The contraception mandate issue is about right of contract, not religion

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by AbsoluteVoluntarist, Feb 22, 2012.

  1. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In regards the issue of the Catholic Church (or affiliated organizations or whatever it is) not wanting to have to cover contraception (including abortion-inducing drugs), a lot of people seem to be convinced the key issue is the Church's teachings on contraception. On that grounds, they insist that the Church is "forcing" her beliefs down somebody's throats, presumably her employees.

    But the fact is that those employees freely chose to be employed by Catholic institutions and to accept whatever terms of employment contract their employer offered. The real issue is whether the state should be allowed to interfere with terms of contract freely and voluntarily brokered between an employer and an employee. The answer is NO. And that goes for any employer and any mandate imposed by the state.

    It doesn't matter if it's the Catholic Church not wanting to cover contraception because of religious beliefs or Carl's Jr not wanting to cover hair loss pills because the CEO thinks bald men are cute. The point is that's a decision that is rightfully in the hands of the employer and not the state, because it's the employer's money. Employees have nothing forced upon them because the freely chose to accept positions with these employers.

    The idea that a voluntarily employment contract equates to a violent imposition is a crazy fallacy that ultimately derives from early socialist doctrines and demonstrates a bizarre inability to discern acts of aggression from voluntarily agreements.
     
    Unifier and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It is time for universal healthcare NOW!!
     
  3. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If it is the Catholic Churches money, I assume they are only using money they have made/earned themselves? I assume they are not accepting government funds (taxpayers money) and discriminating?
     
  4. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If they are, the solution is to remove the subsidies, not compound the problem with more statist interference.
     
  5. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd rather my medical care be provided by a competitive industry, not a coercive monopoly.
     
  6. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Our commercial system is proven to be a "coercive monopoly"; in fact, that is the greatest problem with it.

    Who cannot see that our system of privatized insurance is not as corrupted (by profit) and self-serving as it could ever be?

    Come on.

    We need Universal Healthcare now!!
     
  7. siddhartha

    siddhartha New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    8,418
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The standard for all employers is to offer coverage for birth control.

    To require potential employees to either accept to live by the employees religious precepts or be refused employment is discriminatory.

    These are secular businesses they have to live by the secular rules.
     
  8. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You seem to want to avoid thinking about things. The American medical "system" is heavily regulated by the state and that's it's problem. That's why costs are so high. That's why competition is so restricted and distorted. Profit has nothing to do with anything; that's just a bogeyman somebody chose to justify having the coercive state apparatus take over everything.
     
  9. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All those laws are wrong and should be abolished. Would you support an equivalent law saying that employees aren't allowed to quit a job, if they're quitting because they don't like the race or religion of the boss? What about anti-discrimination laws for dating? Or is it only employers that need to have Mother State breathing down their necks?
     
  10. siddhartha

    siddhartha New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    8,418
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't think that just maybe the insurance industry't anti trust exemption might have something to do with the lack of competition?
     
  11. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope. Antitrust...another unjust law that should be abolished. Unless, of course, we apply antitrust to the state, the country's only true monopoly.
     
  12. siddhartha

    siddhartha New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    8,418
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You think civil rights laws should be abolished? Please, be serious. Government protecting individual civil rights and equality is pretty basic and essential stuff.

    Quitting a job does not compromise an employers civil rights in any way. Nor does an employee need to give reason, cause or get permission to leave a job.
     
  13. siddhartha

    siddhartha New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    8,418
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think the should have it either.....but that's not the point. They do have it. If you don't think this multi-billion dollar industry is using the most powerful tool you can have, you're crazy.

    Insurance companies can sell their product anywhere today. There's absolutely nothing stopping them. They choose not to. They choose not to compete...essentially fixing prices.
     
  14. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's basically and essentially something statists made up a few generations ago. According to statists, every new statist interference becomes holy writ within a few decades. No one's entitled to jobs. Jobs a private things that may be offered and rescinded at any time, for any reason. Anything else is pure busybodyism.

    But why? Of course, there's no answer. We just have to swallow the blatant double standard because that's what makes social engineers feel good.

    Um, no, states actually ban health insurance companies from selling across state lines and also dictate what they can and can't cover. And that's before Obamacare. There's no such thing as "price fixing." Another made-up unicorn.
     
  15. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They hold onto their nonprofit status, despite being decidedly for-profit.
     
  16. siddhartha

    siddhartha New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    8,418
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ridiculous. We have a long history in this country of horrible instances of blatant discrimination. The civil rights bill is just a necessary expansion of the bill of rights. Members of the majority can be cavalier about not needing such a thing. Considering how the majority will someday become the minority, you might want to hang on to those civil rights laws.

