Quote:
Originally Posted by dellinger63
This is not about opting out for cost savings, punishment, bias towards women etc. This is about Church doctrine.
You keep thinking this will be abused by opting out of say arthritis coverage etc. It isn't and until we cross that road its reality is only in people's minds.
Again, you keep ignoring that if Obama is right, a policy for a woman with no contraceptive coverage should be MORE EXPENSIVE than coverage with contraception. So you can eliminate cost as a motive.
|
it is very much about those things. there is a double standard. the cost is higher for an ed drug than bc, yet ed is covered. as for the church argument...why do you continue to ignore the facts? those include that many states already have bc mandates in place which include churches- that the church has accepted. also, as i said before, if you start excluding based on religion you open up many folks to losing coverages for other services. ive made that point several times, yet you and others choose to ignore that. you said if viagra was paid for then nevermind..it is paid for yet you're still arguing.
of course arthritis wouldnt come up for religious reasons. what about treatment for ectopic pregnancy? blood transfusions? there are religions against that. organ donation? some are against that. you want your pastor, or your employer to decide your treatments?