| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Another constitutional fracturing or no? Thoughts? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Many of these letter include the following passage from the letter Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, Va., and Bishop Francis DiLorenzo of Richmond, Va., have asked their priests to read at Mass this coming Sunday: “In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing do). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply. "We cannot - we will not - comply with this unjust law." http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-vows-stand-obama-aga inst-catholic-church-says-decision-forcing-catholics-act |
||
| © Copyright 2012 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The Catholic church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and the Catholic bishops of the United States have argued that forcing a Catholic individual to purchase a health insurance plan that covers these things--or forcing a Catholic institution to provide such a plan--forces Catholics to act against their consciences and is a violation of the First Amendment. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. It would be interesting to see how many Catholics would be willing to go to the lions on this . . . and the arena's response. Most Hispanics are Catholics of the old guard That would be really interesting. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Should a person whose religion holds that the taking of a human life is a sin get a tax exemption because a large proportion of his taxes go to funding the military? What about someone whose religion forbids playing musical instruments, can they withhold state taxes because the proceeds go to schools that teach music? . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
This is a tough one for me. On the one hand, there's very little in the government's so-called Health Care Plan with which I can find agreement. And I think it's always very dangerous to interfere with religious freedom. However. The law doesn't target the religion, it merely includes it. Not as a religion, either, but as an employer. So long as any religion wants to employ people, it needs to obey related laws. Even if it disagrees with those laws. More importantly, however, there is nothing in the law that forces Catholics to "act against their consciences." Just as the Church is required to give their employees money, which can and I suspect often will be used contrary to religious doctrine, the new laws mandate that church employees be given the same free choice as all other employees in the nation. The law doesn't force anyone to avail themselves of sterilization, artificial contraception, or abortion. Those are still choices. And they're probably not choices that should be made by one's employer. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “but as an employer. So long as any religion wants to employ people, it needs to obey related laws.” The alternative being? Is Christ looking for a job? A Catholic institution by law if it involves employing people cannot not be Catholic? How long then does Catholism exist? Dumb Romans . . . Why didn’t they see this? And where would Islam be had there been government lawyers? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting stuff. Although I know of no religion that prohibits the playing of musical instruments, I have to agree with grinch...and Ron. It appears the church's only choice on their moral ground is to drop health care for their employees. The the church can claim they are doing nothing to contribute to aiding and abetting abortions, etc and leave the choice to it's members. Of course, if it is mandatory for the members,although they, too, will have no choice, either. Interesting that, since Obama has given over 1000 exemptions, he would not give one to the Catholics. My only hope is that it will cost him votes... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: They're out there Mike, in surprisingly large numbers. My point though was that when you accept the logic being used by these particular religious folk you are forced to accept the claims of all religions based on the same precedent. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291218/Muslim-pupils-taken-music-lessons-Islam-forbids-playing-instrument.html quote: As I understand it Mike, all houses of religion are exempt, including Catholic churches and their employees. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If they are exempt, what are the bishops referring to? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Presumably they're referring to Catholic run institutions other than places of worship Mike because churches are definitely exempt. In fact that's exactly how it works in the 28 states that already have these rules in place. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
..and yet hundreds of institutions have been given exemptions. Pelosi, of course, is as brain-damaged as she always is. Pelosi: “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.” I suppose she thinks by saying that, it will erase the fact that her "fellow Catholics" are AGAINST the administration on this matter. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
http://aclj.org/us-constitution/no-constitutional-rights-issues-violating-religious-liberties-white-house-doesnt-get-it |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
That's a really stupid article, Mike. Clearly, the author doesn't understand the issue at all. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think they should be forced to use the health care plan if they don't wish to and it goes against their religion as it obviously does in this case. What's the basis or justification for forcing them to accept it? What's the basis or justification for not allowing them an exception? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Should all the non-Catholics employed by Catholic institutions be forced to use a health care plan that doesn't include cover for contraceptives? What about their religious freedom? . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: No, it is up to the individual. When he/she chooses to sign up at a specifically Catholic institution, shouldn't he/she use what is offered by and accords to the principles of that institution? Why would someone expect something that goes against the institution's principles to be covered through that insitution? If someone doesn't want to go by things that follow Catholic principles, he/she should go to a non-Catholic institution instead of expecting a Catholic institution to cover things that go against Catholic beliefs. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
