Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Dinner]

This isn't about hospital services, but rather about what benefits the hospital offers to it's employees.

I would expect a JW hospital to have blood transfusions on hand (for the nonJW patients).

I would not force a JW hospital to organize blood drives.

JM

My understanding is it effects both the benefits hospitals offer their employees as well as what services they offer to the general public. Right now a hospital run by a religious group can refuse to carry birth control and deny members of the general public any health care which they feel like as long as they can find some religious claim to justify it. That has to stop. If they're going to be in the health care business then they need to provide a full range of health care or they need to find another line of work. It's as simple as that for me.

[Jon Miller]

The SDA church has over 160 hospitals and 5000 schools. The health message (and that is what it is called during services) is one of the major parts of the denomination both historically and today.

JM
(The health message is good and correct I think, and in their communities SDA's generally live longer. However, sometimes the implementation is faddish and overall there is too much emphasis on abstaining from alcohol and tobacco and not eating meat and less so on sugar and exercise ( although in the past there was stronger emphasis on sugar and exercise and caffeine ).)

[dannubis]

My understanding is it effects both the benefits hospitals offer their employees as well as what services they offer to the general public. Right now a hospital run by a religious group can refuse to carry birth control and deny members of the general public any health care which they feel like as long as they can find some religious claim to justify it. That has to stop. If they're going to be in the health care business then they need to provide a full range of health care or they need to find another line of work. It's as simple as that for me.

That or they can't have access to any funds paid for by the general public.

[Jon Miller]

My understanding is it effects both the benefits hospitals offer their employees as well as what services they offer to the general public. Right now a hospital run by a religious group can refuse to carry birth control and deny members of the general public any health care which they feel like as long as they can find some religious claim to justify it. That has to stop. If they're going to be in the health care business then they need to provide a full range of health care or they need to find another line of work. It's as simple as that for me.

The only thing I saw on the comments were employee benefits.

That being said, if you should be able to determine what services you offer. If you don't think artificial fertilization is right, than don't offer it.

The blood transfusions is different because you can't do much of what a hospital needs to without having them available.

Same with pharmacies selling birth control (or whatever the issue was).

JM

[Jon Miller]

That or they can't have access to any funds paid for by the general public.

So someone who has medicare can't decide to go there...

JM

[Jon Miller]

Seriously, to be consistent you guys should be against a kosher deli.

JM

[Dinner]

ignorant european question: can a delegate won by let's say gingrich be used for santorum at the convention? if gingrich drop out.

Yes.

[a.kitman]

The blood transfusions is different because you can't do much of what a hospital needs to without having them available.

you keep bringing this up without provocation. i think you know it is a bad argument.

[Jon Miller]

In many situations the delegate's vote is non-binding. They could vote however they want.

jM

[giblets]

Seriously, to be consistent you guys should be against a kosher deli.

JM

No. You clearly have no ability to reason

[Jon Miller]

you keep bringing this up without provocation. i think you know is a bad argument.

No, it is the same as the pharmacy. I am highlighting the difference.

Being able to do surgery is a hospital main function. If the hospital can not do it, it is not a hospital. Therefore a JW hospital has to be willing to do blood transfusions (For their nonJW patients). Offering invitro-fertilization is not part of the hospital's main function. A Catholic hospital can decide not to offer invitro-fertilization.

Being able to get perscription drugs is a pharmacies main function. The pharmacy must do it, or it is not a pharmacy. A Catholic pharmacist must be willing to hand out birth control when needed to. Offering make-up is not part of the pharmacies main function. A (very conservative) denomination pharmacist could decide not to offer make-up in their store.

Understand?

JM

[Dinner]

So the church exception can only apply to the physical worship building itself and the people who work there?

I believe that is correct as written in the health care reform bill which passed a couple of years ago. The church and staff of the church with it's hierarchy gets an exemption but secondary lines of business are not given an exemption. So the hospital, like all other employers, is mandated to have a health insurance plan which covers contraception and if it wants to stay in the health care business then they must offer contraception to the general public instead of refusing to do so as some Catholic (and other groups) hospitals currently do.

[The Mad Monk]

I suspect Gingrich sufficiently despises Romney that he will readily direct his delagates to Santorum, if need be.

[Aeson]

Seriously, to be consistent you guys should be against a kosher deli.

I am against tax exempt ones. (I am not sure if these hospitals are tax exempt or not. I would assume they are?)

[Elok]

This has precisely dick to do with charities accepting government money--the regulation applies to all of them, no matter how they're funded. Nor "imposing values"--in this case nobody is saying "you can't buy contraceptives," only "we won't pay for your contraceptives." If anyone is imposing values here, it's the government (not that imposing values is always bad). The whole thing is needlessly hostile and confrontational, and hinges on the government presuming to tell religious organizations what is or is not their proper sphere. All for what? A condom subsidy. Screw that.