interview process. Now the government comes along and tells these companies they have to cover this.
They don't care about what other companies or people do. They don't want the government telling them to go against their conscience.
Look at what organizations have sued so far:
EWTN: Catholic TV & Radio
NC Register: Catholic news
Priests for Life |
Not quite true. 22 states have mandates that employers provide birth control. The existing Federal mandate which predates Obama and GW Bush (who never opposed it either). All of these mandates only exempted an institution if it "has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," in other words; churches. Not hospitals, not universities. The ONLY change Obama made was to make coverage for birth control equivalent to preventative care so that it was affordable. Many of the existing mandates were endorsed by Republican governors. |
I can't claim to know the laws, but GW Bush had conscience protection laws in place and Obama removed. Also those existing federal mandates didn't cover privately funded health plans. Now Obama wants all plans (even privately funded) to cover birth control. |
No, the conscience protection clauses applied ONLY to churches themselves, not to hospitals or universities. This was acknowledged by the Republicans at state and federal levels. Catholic entities other than churches that were not covering BC under Bush were doing so illegally.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 10:15:54 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
And I'm not sure if you watched the John Stewart thing, but the compromise said, the companies didn't have to pay, but insurance companies did. Case closed right? Apparently not. Not happy paying for it, but also not happy with other people paying for it. That is control. Money is power. |
So an organization such as "Priests for Life" who oppose abortion and birth control won't have to pay for it, but they will be required to use these policies that have the very thing they're fighting against? |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 10:19:47 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. Or an even higher cost for other methods like an IUD. Those don't have a monthly cost, but they can cost several hundred dollars up front. |
I really don't get this. Birth control isn't necessary for survival. If you can't pay for it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it. |
WHAT? Wow... that's not a classist statement at all. No sex for the poor then? |
Well, you're talking to someone who doesn't believe you should use birth control no matter what class you are. These are my beliefs.
If you choose to use birth control, you find a health plan that covers it. When you get a job, make sure they have a health plan that covers it. Don't force me to pay for it. |
Just because someone doesn't believe in something for themselves doesn't mean they shouldn't have to support it for people who choose otherwise. Let's say I don't believe in reading, why should I have to pay for the library? Or I believe that people are responsible for their own safety, why should I pay for the police department of the fire department? |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 10:22:55 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
And I'm not sure if you watched the John Stewart thing, but the compromise said, the companies didn't have to pay, but insurance companies did. Case closed right? Apparently not. Not happy paying for it, but also not happy with other people paying for it. That is control. Money is power. |
So an organization such as "Priests for Life" who oppose abortion and birth control won't have to pay for it, but they will be required to use these policies that have the very thing they're fighting against? |
Never heard of it, so I looked it up. "While primary membership is for Catholic bishops, priests and deacons". Are you telling me they would use it? ROFL then.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 10:23:27 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
And I'm not sure if you watched the John Stewart thing, but the compromise said, the companies didn't have to pay, but insurance companies did. Case closed right? Apparently not. Not happy paying for it, but also not happy with other people paying for it. That is control. Money is power. |
So an organization such as "Priests for Life" who oppose abortion and birth control won't have to pay for it, but they will be required to use these policies that have the very thing they're fighting against? |
Yep.
People pay for things they don't support all the time. I don't believe that the war in Iraq was justified, but I'm forced to pay for it. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 11:01:13 AM · #214 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. Or an even higher cost for other methods like an IUD. Those don't have a monthly cost, but they can cost several hundred dollars up front. |
I really don't get this. Birth control isn't necessary for survival. If you can't pay for it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it. |
Right on. Those damn poor people are always whining about eating too. If they can't afford to eat, maybe they should just give it up. Entitled free-loaders. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 11:42:56 AM · #215 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
No, the conscience protection clauses applied ONLY to churches themselves, not to hospitals or universities. This was acknowledged by the Republicans at state and federal levels. Catholic entities other than churches that were not covering BC under Bush were doing so illegally. |
I think you are overstating the case. 47 states, for example, allow hospitals to refuse to provide services such as abortion due to religious conviction. This seems to be an example where the protection of religioius conscience applies to a hospital.
