A Different Spin on the Obama Health Care Issue

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe that the basis of government funding, which would please just about anyone, is to follow what the provision of The Charitable Choice covers in The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).

The law says that the providers may not discriminate on the basis of religion and that recipients must not be forced to receive services through a faith-based provider but must have the choice of a secular provider and that no funds provided to institutions shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction or proselytizing.

Think that would keep your liberal hide happy, MP?

Whoo hoo, this makes perfect sense!!! This is exactly what I've been trying to say! You're a genius, PO!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Whoo hoo, this makes perfect sense!!! This is exactly what I've been trying to say! You're a genius, PO!

Okay, you are way too happy. I'm going to have to find an addendum. There probably is one somewhere.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Okay, you are way too happy. I'm going to have to find an addendum. There probably is one somewhere.

Nah, seriously, I was just trying to get my point across that it's disingenous to expect that the government is going to give ANY organization money without some strings attached.

And, the term "religion" is so encompassing, that any splinter group could claim religious freedom, and practice any far out belief without any regulation. Even snake handling is illegal in most states, and although I really don't think it should be, I suppose there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. There are religious groups who believe that it is their God given right to have sex with minors, use children as indentured servants, etc. and someone has to protect those kids.

So I am FULLY in favor of Americans (and all people, for that matter) having the right to choose not to have an abortion, choose not to receive medical treatment, choose not to take birth control, etc. but I am not in favor of that belief system being forced on to others who have not made that choice willingly.

SEe, once again, we're not that far apart!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Nah, seriously, I was just trying to get my point across that it's disingenous to expect that the government is going to give ANY organization money without some strings attached.

And, the term "religion" is so encompassing, that any splinter group could claim religious freedom, and practice any far out belief without any regulation. Even snake handling is illegal in most states, and although I really don't think it should be, I suppose there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. There are religious groups who believe that it is their God given right to have sex with minors, use children as indentured servants, etc. and someone has to protect those kids.

So I am FULLY in favor of Americans (and all people, for that matter) having the right to choose not to have an abortion, choose not to receive medical treatment, choose not to take birth control, etc. but I am not in favor of that belief system being forced on to others who have not made that choice willingly.

SEe, once again, we're not that far apart!

I agree with your paragraph in bold, however, the issue reaches a little deeper than a blanket plea for choice. It is not hard to get contraception and service, so mandating that a religious group carry those products in violation of their tenets of faith is unconstitutional. There is plenty of secular coverage, products and services available. Look elsewhere.

It falls on the same lines as Planned Parenthood trying to force a Catholic Food bank to accept their food contributions. Then they start a public brawl, on Facebook, erroneously playing on the growing, emotional sentiment saying, "This level of extremism impeding individual access to essential healthcare and now food is outrageous and must be stopped."

Notice they use the word "extremism" and "impeding" as though there are no other food banks to be had and pushing that toward healthcare access as though there are no other healthcare providers.

That is totally extreme and speaks the same language as Nancy Pelosi and the Obama Administration. Pelosi went so far as to say that "self-insured religious institutions should pay for contraception". Self-insured would include the Amish, who at the outset, were set to be excluded from the healthcare debacle.

A religious organization that is not proselyting with it's funds shouldn't be forced to proselyte a liberal agenda. It works both ways.

Nancy Pelosi and the left wing pundits are pushing a "woman's rights" war on this country. I don't think we should overlook that in order to have their rights forced on all people, they violate our rights - unconstitutional.

And I do agree with you on your points regarding every fringe group.

When the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law..." it doesn't mean that it will "make NO law". Some limits have to be placed on our freedoms - the Supreme Court affirms that to be true.

The government can regulate the time, place and manner, but it cannot regulate those things based solely on the basic content of our ideas, beliefs or expressions. In other words, we can march in support of our particular cause, but we must carry a permit to do so. The government issues a permit, but they cannot legislate how we believe in our cause, our right to believe in our cause or how we express that idea relating to our cause.

When two rights collide, there is going to be conflict. The government then has to balance the two. One example would with the public school system. The Supreme Court ruled that if a student's rights interfere with the school's mission in educating other students, the school officials can restrict students’ rights.

This "woman's right" issue is infringing on the religious conscience of many organizations. And we get back to our fight - it's unconstitutional.

The government funding is still a work in progress - it's not over by far. There are still problems being debated with The Charitable Choice clause.

[Pressing-On]

Adding to the discussion, part of the debate is coming to a head as Senator Roy Blunt has introduced, S.1467 (Respect for the Right of Conscience Act), with 37 co-sponsors, thus far.

