RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DesideriScuri -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 12:26:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
"logic" doesn't seem to enter in to the argument for you.
Not that it matters, but Sandra Fluke is not an employee of Georgetown, she is a consumer of their services. Those services are no doubt costing her a lot of money. As a customer, she has every right to complain about the level of services she is paying for.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Well, by that logic, if you don't like the insurance coverage your employer is offering, change jobs or buy gap coverage.
Sandra Fluke knew before going to Georgetown that they didn't cover BC. She went anyway. How is it she has any standing to demand they cover it? If she didn't like the rules of the insurance offered by Georgetown, she shouldn't have taken that coverage, or she should have bought her own.


SANDRA FLUKE PURCHASES HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THOSE SERVICES. Go read their student handbook. Insurance in mandatory.


She doesn't purchase health insurance for coverage of BC for birth control reasons. That's not available.




farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 12:32:50 PM)

It sure as hell is available now.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 12:43:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:

She's arguing that Georgetown should cover BC, period.

STOP FUCKING LYING! Repeat after me.
SANDRA FLUKE WANTS HER INSURER TO COVER BC, PERIOD.


Is Sandra Fluke paying all her premium? I mean, is she paying the entire premium? Is Georgetown paying any part of her premium?

If Georgetown is paying any of the student's premiums, they would be covering BC for the use of birth control and not to prevent a medical condition. If that is the case, then, YOU are fucking lying.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 12:50:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
There is no 'negotiation' between the employer and insurer. The employees will get only what the insurer offers. The employer doesn't do anything but pass folders back and forth.
THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURED AND INSURER. THE EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.


I call Bullshit.
I call Bullshit.
I call Bullshit.
I call Bullshit.
I call Bullshit.
I call Bullshit.

I figured copy/paste out.

What I find interesting is that my soon-to-be-ex-wife has for the past few years joined the CFO in negotiating benefits for the employees of the company she works for. There is a constant going back and forth over what will be covered and what premiums will cost for that level of coverage.

But, hey. I'm fucking lying because farglebargle sez so.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 12:52:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
It sure as hell is available now.


Great defense of your statements. I'm shocked you only put it out there once.




farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 1:01:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:

She's arguing that Georgetown should cover BC, period.

STOP FUCKING LYING! Repeat after me.
SANDRA FLUKE WANTS HER INSURER TO COVER BC, PERIOD.


Is Sandra Fluke paying all her premium? I mean, is she paying the entire premium? Is Georgetown paying any part of her premium?

If Georgetown is paying any of the student's premiums, they would be covering BC for the use of birth control and not to prevent a medical condition. If that is the case, then, YOU are fucking lying.


On what planet is a university paying ANYTHING for a student?

In case you missed the memo, their entire model is in charging student's fees, and if you had READ THE LINK I PROVIDED EARLIER IN THE DISCUSSION OF THIS TOPIC YOU WOULD HAVE LEARNED GEORGETOWN LAW'S OFFICIAL POLICY FOR YOURSELF, AND AVOIDED EMBARRASSING YOURSELF BY DISPLAYING THIS EGREGIOUS NEGLIGENCE.

WHAT PART OF THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE INSURED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE INSURED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE INSURED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE INSURED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE INSURED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE INSURED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE INSURED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE INSURED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?




farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 1:02:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
There is no 'negotiation' between the employer and insurer. The employees will get only what the insurer offers. The employer doesn't do anything but pass folders back and forth.
THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURED AND INSURER. THE EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.


I call Bullshit.
I call Bullshit.
I call Bullshit.
I call Bullshit.
I call Bullshit.
I call Bullshit.

I figured copy/paste out.

What I find interesting is that my soon-to-be-ex-wife has for the past few years joined the CFO in negotiating benefits for the employees of the company she works for. There is a constant going back and forth over what will be covered and what premiums will cost for that level of coverage.

But, hey. I'm fucking lying because farglebargle sez so.



Is that what she told you she was working late for?

Ok... Whatever...





SternSkipper -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 3:13:50 PM)

quote:

WHAT PART OF THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE INSURED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?


<Raises Hand>

I don't think he understands the concept of 'tuition' and associated fees, among which is medical insurance.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 5:06:41 PM)

IT'S NOT ABOUT PAYING FOR THE PILLS! IT'S ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!
IT'S NOT ABOUT PAYING FOR THE PILLS! IT'S ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!
IT'S NOT ABOUT PAYING FOR THE PILLS! IT'S ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!
IT'S NOT ABOUT PAYING FOR THE PILLS! IT'S ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!
IT'S NOT ABOUT PAYING FOR THE PILLS! IT'S ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!


My C-A-P foo is strong. I guess that makes me right?



