Evangelical college cancels student health insur. over birth control misinformation

[fredtoast]

(08-01-2015, 03:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That analogy might work if you were joining the church and then complaining about how they conduct themselves.

No.  My analogy works perfectly.

My point is that you are saying any sort of behavior, no matter how vile, is okay as long as no one is forced to be a part of it.

There are lots of students who have been enrolled in Wheaton for years that will now be forced to transfer.  That is a huge pain in the ass.  All the relationships they built with the professors is gone.  Some of their credits may not transfer.  And they have to leave the college of their choice over some silly little issue.

The fact that students are not being forced to stay does not change the fact that Wheaton's administrators are acting like a bunch of dicks.

[*bfine32*]

(08-01-2015, 03:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  My analogy works perfectly.

My point is that you are saying any sort of behavior, no matter how vile, is okay as long as no one is forced to be a part of it.

There are lots of students who have been enrolled in Wheaton for years that will now be forced to transfer.  That is a huge pain in the ass.  All the relationships they built with the professors is gone.  Some of their credits may not transfer.  And they have to leave the college of their choice over some silly little issue.

The fact that students are not being forced to stay does not change the fact that Wheaton's administrators are acting like a bunch of dicks.

No the analogy is absolutely ridiculous. Why not just say "No is forcing anybody to join the Nazi party", "No one is forcing anyone to join the KKK" ect...

Bottom line Wheaton is a Christian College; pretty sure anyone that paid the deposit to go there was well aware of this fact. They first made their concerns over the contraceptive coverage known in 2012 when they filed suit. I find it beyond silly that someone could complain about the fact that a Christian College should be "blamed" for following their Christian convictions. Sorta like being upset that an HBCU passed a measure to cancel classes on MLK day. 
 

[fredtoast]

(08-01-2015, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No the analogy is absolutely ridiculous. Why not just say "No is forcing anybody to join the Nazi party", "No one is forcing anyone to join the KKK" ect...

Bottom line Wheaton is a Christian College; pretty sure anyone that paid the deposit to go there was well aware of this fact. They first made their concerns over the contraceptive coverage known in 2012 when they filed suit. I find it beyond silly that someone could complain about the fact that a Christian College should be "blamed" for following their Christian convictions. Sorta like being upset that an HBCU passed a measure to cancel classes on MLK day. 
 

You are missing a HUGE point.

Students will be forced to transfer EVEN IF THEY 100% AGREE THAT CONTRACEPTION IS WRONG AND NEVER USE CONTRACEPTION!!!

They are being forced to leave not for using contraception, but because they are losing their insurance coverage. if Wheaton College was doing this because of their beliefs then they would just make a rule against using contraception and allow the students to keep their insurance, but instead they are being cheap dicks and cutting off the insurance for these students as some sort of political statement.

[*bfine32*]

(08-01-2015, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are missing a HUGE point.

Students will be forced to transfer EVEN IF THEY 100% AGREE THAT CONTRACEPTION IS WRONG AND NEVER USE CONTRACEPTION!!!


They are being forced to leave not for using contraception, but because they are losing their insurance coverage.

and that has absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous Westboro Church analogy. You are blaming a school for following its convictions simply because you don't agree with their convictions. It's not like the school is being selfish in this matter. I'm sure they would like to collect all the tuition fees it can.

The school has made it's stance on this matter known for over 3 years. If a student still decided to attend knowing this; then I don't see how the school should be blamed when they follow through simply because the government refuses to allow their insurance not to cover contraception. 

I will say impressive use of cap locks and bold features.  

[fredtoast]

(08-01-2015, 03:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: and that has absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous Westboro Church analogy. You are blaming a school for following its convictions simply because you don't agree with their convictions. It's not like the school is being selfish in this matter. I'm sure they would like to collect all the tuition fees it can.

The school has made it's stance on this matter known for over 3 years. If a student still decided to attend knowing this; then I don't see how the school should be blamed when they follow through simply because the government refuses to allow their insurance not to cover contraception. 

I will say impressive use of cap locks and bold features.  

It is not about using contraception.  In fact I will bet that Wheaton does not even have a student conduct policy or rule against using contraception.

It is nothing but being cheap and making a political statement.

[fredtoast]

My what high morals the adminstration of Wheaton College has......



http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/07/30/Wheaton-College-drops-student-health-coverage-over-Obamacare-contraception-mandate/4571438265637/

Wheaton College, a Christian liberal arts school of about 3,000, announced it is dropping student health insurance coverage in objection to the Obamacare contraception mandate.

The decision, announced July 10, will halt healthcare coverage Friday for the 2015-2016 school year for about a quarter of the undergraduate and graduate students. Faculty and staff are not affected.


http://college.usatoday.com/2015/07/30/wheaton-college-ends-student-health-plans-over-birth-control/

the Christian liberal arts college announced to the campus community that it will no longer provide health coverage for roughly a quarter of its 3,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The decision won’t affect health care insurance for the school’s faculty and staff



Nothing worse than hypocrites hiding behind religious beliefs. It is all about the money. There is no way possible it could be about their religious beliuefs or else they would have to cut of the insurance for the faculty and staff also.

[*bfine32*]

(08-01-2015, 04:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: My what high morals the adminstration of Wheaton College has......



http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/07/30/Wheaton-College-drops-student-health-coverage-over-Obamacare-contraception-mandate/4571438265637/

Wheaton College, a Christian liberal arts school of about 3,000, announced it is dropping student health insurance coverage in objection to the Obamacare contraception mandate.