We should make it a rule that every Rant post needs to include footnotes with citations in the proper high-school English accepted format... ;) |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 11:56:33 AM · #216 |
@ LOUIS: All I can say is LMAO. I almost choked on my coffee (yeah, still drinking coffee and it's lunchtime here.
@ DrAchoo: Love your "footnotes/citation" idea. TOO FREAKIN FUNNY!!!
This thread has become hilarious. I wonder if cowboy knew it would spark such controversy!
Let's keep it going!
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 11:57:51 AM · #217 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
And I'm not sure if you watched the John Stewart thing, but the compromise said, the companies didn't have to pay, but insurance companies did. Case closed right? Apparently not. Not happy paying for it, but also not happy with other people paying for it. That is control. Money is power. |
So an organization such as "Priests for Life" who oppose abortion and birth control won't have to pay for it, but they will be required to use these policies that have the very thing they're fighting against? |
Yep.
People pay for things they don't support all the time. I don't believe that the war in Iraq was justified, but I'm forced to pay for it. |
Wonder if I can get people to pay for my "lens fund". I'm sure people wouldn't support it (as they would want to support their OWN fund)... but anyone who wants to contribute, feel free.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 12:03:14 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
My very rough estimate says the IUD averages about the same as the pill on a per month basis, but the several hundred dollar initial cost would be a significant barrier to many employees. How would it NOT affect employees? |
Basic economic theory would say that if a job had a significant downside there would be less applicants. Supply and demand would tell us that the employer with a such a position would be forced to raise the offered wage for the particular job to attract more applicants (at your high rate of $50/month it comes out to $0.30/hour. At the low rate of $4/month it comes out to $0.02/hour) Extra salary could be put toward birth control.
I understand what you are saying and I agree that theoretically there would be an effect (however small). But reality may be quite different and the effect is either minimal or non-existant due to other counterbalancing effects.
Message edited by author 2012-02-16 12:05:29. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 01:06:26 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
No, the conscience protection clauses applied ONLY to churches themselves, not to hospitals or universities. This was acknowledged by the Republicans at state and federal levels. Catholic entities other than churches that were not covering BC under Bush were doing so illegally. |
I think you are overstating the case. 47 states, for example, allow hospitals to refuse to provide services such as abortion due to religious conviction. This seems to be an example where the protection of religioius conscience applies to a hospital.
We should make it a rule that every Rant post needs to include footnotes with citations in the proper high-school English accepted format... ;) |
But it's a separate issue, not providing a service or not selling a drug is one thing. Denying it to your employees or creating barriers to getting that service or drug elsewhere is another.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 01:08:45 PM · #220 |
//www.alternet.org/story/154122/10_catholic_teachings_conservatives_reject_while_obsessing_about_birth_control?page=entire
eta: Love the last paragraph... What isn’t helpful is to have loud-mouthed hypocrites who reject all the humane principles for which the Catholic Church stands getting on a high horse about a third-order teaching such as artificial birth control (on which the position of the church has changed over time, and may change again).
Message edited by author 2012-02-16 13:11:23. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 01:13:31 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
My very rough estimate says the IUD averages about the same as the pill on a per month basis, but the several hundred dollar initial cost would be a significant barrier to many employees. How would it NOT affect employees? |
Basic economic theory would say that if a job had a significant downside there would be less applicants. Supply and demand would tell us that the employer with a such a position would be forced to raise the offered wage for the particular job to attract more applicants (at your high rate of $50/month it comes out to $0.30/hour. At the low rate of $4/month it comes out to $0.02/hour) Extra salary could be put toward birth control.