What it entails - Respect for the Right of Conscience Act covers intentionally broad to make sure that it addresses all current and future religious liberty issues created by the new possible mandates in the healthcare law. It protects healthcare providers and insurers, including purchasers such as small businesses from being forced to violate their ethical principles to cover or fund products or services under the new healthcare law. The bill insures that all Americans are protected against discrimination, penalty or exclusion from the healthcare market for exercising their rights of conscience.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I agree with your paragraph in bold, however, the issue reaches a little deeper than a blanket plea for choice. It is not hard to get contraception and service, so mandating that a religious group carry those products in violation of their tenets of faith is unconstitutional. There is plenty of secular coverage, products and services available. Look elsewhere.

It falls on the same lines as Planned Parenthood trying to force a Catholic Food bank to accept their food contributions. Then they start a public brawl, on Facebook, erroneously playing on the growing, emotional sentiment saying, "This level of extremism impeding individual access to essential healthcare and now food is outrageous and must be stopped."

Notice they use the word "extremism" and "impeding" as though there are no other food banks to be had and pushing that toward healthcare access as though there are no other healthcare providers.

That is totally extreme and speaks the same language as Nancy Pelosi and the Obama Administration. Pelosi went so far as to say that "self-insured religious institutions should pay for contraception". Self-insured would include the Amish, who at the outset, were set to be excluded from the healthcare debacle.

A religious organization that is not proselyting with it's funds shouldn't be forced to proselyte a liberal agenda. It works both ways.

Nancy Pelosi and the left wing pundits are pushing a "woman's rights" war on this country. I don't think we should overlook that in order to have their rights forced on all people, they violate our rights - unconstitutional.

And I do agree with you on your points regarding every fringe group.

When the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law..." it doesn't mean that it will "make NO law". Some limits have to be placed on our freedoms - the Supreme Court affirms that to be true.

The government can regulate the time, place and manner, but it cannot regulate those things based solely on the basic content of our ideas, beliefs or expressions. In other words, we can march in support of our particular cause, but we must carry a permit to do so. The government issues a permit, but they cannot legislate how we believe in our cause, our right to believe in our cause or how we express that idea relating to our cause.

When two rights collide, there is going to be conflict. The government then has to balance the two. One example would with the public school system. The Supreme Court ruled that if a student's rights interfere with the school's mission in educating other students, the school officials can restrict students’ rights.

This "woman's right" issue is infringing on the religious conscience of many organizations. And we get back to our fight - it's unconstitutional.

The government funding is still a work in progress - it's not over by far. There are still problems being debated with The Charitable Choice clause.

Wow, this may be a first - I agree with everything you're saying here! Completely and totally. Why don't YOU run for office, you make more sense than any of the current candidates!

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Adding to the discussion, part of the debate is coming to a head as Senator Roy Blunt has introduced, S.1467 (Respect for the Right of Conscience Act), with 37 co-sponsors, thus far.

What it entails - Respect for the Right of Conscience Act covers intentionally broad to make sure that it addresses all current and future religious liberty issues created by the new possible mandates in the healthcare law. It protects healthcare providers and insurers, including purchasers such as small businesses from being forced to violate their ethical principles to cover or fund products or services under the new healthcare law. The bill insures that all Americans are protected against discrimination, penalty or exclusion from the healthcare market for exercising their rights of conscience.

I will definitely research this.

Again, the point of this thread was merely to start the discussion that one person's normal is another person's extreme.

I realize that issues such as abortion and in some cases, contraception, go against the grain of most Christians. But, to most mainstream Christians, traditional health care is not only in accordance with their belief system, but very necessary.

So, while to us, this is something that shouldn't even be under debate, to other religious groups, such as the JW, this is just as hot of a button as abortion or birth control to us.

So, there will most definitely need to be some firm definition of "being forced to violate their ethical principles" because "Ethical principles" are not absolutes to everyone.

For me, abortion violates my ethical principles. To others, blood transfusions, or even doctor visits violate their ethical principles.

It's going to be a drawn out process for the government or its appointed regulatory agency to determine how far each group can go in setting its own standards.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I will definitely research this.

Again, the point of this thread was merely to start the discussion that one person's normal is another person's extreme.

I realize that issues such as abortion and in some cases, contraception, go against the grain of most Christians. But, to most mainstream Christians, traditional health care is not only in accordance with their belief system, but very necessary.