Peace and comfort,



Michael




farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 5:11:52 PM)

quote:

IT'S NOT ABOUT PAYING FOR THE PILLS! IT'S ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!


Explain this slowly to us all:

Given that the University isn't a party to the insurance contract between the student and the insurer, exactly how is their "religious freedom" involved???

Given that the University, not being a party to the contract, isn't responsible for the premiums paid by the insured, exactly how is their "religious freedom" involved?

In this diagram of the relationships involved. SHOW CLEARLY WHERE GEORGETOWN/THE CHURCH'S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS INFRINGED...



INSURED -> INSURANCE COMPANY.

INSURED -> DOCTOR

INSURANCE COMPANY -> DOCTOR


Again. Using the 3 private relationships above, demonstrate the 'nexus' between those entities and Georgetown which involves -- in any way -- Georgetown's religious freedom...






DesideriScuri -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 7:29:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:

She's arguing that Georgetown should cover BC, period.

STOP FUCKING LYING! Repeat after me.
SANDRA FLUKE WANTS HER INSURER TO COVER BC, PERIOD.

Is Sandra Fluke paying all her premium? I mean, is she paying the entire premium? Is Georgetown paying any part of her premium?
If Georgetown is paying any of the student's premiums, they would be covering BC for the use of birth control and not to prevent a medical condition. If that is the case, then, YOU are fucking lying.

On what planet is a university paying ANYTHING for a student?
In case you missed the memo, their entire model is in charging student's fees, and if you had READ THE LINK I PROVIDED EARLIER IN THE DISCUSSION OF THIS TOPIC YOU WOULD HAVE LEARNED GEORGETOWN LAW'S OFFICIAL POLICY FOR YOURSELF, AND AVOIDED EMBARRASSING YOURSELF BY DISPLAYING THIS EGREGIOUS NEGLIGENCE.
WHAT PART OF THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE INSURED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?


So, if Georgetown is not involved at all in the negotiations over what benefits will be offered, why are they being called out?




GotSteel -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 7:32:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
The issue here is that the insurance company denied the claim of something that was covered under the policy. Georgetown wasn't the problem in that case. The young lady that is the friend of that palin, Fluke, lost her ovary to corporate greed.

If you read the testimony (not the snippet that's being circulated around), Fluke says that Georgetown's policy covered the pills for that purpose but that the insurance company denied the claim. Go piss on Prudential's head.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sandra Fluke

For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it.





You've just presented a compelling argument for why government needs to step in and put an end to this kind of bullshit.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 7:43:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Is that what she told you she was working late for?
Ok... Whatever...


Yeah. Great rebuttal. Wonderful. So, according to your not-so-veiled allusions, my wife was cheating on me from mid-August to mid-September. Every year. Amazing.

And, lemme guess...this is going to go unnoticed by those whose politics line up with yours.






Kirata -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 8:03:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Given that the University isn't a party to the insurance contract between the student and the insurer, exactly how is their "religious freedom" involved???

Given that the University, not being a party to the contract, isn't responsible for the premiums paid by the insured, exactly how is their "religious freedom" involved?

I have to question your givens. While I have no way of knowing how generally my personal experience may apply, it seems to be typical insofar as I've talked to people about it.

When a company provides health insurance to its employees as part of their compensation package, the negotiation of policy details, coverage, deductibles, co-pays, etc., is conducted between the company and the insurer. The contract is between the company and the insurer. And the company pays the group premium. The only financial responsibility that falls to the individual insured is the deductible and co-pay amounts. The employee simply signs a form accepting the company-provided coverage and acknowledging receipt of documents setting forth their rights and the insurer's Privacy Policy.

The case was much the same when I was covered as student. It's not clear to me that Georgetown handles the matter differently. If it did, there would be no basis for an issue.

K.




farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 9:41:08 PM)

quote:

When a company provides health insurance to its employees as part of their compensation package, the negotiation of policy details, coverage, deductibles, co-pays, etc., is conducted between the company and the insurer.


Wrong. The Insurer tells the Company what benefits they'll offer. Take it or leave it. There may be different benefit levels offered, but no-one at an hmo is custom crafting coverage for anyone.

Good, Better, Best.

Pick one.





Kirata -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 10:13:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Wrong. The Insurer tells the Company what benefits they'll offer. Take it or leave it. There may be different benefit levels offered, but no-one at an hmo is custom crafting coverage for anyone.

I didn't mean to give the impression of a policy that was custom-crafted from whole cloth, though I can see how it could be read that way. Nor did I say anything about an HMO. There are always variables, particularly when more than one insurer is seeking a large contract. Or at least there used to be. I've been out of the loop for a while. But leaving that aside, you're conveniently ignoring the point of the post.