The decision, announced July 10, will halt healthcare coverage Friday for the 2015-2016 school year for about a quarter of the undergraduate and graduate students. Faculty and staff are not affected.


http://college.usatoday.com/2015/07/30/wheaton-college-ends-student-health-plans-over-birth-control/

the Christian liberal arts college announced to the campus community that it will no longer provide health coverage for roughly a quarter of its 3,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The decision won’t affect health care insurance for the school’s faculty and staff



Nothing worse than hypocrites hiding behind religious beliefs.  It is all about the money.  There is no way possible it could be about their religious beliuefs or else they would have to cut of the insurance for the faculty and staff also.

It's either hypocrisy or, unlike their students, they are required to provide insurance to their employees. I have no idea how anyone can equate this to the school being cheap. They have offered insurance in the past and would have continued to do so if the court had not said they must include contraceptive coverage. They are also setting aside money to help those that might be financially burdened by the decision. One can also assume they are losing a good deal of money due to decrease in current and future tuition fees.  

Once again I commend you on your use of the bold feature. Looks like you may have even manipulated the size. Good work.

[Rotobeast]

(08-01-2015, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are missing a HUGE point.

Students will be forced to transfer EVEN IF THEY 100% AGREE THAT CONTRACEPTION IS WRONG AND NEVER USE CONTRACEPTION!!!

They are being forced to leave not for using contraception, but because they are losing their insurance coverage.  if Wheaton College was doing this because of their beliefs then they would just make a rule against using contraception and allow the students to keep their insurance, but instead they are being cheap dicks and cutting off the insurance for these students as some sort of political statement.

Perhaps they could keep coverage, if the students agreed to some new uniform guidelines ?

[StLucieBengal]

Lol dear lord . If the students are that upset they can transfer.

Or God forbid... Buy birth control pills for 9 dollars a month. Cut into their Natty light cash.

[fredtoast]

(08-01-2015, 04:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  One can also assume they are losing a good deal of money due to decrease in current and future tuition fees.  

No, one can not assume that at all.  I am sure they have a waiting list and will not lose a single penny in tuition.

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2015, 11:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No, one can not assume that at all.  I am sure they have a waiting list and will not lose a single penny in tuition.

Wheaton's wait list is a round 130, the decision they made is said to effect around 700. Now not qll 130 on the waitlist are still waiting this late in the enrollment cycle and not all 700 effected will leave the school. So it is fair to assume they could lose some in tuition fees. However, to assert with certainty that they will not an to suggest they just made this move because they are cheap is just being naive at best.

[fredtoast]

(08-01-2015, 04:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's either hypocrisy or, unlike their students, they are required to provide insurance to their employees.

There is no law requiring them to carry insurance for their employees.

It is all about the money.

You can't claim it is about morals, but then say "Well it is about morals as long as it doesn't cost us any more money."

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2015, 12:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no law requiring them to carry insurance for their employees.

It is all about the money.

You can't claim it is about morals, but then say "Well it is about morals as long as it doesn't cost us any more money."

Anyone can look back through this thread and find the numerous attempts you have tried to make to show that this College has a different motive than the one they stated and can see each has been easily refuted. Regardless of all your attempts you cannot dispute the simple fact that  they provided insurance and were willing to continue to do so until their stay was recently rejected by the Court of Appeals. They have also pledged to provide financial assistance to students affected by this move.

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2015, 12:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anyone can look back through this thread and find the numerous attempts you have tried to make to show that this College has a different motive than the one they stated and can see each has been easily refuted. Regardless of all your attempts you cannot dispute the simple fact that  they provided insurance and were willing to continue to do so until their stay was recently rejected by the Court of Appeals. They have also pledged to provide financial assistance to students affected by this move.

And you can not deny that they continued to provide health insurance coverage to THEMSELVES despite the fact that it supposedly violates their religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs that are limited by money are not real religious beliefs.

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2015, 01:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And you can not deny that they continued to provide health insurance coverage to THEMSELVES despite the fact that it supposedly violates their religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs that are limited by money are not real religious beliefs.

It is mandated they they provide insurance to their employees and if they do not they face severe penalty.

You can continue with this feeble assertion and I expect nothing less; as you once told me the only reason a person with money doesn't have an abortion is because they can afford the child.

I don't expect you to have a grasp of the larger concept of morale conviction.

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2015, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is mandated they they provide insurance to their employees and if they do not they face severe penalty.

That is exactly what I said.  They think money is more important than their religious beliefs.

(08-02-2015, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You can continue with this feeble assertion and I expect nothing less; as you once told me the only reason a person with money doesn't have an abortion is because they can afford the child. 

So you think people with money are just morally superior to poor people?  That doesn't surprise me coming from a person who supports Wheaton placing money above their religious beliefs.  

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2015, 01:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is exactly what I said.  They think money is more important than their religious beliefs.



So you think people with money are just morally superior to poor people?  That doesn't surprise me coming from a person who supports Wheaton placing money above their religious beliefs.  

They have to continue to operate as their legal battle continues.

Where the hell did I suggest people with money are morally superior to poor people?

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2015, 01:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where the hell did I suggest people with money are morally superior to poor people?

How do you explain the fact that poor women have more abortions than wealthy women if it has nothing to do with economic impact?

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2015, 02:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How do you explain the fact that poor women have more abortions than wealthy women if it has nothing to do with economic impact?

You first

bfine32 Wrote:Where the hell did I suggest people with money are morally superior to poor people?

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2015, 02:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You first

Already done

(08-02-2015, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: you once told me the only reason a person with money doesn't have an abortion is because they can afford the child. 

The financial situation of the mother has a lot to do with the decision to have an abortion.