Sissy bitch!
Also this…
1 Like
So, where’s the joke I clearly missed?
Gotcha, I remember reading those but thought the sissy bitch thing came before that - like maybe from your log or something
You mean, Catholics aren’t using time and resources to run secular hospitals against their moral conscience? Catholic hospitals run according to Catholic doctrine? And are very busy helping underserved people/areas? Newsflash! Feel free to open up your own non-profit? No, of course not.
And yes, you guessed it, abortion and transgender issues are involved.
Do these hospitals accept public (Medicaid etc) insurance or private only?
Of course it does…If it provides the treatment, and the patient with medicaid receives it.
Let me guess. Since they don’t do gender reassignment, the rural guy can’t have his gall bladder removal paid for?
The blog post makes me think “They’re helping people we weren’t/won’t and they’re doing it all Catholic-like!” So, let me guess, “make sure they can’t help as many of them anymore!. We’re so helpful!.” Pats selves on back while walking right past the sick looking person begging for change.
Not all private hospitals accept public insurance for everything. Nor can/do all doctors. Was just a question.
It should make you think “I certainly wouldn’t fund an Islamic hospital that denied me something based on their religion so I can certainly understand someone feeling the same way about this Catholic hospital, while not sharing their feelings myself.”
I would be thankful that a group I wasn’t even part of was providing medical care to myself and others in areas going without… Especially when my own group hadn’t. No, instead, I’d ask "oh yeah, where the heck were you, then? "
You’d be less thankful if you were in range of that being your only hospital like your article talked about and you wanted something like birth control (something your Medicaid would cover elsewhere).
I understand your frustrations with Catholic hospitals and all, but those of us that have faith in capitalism, that believe a Catholic hospital going down would be replaced by the market if demand existed, don’t take solace in hearing “well your tax dollars are being spent same as always, but this time we’re using religion to take away patient choice when in reality the market would pick up the slack.”
No, I wouldn’t be less thankful. Because, if I started to vomit blood one night…or my appendix suddenly betrayed me, or my chest began to feel tight while my arm and neck began to ache, or…No. I would be thankful somebody stepped up to provide all of those other things.
You mean the government, right? If capitalism was ACTUALLY running the show (forget the laws, medicare, medicaid, and other taxpayer help) how many denials of treatment do you think you’d see then? Oh, I bet it would dwarf the amount of abortions, contraception, and gender reassignments the Catholic hospital doesn’t provide. If there is one thing less popular and seen as less caring than Catholic hospitals, it’s free market hospitals.
Then you are a far bigger woman that I would be 
No, I mean the market that exists in our current mostly free market (more free market than the vast majority of the planet) system. The market that put a hospital in my metro, and if you live in one, most likely in yours.
Agreed. That’s why society has put laws in place that prohibit free market hospitals from being truly free market
Yes, we have a for profit medical center. It’s a good thing non-profit Catholics hospitals are operating were they wouldn’t open/stick around.
Are you trying to say something about my weight? It’s just these jeans.
1 Like
And then…some time in the future…the Church decides that birth control is kosher (just as it has changed its teachings over the years) and suddenly those who argued about its immorality have to find something else to be against.
Well, I’m sure we’ll have UHC first. Then the government can pick up the slack (since the ‘free market’ wasn’t and won’t) for us and nobody will have to worry about Catholic hospitals not passing out condoms.
You don’t need to go to a hospital for birth control. Simple office visits suffice for that.
1 Like
Hospitals and larger pharma companies have made a widescale habit of locking down doctor’s into contracts that put them under their circle of influence.
So in recent years it has become both possible and encouraged by the religious sector to both not cover birth control from the employer side, and the ability to deny even prescribing it on the doctor side.
That would require an MD to agree to practice medicine outside of his ethical belief of how medicine is practiced.
I also have a friend that basically “buys” medical practices and professional groups. The why behind this couldn’t be further from the reason you provided.
Sometimes its OK to just keep it simple and say “I don’t like religion”.
1 Like
No it wouldn’t. It would just require the MD to believe medicine should be practiced in a way that allows the religion of the doctor to override patient choice (like the ones from Sloths article).
I didn’t provide that as a why. The why is money and power. Things like denying people access to BC is just an unfortunate sure effect.
I like religion quite a bit. It was invented to control large groups of people, and does so very well. It gives a common ground for societies, a base set of rules that typically point people away from being terrible, etcetc.
That being said, I don’t like being controlled by religion or forced to fund it.