Maybe if you read it again you'll get it, and respond to the question. Wanna try that?

K.




farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 10:28:17 PM)

The INSURER gives the employer packets for Plan-10, Plan-20, and Plan-30. The employer decides which quotes he's going to pass onto the employees.

The employee signs the contract in the plan packet, returns it to HR, who then turns them in on their behalf. No-one in HR is signing any contracts...




DaddySatyr -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 11:36:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Given that the University isn't a party to the insurance contract between the student and the insurer, exactly how is their "religious freedom" involved???

Given that the University, not being a party to the contract, isn't responsible for the premiums paid by the insured, exactly how is their "religious freedom" involved?

I have to question your givens. While I have no way of knowing how generally my personal experience may apply, it seems to be typical insofar as I've talked to people about it.

When a company provides health insurance to its employees as part of their compensation package, the negotiation of policy details, coverage, deductibles, co-pays, etc., is conducted between the company and the insurer. The contract is between the company and the insurer. And the company pays the group premium. The only financial responsibility that falls to the individual insured is the deductible and co-pay amounts. The employee simply signs a form accepting the company-provided coverage and acknowledging receipt of documents setting forth their rights and the insurer's Privacy Policy.

The case was much the same when I was covered as student. It's not clear to me that Georgetown handles the matter differently. If it did, there would be no basis for an issue.

K.



K;

Because of rising costs, a lot of companies are not paying insurance premiums, anymore. A lot of them are nothing more than a way for employees to get access to group rates. That's it.

The way I read the Georgetown insurance booklet ( can send you a copy, if you like), Georgetown pays nothing for the coverage. The entire cost of the insurance is on the student.

The company I work for, the only time an employer has ever had any costs was because it was a small business and one more policy was need to qualify as a "group". The employer, through his own generosity, took out a policy that he really didn't need so that a few of his employees could get coverage.

I am sure there are some companies that still pay part of the premiums. There may even be some that pay all of the premiums. That only makes Georgetown/The Vatican's case even stronger; they'd be forced to pay for people to do something that they see as "sinful".



Peace and comfort,



Michael




SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 12:05:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Given that the University isn't a party to the insurance contract between the student and the insurer, exactly how is their "religious freedom" involved???

Given that the University, not being a party to the contract, isn't responsible for the premiums paid by the insured, exactly how is their "religious freedom" involved?

I have to question your givens. While I have no way of knowing how generally my personal experience may apply, it seems to be typical insofar as I've talked to people about it.

When a company provides health insurance to its employees as part of their compensation package, the negotiation of policy details, coverage, deductibles, co-pays, etc., is conducted between the company and the insurer. The contract is between the company and the insurer. And the company pays the group premium. The only financial responsibility that falls to the individual insured is the deductible and co-pay amounts. The employee simply signs a form accepting the company-provided coverage and acknowledging receipt of documents setting forth their rights and the insurer's Privacy Policy.

The case was much the same when I was covered as student. It's not clear to me that Georgetown handles the matter differently. If it did, there would be no basis for an issue.

K.




However the tuition that the students pay covers the cost of the insurance, meaning that the students are paying for the plan themselves. So its with the students money that the costs are being covered, not the catholic church, so the church has no basis of to cry its against my faith when they are not paying for it. Georgetown is a business, its a university, regardless of who founded it its still a business. So it should be required to the same rules Penn State or Drexel or Yale are held to.

Im sorry but you cant have your cake and eat it too in this situation. Your either a church, where your tax exempt and have tons of freedoms granted because your a church.. or your a business where your not. Im fairly sure if another university pulled this crap theyd have been fined up the wazoo for discrimination and for lack of compliance, but because we have a huge huge huge huge huge double standard about religion we are allowing them to break the law, be a tax burden and the like because of their opinion on what is or isnt okay.


Most companies do not pay all or even some of the amount. I pay about 175 a month for my insurance, The company i work for i believe doesn't pay anything into the health costs. So the 175 is the amount of the premium divided by those covered. Im also required to pay the deductibles, co pays and co insurance as well as the premium.

The amount of money birth control costs a system is pennies. When our company was forced to cover it (because im a cunt like that) Out premium went from 87.39 to 87.43 every two weeks. Not even a nickle not even a dollar a year. I could see them rejecting it because of the costs. But to be so heated over 8 cents a month, 96 cents a year?





Kirata -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 12:37:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

The way I read the Georgetown insurance booklet ( can send you a copy, if you like), Georgetown pays nothing for the coverage. The entire cost of the insurance is on the student.

Okay thanks, that's what I wanted clarified. Sorry if that was made clear previously. At thirteen pages and counting, I didn't wade through it all.

K.




Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875