I understand what you are saying and I agree that theoretically there would be an effect (however small). But reality may be quite different and the effect is either minimal or non-existant due to other counterbalancing effects. |
The upside of having money to feed your family and paying rent likely outweigh the downside of an employer not providing proper coverage. If you look at the supply and demand in conjunction with the giant unemployment rates, that should tell you that it's an employer's market. That's no reason to treat employees like crap. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 01:21:16 PM · #222 |
I'm starting to question why religious organizations should be exempt from the civil laws of the society in which they exist. As mentioned, there are already limits on the practice of religion (polygamy, sacrifice, etc.) -- the question is not of whether a line can be drawn at all, but just where on the continuum between the two extremes it should fall.
I am a pacifist, opposed to war -- a deeply held conviction which is considered the moral equivalent of a religious tenet (as certified by my local board of the Selective Service System), and I experience a crisis of conscience over 20% of my Federal taxes being spent on the military -- so, should I only have to pay 80% of my calculated taxes? (Hint: SCOTUS says no.) |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 01:58:22 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The upside of having money to feed your family and paying rent likely outweigh the downside of an employer not providing proper coverage. If you look at the supply and demand in conjunction with the giant unemployment rates, that should tell you that it's an employer's market. That's no reason to treat employees like crap. |
Well, whatever. The policy has been through economic thick and thin and previously by many employers that are not religious. So up to this point, according to you, many many employers have chosen to "treat their employees like crap" because birth control is often not covered on insurance (hence the apparent need for a mandate). I just can't get that excited and think as far as employer/employee relationships there are scads of more important issues for the employee to fight for. Moral precepts shouldn't change just because of economic tough times.
At this point we're so far down the rabbit hole discussing theoretical social science and economic theory that I just choose to ignore it. If you can show me good evidence the policy is having a real negative effect on people, I'll listen. If it's big enough I'll even side with you. Right now I haven't heard anything to that effect and so will choose to side with the current status quo defending religious freedom of conscience. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 03:21:22 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm starting to question why religious organizations should be exempt from the civil laws of the society in which they exist. As mentioned, there are already limits on the practice of religion (polygamy, sacrifice, etc.) -- the question is not of whether a line can be drawn at all, but just where on the continuum between the two extremes it should fall. |
An interesting 8-part series in the NY Times from several years ago:
Part 1: As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation
Part 2: Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights
and etc. Links to all articles in the series can be found at the following URL: In God's Name
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 04:22:29 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The upside of having money to feed your family and paying rent likely outweigh the downside of an employer not providing proper coverage. If you look at the supply and demand in conjunction with the giant unemployment rates, that should tell you that it's an employer's market. That's no reason to treat employees like crap. |
Well, whatever. The policy has been through economic thick and thin and previously by many employers that are not religious. So up to this point, according to you, many many employers have chosen to "treat their employees like crap" because birth control is often not covered on insurance (hence the apparent need for a mandate). I just can't get that excited and think as far as employer/employee relationships there are scads of more important issues for the employee to fight for. Moral precepts shouldn't change just because of economic tough times.
At this point we're so far down the rabbit hole discussing theoretical social science and economic theory that I just choose to ignore it. If you can show me good evidence the policy is having a real negative effect on people, I'll listen. If it's big enough I'll even side with you. Right now I haven't heard anything to that effect and so will choose to side with the current status quo defending religious freedom of conscience. |
The Federal mandate for BC coverage dates back to 2000, it's not anything like new. It was supported across both sides of the aisle, both at the state level and Federally. It wasn't until Obama made a small tweak to the mandate to place BC in the same category as other preventative care items (like Mammograms, annual physicals etc) that the Republicans suddenly sided against women and decided that something they'd endorsed all along was immoral, unconstitutional and another example of government infringing on religion. A similar mandate was part of Massachusett's "Romneycare" package signed by Mitt himself. Now he has now come out against what amounts to the same mandate calling it an "assault on religion".
In the end it's simply another political move by the Republicans who have nothing positive to promote as their agenda and instead focus on tearing down the existing administration. |
|