So, while to us, this is something that shouldn't even be under debate, to other religious groups, such as the JW, this is just as hot of a button as abortion or birth control to us.

So, there will most definitely need to be some firm definition of "being forced to violate their ethical principles" because "Ethical principles" are not absolutes to everyone.

For me, abortion violates my ethical principles. To others, blood transfusions, or even doctor visits violate their ethical principles.

It's going to be a drawn out process for the government or its appointed regulatory agency to determine how far each group can go in setting its own standards.

But, some issues are absolutes to those in certain groups. For instance, abortion. You talked about siding with the "war on religion" IF the government starts mandating what a church is preaching. Well, it is, IMO, by forcing the contraception/abortion service into their healthcare policy. They are, in effect, saying, "You have to start preaching women's rights and you can't preach against abortion." The subtlety is alarming and strong armed.

How can a Catholic Church preach against abortion when it provides the service? That is interfering with the pulpit, IMO. That was the first thing I noticed with this issue. It is trying to force an agenda and trying to make the religion seem biased, hypocritical and oppressive. Yet, they think it's grand to murder a child for whatever reason - it's a woman's choice. It is a war on Christianity and growing.

David Horowitz was talking about how the Administration and others are supporting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood for the very fact that it would still the voice of the Christians. They hate Christians and want them dead. It reminds me of the scripture - "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:19

Starting with the Catholic Church and the Inquisition, no let's start with David committing murder and adultery, no let's start with Adam and Eve....... In other words, we haven't helped our cause. So funny that people's hearts still yearn for God when Christians haven't always come across as the most genuine of peoples. And, like the snake handlers, looking like freaks. I hate when the mirror is turned on myself and I look and feel like a hypocrite and a jerk. I fall on my knees..... as Jaci Velasquez would sing.

Addressing the fringe groups - it is going to be an ongoing and drawn out process. Let's look at something that does make sense. An old case of the Muslim husband who murdered his wife. Under Sharia Law that is okay, but he was in America, under our laws, and that is murder. He was picked up and jailed. That, at least, took care of how to handle one issue.

I don't know how to work out the blood transfusion and other medical choices. My family and many friends don't adhere to the mandated vaccines in our state. We choose to opt out. That is taking a huge responsibility for the welfare of our children. Having studied the issue at length, that does not frighten us. Others that haven't looked very far into the issue are alarmed, angry and frightened by our choice. I can't work that out for anyone save my own family. So, I don't really have an answer.

My daughter was going to have a baby via a mid-wife and had complications. She was hospitalized. To us, we seek out medical help when it is necessary. It isn't something we shun, but we don't take medication every time we are sick. When my children had a headache, I would always say, "Drink a glass of water every 15 minutes for an hour." Why take an aspirin when water helps so many things. Water and salt and Tea Tree Oil - natural wonders. LOL! When my allergies are bothering me, twice a year, I drink a hot toddy at night - 2 ounces of a good grade of Brandy, lemon, honey, and an herbal tea mix. Why take Nyquil (yuck) when I can drink something natural? I sleep well and it doesn't make me feel icky like Nyquil or any other man-made concoction. We were talking about the various medical/health commercials on television. My husband said, "I miss old Smiling Bob." LOL!

Some people, like the JW, take scripture out of context and look very foolish. Almost everyone has religious ideas that look foolish to onlookers. Looking back, I thought it was foolish, while a Catholic, to pay a quarter to light a candle in order for a prayer to go up to heaven. I did enjoy, as a child, hearing the money clink in the slot and seeing the fire take hold of the wick at my own hand! It was the only time I got to play with matches - in church - dark and eery lighting in the building.! Wow! Loved that spooky stuff! LOL!

Anyway, the S 1467 is supposed to cover Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., beliefs. We will see how it plays out and if some of the wording is tweaked. I know Blunt introduced the bill in August '11, and it was pushed aside. It was up for vote yesterday. I haven't heard any reports on it. They did say that if this bill reaches Obama's desk only to receive his veto, he could be signing away any chance for re-election.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Wow, this may be a first - I agree with everything you're saying here! Completely and totally. Why don't YOU run for office, you make more sense than any of the current candidates!

Awesome! Now I should stop talking to you so I can have, at least, one good memory of our agreeing on something.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

But, some issues are absolutes to those in certain groups. For instance, abortion. You talked about siding with the "war on religion" IF the government starts mandating what a church is preaching. Well, it is, IMO, by forcing the contraception/abortion service into their healthcare policy. They are, in effect, saying, "You have to start preaching women's rights and you can't preach against abortion." The subtlety is alarming and strong armed.