    There is no double standard. To equate quitting to hiring is silly. You don't have to petition your employer to quit.

    No they do not. An insurance company merely has to be licensed to do business in that state. States do have the responsibility to regulate the insurance industry in their state and those regulations do vary, but many industries deal with the same thing. If you think that there should be federal standards set to make it easier for insurance companies, i'd be open to that....but states might have a problem giving up their autonomy where that's concerned.

    Republicans disingenuous ploy to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines is not what it seems. It would allow a company to set up shop in one state and only have to follow that states regulations. Obviously, they'll choose the state that has no regulations. What does that do? It negates every other states ability to regulate their insurance industry.....and, the consumer is completely unprotected. Oh, and they still have anti trust exemption, so if you think you're going to get lower costs, your dreaming.
     
  17. jhffmn

    jhffmn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,393
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's not about protecting our freedom of contract.

    But it should be about our freedom of contract.

    However, we've long since abandoned our freedom of contract. Pretty much everything the progressive movement stands for outside of welfare is in violation of our freedom of contract.
     
  18. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, employers have a right to hire and fire whomever they want for any reason they want. You have yet to refute this. You just don't like the idea. Employment is a voluntary trade relationship, not master/slave relationship despite Marx's lunacy.

    Of course, it's a double standard. If employees can "just quit," than employers ipso facto can "just fire people."

    The only standard you need is a standard forbidding force and fraud. Other than that, it should be anything goes.

    Another reason for me to support doing it.

    I'm perfectly willing to make that fairer by expanding the exemption to every other industry.
     
  19. siddhartha

    siddhartha New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    8,418
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well isn't that nice. You've just abolished civil rights and states rights and condoned monopolies. In doing so you've also discarded our democratic republic. Won't america be a lovely place?

    That you for volunteering the lunacy behind the Libertarian philosophy.
     
  20. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, number 1, I'm a rather drunk right now, so forgive me if I'm not in my right mind.

    First of all, the big difference between the state and its privileged protected and coddled busineses and assorted special interests, and the actual voluntary and free marketplace is that the former is a monopoly (coercively enforced as all monooplies truly are) while the latter is a competitive. So just ask yourself if you want competition or monopoly.

    And don't give me that democracy bilgewater. Democrayc is just a way that rulers trick the ruled into thinking they're free.
     
  21. red states rule

    red states rule New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,144
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
  22. siddhartha

    siddhartha New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    8,418
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You should know that a capitalistic free and fair economy cannot exist without rules that apply to all. What you call the oppressive government monopoly is actually the referee that provides that structure. Without it you will soon see the collapse of the free market.

    You can make the case that we're already seeing it. Consolidation, allowed to
    happen by a corrupted political system creates Huge multinationals and true competition is all but destroyed.

    With citizens united we already see some billionaire willing to spend 100 million on Gingrich's campaign. Talk about a bought and paid for president!

    What you want will destroy competition and when the huge corporations control labor, you'll see the end of your individual liberties.
     
  23. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The one and only Rule is that not one can violate the person and property of anyone else.

    Redundant.

    You can't destroy competition unless you use aggression, which is what the Rule of the free market prohibits.
     
  24. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As a libertarian I would agree but then we must also accept that if these institutions accept government funds there is also a contract related to that and the government can then rightfully impose mandates based upon that contract.

    The US government can justifiably, as a condition of contract, refuse to make Medicaid or Medicare payments for services to a Catholic hospital that refuses to include contraception as a part of it's health insurance for employees.

    So if the Catholic Church wants to refuse Medicare and Medicaid patients I have no problem with it selecting it's own health insurance which would exclude contracption. It can even provide self-insurance through it's own hospitals for all I care or no health insurance at all assuming the "Obamacare" mandates are ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

    The point being there are more than one contract at issue and by accepting federal funds for services the Catholic Church must also accept the contractual provisions related to compensation for those services.

    We saw this same issue related to pharmacies where the owners, due to religious convictions, didn't want to dispense birth control or Plan B to individuals which was covered by Medicare/Medicaid. They have a right to refuse but they must also refuse all Medicare/Medicaid insurance for other medications. They didn't want to do this so they are required to comply with the conditions of the Medicare/Medicaid contracts. They complained it was an infringement upon their religious Rights but were wrong because they could have refused all Medicare/Medicaid insurance at anytime. There was no infringement. It is a condition of contract with the federal government and they are not required to participate in the contract if it violates their religious beliefs.
     

Share This Page