Analytics wrote:A single-payer system would most likely be financed the way Social Security is, with a payroll tax levied against both employers and employees. If the Catholic Church feels its religious liberties are being trampled by paying for contraceptive benefits in the open market, why would it be okay paying for contraceptive benefits in a single-payer system?
There is an inherent understanding that when we pay taxes, we may be financing things we don't agree with (wars if you're a liberal, feeding the hungry if you're a conservative). That's a different ball of wax than dictating to an institution what kinds of things it must or must not provide. I'm sure the Catholic church would not be happy with a single-payer solution, but it would not encroach on first amendment rights any more than any other taxes do.
Is it a different ball of wax?
Situation 1: A company must pay for health insurance coverage that covers contraception. It chooses a private health insurance company to provide this coverage.
Situation 2: A company must pay for health insurance coverage that covers contraception. It is required to get the coverage from the federal government.
Situation 1 is equal to situation 2, but with more freedom. So if the curtailment of freedom in situation #2 is okay, it logically follows that the lesser curtailment in situation #1 is also okay. Likewise, if situation #1 is insufferable, situation 2 is also insufferable.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Situation 1: A company must pay for health insurance coverage that covers contraception. It chooses a private health insurance company to provide this coverage.
Situation 2: A company must pay for health insurance coverage that covers contraception. It is required to get the coverage from the federal government.
Situation 1 is equal to situation 2, but with more freedom. So if the curtailment of freedom in situation #2 is okay, it logically follows that the lesser curtailment in situation #1 is also okay. Likewise, if situation #1 is insufferable, situation 2 is also insufferable.
Depends on how it's financed. If a single-payer healthcare system is a combination of income, corporate, and other taxes (which it definitely would be), employers would not have a direct hand in providing healthcare.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Condom...check. Femidom...check. Coil...check. Implant...check. Dutch cap...check. Vasectemy...check. Sterilisation...check. Just say no...check. Ball of wax...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Bob Loblaw wrote:Depends on how it's financed. If a single-payer healthcare system is a combination of income, corporate, and other taxes (which it definitely would be), employers would not have a direct hand in providing healthcare.
Employers don’t have a direct hand in providing it now—they pay insurance premiums—they don’t provide direct health care. The bishops think their religious freedom is being infringed when the money goes University-->insurance company-->contraceptives. Would they be fine if the money went University-->tax payer-->government-->contraceptives? Maybe, but I maintain the second option has the same net-effect and even less liberty.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Condom...check. Femidom...check. Coil...check. Implant...check. Dutch cap...check. Vasectemy...check. Sterilisation...check. Just say no...check. Ball of wax...
lol
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