So Muslim institutions should be able to insist that all female employees wear Burkas and that all employees pray three times a day to Mecca? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Geoffrey Surtees is an attorney with the ACLJ and specializes in religious civil liberties. Geoff is a graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Law and holds a Master’s Degree in Theological Studies (summa The article certainly seems to be within his realm of expertise, Ron. I personally wouldn't be so quick as to refer to his thoughts as stupid or an indication that he has no idea what he's talking about - but that's just me.  p.s. Couldn't use the word between summa and laude due to the PIP obscenity filter. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
That just makes it worse, Mike. If he's not simply being stupid, he clearly thinks WE are. Surtees is being no less disingenuous in that article than Pelosi was in her equally silly response to the question put to her. The one you didn't much like? Carney said “I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here…” because the ruling doesn't target religion at all. It targets employers, and we all know there is absolutely no Constitutional provision protecting employers. The fact that my local dry cleaner is a devout Catholic doesn't make him exempt from the law, nor should any other employer be exempt because they personally don't agree with everything in the law. With Surtees' background, he knows exactly why Carney made the response he did. Instead of arguing against that response, however, he expressed incredulity anyone could make it? At best he was being stupid, at worst he was being disingenuous, and in any event he was being dishonest with his readers. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Yes, they should be able to do so if they wish, just as other institutions are allowed to stipulate certain dresscodes and services. Secular institutions should be able to insist on secular things and religious institutions should be able to insist on religious things. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You really want to force people to pray three times a day, Essorant? In trying to protect the religious freedom of the institute, you are abandoning the religious freedom of the individual. Still, we're getting a bit off-topic, I think. The issue here isn't about forcing employees to do something, or even about forcing them to NOT do something. The issue, rather, is about limiting their options. They can't force their employees to not use contraceptives. Instead, they're claiming their employees -- unlike every other employee in he workforce -- should have to pay for their contraceptives. Personally, I don't believe employee benefits should be mandated by government. But if you are going to mandate them they should be mandated fairly for everyone. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. You don't have to take the job . . . . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: The individual practices his religious freedom when he chooses to sign up for a religious institution. If he signed up to one where burkas and prayers are insisted on as part of fullfilling the religious duties there, or where contraceptives may not be covered because it is against the religion, it is still his choice to partake in that institution or not. He is making the wrong choice if he is partaking in an institution whose standards he doesn't believe in. The religious freedom of a religious institution shouldn't be able to be abolished by an individual when he specifically has the choice to go or not to go to that institution based on whether he believes in what the institution includes and whether he wishes to be part of it or not. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
That argument would negate every law or regulation meant to protect the employee in the workplace. And there are a lot of them. Below minimum wage? Don't take the job. No overtime pay? Don't take the job. They might decide to dock your pay this month for something beyond your control? Don't take the job. Unsafe working conditions? Don't take the job. The list goes on and on. Even if that's the direction you really want to go, at least make an effort to be consistent. Protect everyone equally . . . or don't protect anyone. We shouldn't cherry pick who is or isn't going to be above the law. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Religious institutions are a constitutionally recognized exception. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
So, John, you don't think religious institutions have to worry about job safety or unemployment insurance because the Constitution exempts them from employment regulations? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. What does the Constitution say? . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Which part, John? The First Amendment protects individuals from government intervention in both the establishment and exercise of their religious beliefs. I can't find any section that gives employers similar protections? Can you? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I've read the passage, John. Do you have a point to make? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The passage is the point Ron. Where we might disagree is on "compelling interest". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitatis_Humanae#Summary_of_the_declaration . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Within this conversation, John, the passage is irrelevant. It applies to religions, not to employers, and in no event does it grant religious carte blanch. They still have to adhere to local building codes, they still have to obey traffic laws, and they still have to offer their employees the same basic protections every other employer does. The Constitution does not place them outside the law, and it certainly doesn't place them above the law. If the new employment laws restricted, prohibiting, or in any way tried to regulate the way a religion worshipped, then the law would very likely be unconstitutional. This law does none of that, however. Catholics can still preach against the evils of controlling human reproduction. Catholics can still refuse contraception and reject abortion, each according to their conscience. The law in no way impedes what THEY do as a religion. And, uh, the phrase "compelling interest" isn't part of the First Amendment? Nor does it appear in the text of your linked Wiki article. