 Posted Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:31 AM
|
|
|
|
Mere Kat:
You make good points!!!! There's also one other factor. The last time I checked, TMC offered the option of enrolling in a medical health plan for their employees!!! Talk about hypocrisy, to say the leastt!!! Per the health care legislation, how can you be opposed to medical care on religious grounds and then offer it to your employees. That would be like the Catholic Church offering to cover elective abortions for employees of their facilities. Only in Christian Science.......!!!
John
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:51 AM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous (3/30/2010)
Mere Kat:
You make good points!!!! There's also one other factor. The last time I checked, TMC offered the option of enrolling in a medical health plan for their employees!!! Talk about hypocrisy, to say the leastt!!! Per the health care legislation, how can you be opposed to medical care on religious grounds and then offer it to your employees. That would be like the Catholic Church offering to cover elective abortions for employees of their facilities. Only in Christian Science.......!!!
John
Very true -- when my ex-husband taught at Principia in the early 2000's, he had health insurance. It was just catastrophic insurance, with a deductible of $6,000, but it was health insurance.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Here's a link to a 3-30-10 article from "The Sun" regarding how CSists cannot opt out of health insurance under the new law.
Christian Scientists seek insurance pass
The article states:
"Among those who don't have to buy insurance are prison inmates, illegal immigrants and the Amish. But it's not clear that followers of other religions with potential objections to the federal mandate - Christian Scientists among them - will be granted an exemption.
'At the present time, we do not have an accommodation or exemption from the mandated insurance," said Donald Ingwerson, a spokesman for the Southern California Christian Science Committee on Publication. "We're not all right with that. We would like to have an accommodation in that law that would leave it up to the individual Christian Scientist.'"
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:18 AM
|
|
|
|
| Thanks Linda, The article shows very clearly that some CS are looking for special treatment under the laws of the land.
We would like to have an accommodation in that law that would leave it up to the individual Christian Scientist.'" Why yes, Donald, and I would like to have an accomodation in that law that would leave it up to the individual American citizen regardless of religious affiliation. Christian Scientists are not opposed to the concept of health insurance; why should they be given a special exemption from the requirements of the law?
|
|
|
Posted Friday, April 02, 2010 1:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts' health care (nicknamed "Romneycare" by its detractors) has many features duplicated in the national Healthcare Act. (How's that for bipartisanship? A Mormon Republican working with a highly, if nominal, Catholic Democratic legislature!). The central common feature is mandated health insurance. From www.masshealthlawtruth.org * comes this:
Section 3. An individual shall be exempt from section 2 if he files a sworn affidavit with his income tax return stating that he did not have creditable coverage and that his sincerely held religious beliefs are the basis of his refusal to obtain and maintain creditable coverage during the 12 months of the taxable year for which the return was filed. Any individual who claimed an exemption but received medical health care during the taxable year for which the return is filed shall be liable for providing or arranging for full payment for the medical health care and be subject to the penalty assessed under section 2.
Note that use of healthcare nullifies one's right to claim the religious exemption--one must really put his money where his mouth is!**
*I don't know who is sponsors this website, but it seems pro-Mass Healthcare.
**The "penalty" referenced at the very end of this section is the penalty for failure to obtain a healthcare policy.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:34 PM
|
|
|
|
Quote:
You make good points!!!! There's also one other factor. The last time I checked, TMC offered the option of enrolling in a medical health plan for their employees!!! Talk about hypocrisy, to say the leastt!!! Per the health care legislation, how can you be opposed to medical care on religious grounds and then offer it to your employees. That would be like the Catholic Church offering to cover elective abortions for employees of their facilities. Only in Christian Science.......!!!
John
Reply:
To me, it seems that the opposition is not to medical care itself, but merely the requirement to buy insurance. It is important to remember that Christian Scientists are not opposed to medicine or medical care based on their religious doctrine, although they often appear that way because they choose not to use medicine. This debate is more about preserving the choice not to participate in the health care system in terms of paying (taxes) or purchasing (insurance). It's more like the Catholic Church not wanting its members to have to help pay for elective abortions, which I believe is an objection that was raised regarding this bill.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Here's another aspect of the healthcare "legislation" to check out.
Certain groups have been exempted from the requirement to purchase "healthcare insurance" for various reasons such as their belief that insurance is gambling and they oppose gambling on religious principles. The rest of us will still be required to purchase the "insurance", however, the groups that do not "gamble" will still receive the same "free" treatment as those who pay.
Sorry for all the quotation marks. I do not agree that the common labels hold the meanings indicated, but wanted to stay somewhat in sync for the sake of understanding. I get accused of difficulties with understanding enough already.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
|