Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Dinner]

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

This is true. If they refuse to comply then they lose the subsidies offered in ObamaCare/Health Care Reform and they are forced to pay fines for violating the regulations.

[Jon Miller]

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

We were talking about places accepting government money (which any kosher deli which serves old people is doing). No mention of tax except status was made at all. Tax exempt is for charities.

Do you think that charities should pay taxes? If not, why should a charitable hospital that is owned by a church do so?

I would expect the non-religious to understand a charitable hospital paying taxes more than a church not paying taxes.

JM

[Dinner]

Yes. Typically, the departing candidate will endorse, and instruct his delagates to vote for, one of the remaining candidates. I don't know if the delagates are bound to it, though.

Or they could turn out to be unfaithful delegates.

[a.kitman]

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

a hospitals main function is to keep people healthy. i sort of agree whit you here tho. i dont want to stand in peoples way of helping others. its just that to me both sides comes of as petty and small minded. but then iam a non-beliver so i have a hard time getting religious reasons.

[Dinner]

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

Oh, that's for sure. The two men definitely have a personal grudge against each other.

[Elok]

I suspect Gingrich sufficiently despises Romney that he will readily direct his delegates to Santorum, Gloria Steinem or Fidel Castro if it will mean beating Romney.

FTFY

[Aeson]

Do you think that charities should pay taxes?

Yes. (Though I think our tax code should be overhauled completely as well.)

We were talking about places accepting government money (which any kosher deli which serves old people is doing).

Are there applicable regulations that Kosher delis are opposed to observing?

[Jon Miller]

Yes. (Though I think our tax code should be overhauled completely as well.)



Are there applicable regulations that Kosher delis are opposed to observing?

Not sure about the first, but I can understand the argument.

Government money supporting the kosher agenda? How could you be OK with that?

JM

[Krill]

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

Actually doing surgery that requires blood transfusions isn't what makes a hospital. What makes a hospital is normally just a piece of paper that says they are a hospital and that means they have to follow rules that are decided by the government.

EDIT: Basically, it isn't to do with what a building is, it's to do with the the values and culture of the society, and what the clinical evidence is the best way to keep people healthy. Some contraceptives such as condoms have importance due to STIs, HIV and HPV that then causes cancer, and on that point I don't think that religion has a leg to stand on when it comes down to saying that they think it is a sin. Especially when it means that they will not follow the clinical and scientific evidence and ultimately abuse the patients at the hospital. Other things such as the morning after pill you can argue over, but frankly if this thread is representative of American religious beliefs affecting your culture, you're retards.

[Elok]

a hospitals main function is to keep people healthy. i sort of agree whit you here tho. i dont want to stand in peoples way of helping others. its just that to me both sides comes of as petty and small minded. but then iam a non-beliver so i have a hard time getting religious reasons.

That's fair enough. There are a lot of problems here, but you should also know (if you don't already) that Americans take individual freedoms very seriously. I'm inclined to blame the administration much more because:

1. It's not a particularly important issue from their perspective, but very important from the RCC's; birth control is too cheap to even require subsidizing in the first place (unless you're using something really exotic/experimental), but this is a serious moral issue for devout Catholics. Infringing on religious scruples isn't the sort of thing we traditionally take lightly, though it can be done in cases of compelling public interest ("no, you can't refuse mandatory vaccinations for your kids"). This is not a compelling public interest. And it would be easy to create a work-around for it on the government's end.
2. The administration created an exemption, but then deliberately confined it to directly worship-related institutions. There is an American tradition of religion as a private affair, but this is hardly the traditional m.o. of all religions. Certainly not for Catholicism, which has had its schools and hospitals for centuries. Same with plenty of other religions. Something like half the colleges in the US were started by churches. Religion has a definite role to play in public life here--just not with government money paying for it.

Put 1 and 2 together, what do you get? The administration has said, in effect, "you stay in your box, or, if you leave your box, you have to play by our rules even at the price of forfeiting your identity for no sensible reason." It comes across as deliberately hostile to religion.

[Aeson]

Government money supporting the kosher agenda? How could you be OK with that?

I don't think kosher food poses any sort of risk to people. It's probably more healthy than the average American diet in fact.

[Jon Miller]

In the end, yes.

But there is a lot of reasoning involved which you are deciding to ignore.

The government can say 'if you do surgery, you have to have blood available for transfusions for everyone who does not refuse them'.

To be a hospital, you have to be able to do surgeries/etc.

This is the reasoning. It isn't because the government arbitrarily should decide 'hospital is only a hospital if it does blood transfusions!'.

JM
(sleepy)

[Jon Miller]

I don't think kosher food poses any sort of risk to people. It's probably more healthy than the average American diet in fact.

[Krill]

Put 1 and 2 together, what do you get? The administration has said, in effect, "you stay in your box, or, if you leave your box, you have to play by our rules even at the price of forfeiting your identity for no sensible reason." It comes across as deliberately hostile to religion.

To me that comes across as "you can stay in your box, but if you come out of it, you aren't going to force your values onto your customers/clientele/patients". I figure this is more of a protective measure.That said, I don't think I fully understand the idea of medical benefits in the US, so I should probably shut up now.

[a.kitman]

That's fair enough. There are a lot of problems here, but you should also know (if you don't already) that Americans take individual freedoms very seriously.

i hate to break it to you but so do we over here in commie land. i would be fine if they just said: sorry we dont have that here but you might have better luck at the gas station.