How can a Catholic Church preach against abortion when it provides the service? That is interfering with the pulpit, IMO. That was the first thing I noticed with this issue. It is trying to force an agenda and trying to make the religion seem biased, hypocritical and oppressive. Yet, they think it's grand to murder a child for whatever reason - it's a woman's choice. It is a war on Christianity and growing.

David Horowitz was talking about how the Administration and others are supporting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood for the very fact that it would still the voice of the Christians. They hate Christians and want them dead. It reminds me of the scripture - "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:19

Starting with the Catholic Church and the Inquisition, no let's start with David committing murder and adultery, no let's start with Adam and Eve....... In other words, we haven't helped our cause. So funny that people's hearts still yearn for God when Christians haven't always come across as the most genuine of peoples. And, like the snake handlers, looking like freaks. I hate when the mirror is turned on myself and I look and feel like a hypocrite and a jerk. I fall on my knees..... as Jaci Velasquez would sing.

Addressing the fringe groups - it is going to be an ongoing and drawn out process. Let's look at something that does make sense. An old case of the Muslim husband who murdered his wife. Under Sharia Law that is okay, but he was in America, under our laws, and that is murder. He was picked up and jailed. That, at least, took care of how to handle one issue.

I don't know how to work out the blood transfusion and other medical choices. My family and many friends don't adhere to the mandated vaccines in our state. We choose to opt out. That is taking a huge responsibility for the welfare of our children. Having studied the issue at length, that does not frighten us. Others that haven't looked very far into the issue are alarmed, angry and frightened by our choice. I can't work that out for anyone save my own family. So, I don't really have an answer.

My daughter was going to have a baby via a mid-wife and had complications. She was hospitalized. To us, we seek out medical help when it is necessary. It isn't something we shun, but we don't take medication every time we are sick. When my children had a headache, I would always say, "Drink a glass of water every 15 minutes for an hour." Why take an aspirin when water helps so many things. Water and salt and Tea Tree Oil - natural wonders. LOL! When my allergies are bothering me, twice a year, I drink a hot toddy at night - 2 ounces of a good grade of Brandy, lemon, honey, and an herbal tea mix. Why take Nyquil (yuck) when I can drink something natural? I sleep well and it doesn't make me feel icky like Nyquil or any other man-made concoction. We were talking about the various medical/health commercials on television. My husband said, "I miss old Smiling Bob." LOL!

Some people, like the JW, take scripture out of context and look very foolish. Almost everyone has religious ideas that look foolish to onlookers. Looking back, I thought it was foolish, while a Catholic, to pay a quarter to light a candle in order for a prayer to go up to heaven. I did enjoy, as a child, hearing the money clink in the slot and seeing the fire take hold of the wick at my own hand! It was the only time I got to play with matches - in church - dark and eery lighting in the building.! Wow! Loved that spooky stuff! LOL!

Anyway, the S 1467 is supposed to cover Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., beliefs. We will see how it plays out and if some of the wording is tweaked. I know Blunt introduced the bill in August '11, and it was pushed aside. It was up for vote yesterday. I haven't heard any reports on it. They did say that if this bill reaches Obama's desk only to receive his veto, he could be signing away any chance for re-election.

This is great conversation, you make some very good points!

I understand what you mean about certain things being absolutes among certain groups, I completely agree with that. My point is that those things may not be absolutes in a government mandated blanket policy. That's where the tricky part will come in.

Great example about the Muslim man, that's where the fringe group example is most pronounced.

And, I agree with you about the snake handling, I think it's ridiculous, but there are a few thousand people in the US who would consider this an "absolute", and to them, the law that prohibits their freedom of "worship" is a violation of their civil liberties.

I also understand the dilemma with the abortion issue, but as of now, no one is prohibiting the church from preaching against abortion - the mandate only seeks to ensure that a government funded organization, Catholic or not, provides that option. I also agree that it's a slippery slope, and it's hard to completely separate the two issues. But, for now, at least, they are separate.....converging? Yes.

I also really like the way you think about medication. I've held the belief for quite some time that we are a tremendously overmedicated society, and in many cases, if not most, the cure is worse than the disease! Smiling Bob notwithstanding!

But, to treat yourself naturally is a fantastic thing, and hopefully, we can get back to it. I also like your "hot toddy" recipe, I'll have to give that a whirl, since this mild winter has exacerbated my sinus and allergy issues!