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause It compels Catholics as employers to fund the provision of a product which terminates human life which Catholics hold begins at conception. Now they can simply get out of being employers I guess . . . or can they insist their employees be Catholic and those they serve be Catholic? “As Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops put it, "When you go to a Jewish deli, you are not expecting pork chops."” http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012- 02-05/contraception-mandate-religious-freedom/52975796/1 PS http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290081/mandatory-abortion-coverage-richard -doerflinger http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290366/three-things-everyo ne-should-know-about-hhs-mandate-nikolas-t-nikas . [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (02-07-2012 05:30 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: As employers, John, they already do that. They pay their employees wages, which are then taxed and used to buy guns. They buy supplies, which similarly results in taxes being levied. Their money already goes straight from the collection plate to the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. So long as they want to be of this world, doing more than worshiping and teaching, so long as they employ the services of people who want to do more than worship and teach, they will be of the WHOLE world, the bad right along with the good. Catholics don't believe in contraception. Jehovah's Witnesses will routinely refuse blood and certain blood products. Christian Scientists similarly refuse vaccinations and are on official record as saying faith healing is every bit as responsible a choice as is biomedical care. Where do you want to draw the line, John? In my opinion, every faith has the right to live -- and die -- by their own beliefs. They do not, however, have the right to force those beliefs on their employees, their vendors, or anyone else simply because there has been an exchange of money. quote: No, John, but when you go to work for a Jewish deli, you don't become a Jew. Nor can the owner of the deli forbid you from using your paycheck to buy all the pork chops you can eat. Likewise, when you go into a Catholic church, school or hospital, you shouldn't expect them to be handing out contraceptives. But if you go to work for anyone, be they Catholic or not, you should rest easy knowing they have no legal right to withhold payment simply because they don't agree with how you spend your money. p.s. I'm afraid I didn't have time to follow all your links this time, John. I'll be happy to listen to your thoughts, of course, when you find the time and inclination to pen them. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: But those aren't things that people have religious issues about. At religious institutions I think things that people have sincere religious issues about should usually be allowed to be addressed by the institution and according to the religious nature of that institution that the person chooses to go to. If the religious institution and its employers can't insist on religious things or things for religious reasons, then where is their religious freedom and how can they uphold the religious nature of the institution? I don't see anything abusive or harmful about insisting on a dresscode that would include burkas, or a service that includes praying according to the custom of the religion, or not being covered for contraceptives and abortion at a religious institution that is religiously against it. I wouldn't choose these things for a religious institution if I were running one, and most others probably wouldn't either, but they are differences based on different religious beliefs/morals and those things should be allowed to have priority at institutions that are specifically religious. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: They can insist on anything they want, Ess. For themselves. Not for the rest of the world, and certainly not at the expense of the law. When they worship, they can exist outside the world. When they hire people or engage in commercial transactions, even if doing so is motivated by their religious tenets, they become part of our world and must attend the same laws and regulations as everyone else. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “The religious exemption is absolutely meaningless. The so-called religious exemption is written so narrowly that, as one commentator noted, even Jesus and his twelve disciples wouldn’t qualify. Here’s why: A “religious employer” is defined in the rule as an organization that meets all four of the following criteria: (1) the organization’s purpose is the inculcation of religious values (Catholic food banks are out); (2) the organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization (Catholic universities are out); (3) the organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization (Catholic hospitals are out); and (4) the organization is a nonprofit that is a house of worship or religious order. Given that houses of worship and religious orders exist with a mission to serve the least amongst us regardless of their faith, that means requirement (3) is not met, so everyone is out.” http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290366/three-things-everyo ne-should-know-about-hhs-mandate-nikolas-t-nikas So a hospital run by Catholics employing only Catholics serving only Catholics would not be exempt. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: While I don't normally respond to off-site comments (you can't have a dialog with someone who isn't here), this one is so inane and condescending as to require at least a passing reference. I can't find anywhere in the NT where Jesus hired someone to do His job. Can you? However, if Jesus had become an employer, I feel confident He would have willingly "rendered unto Caesar the things which were Caesar's." quote: I don't know, John, show me one that meets that criteria? And then show me what other legal requirements they have escaped. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. 'However, if Jesus had become an employer, I feel confident He would have willingly "rendered unto Caesar the things which were Caesar's."' Perhaps he saw the problem beforehand and decided it wasn't worth it . . . "don't know, John, show me one that meets that criteria? And then show me what other legal requirements they have escaped." History is full of legal persecutions By the way the answer is no; such a hospital would not be exempt because it is a hospital. . |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I'm with Essorant on this, within reason, Religious Organizations should not be forced to pay for practices which violate very specific doctrines that have long been held (all the more since the stance is a passive one). And, these stances should be well known to all who contract to be employed by the RCs. If the Obama Administration is gung-ho about "Health Care" for all with no exceptions, let them pick up the slack for those employees who choose birth control and abortion, and preserve the right of Catholics not to participate in it at the violation of their own conscience. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No exceptions??? That's a fairy tale since he has already given exceptions to thousands of people. The White House is trying hard to wiggle out of this one.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Have you got some examples Mike? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
(NaturalNews) If Obamacare is everything the administration claims it to be, then why are government officials secretly handing out exemption waivers to friends and insiders? A Washington Times report explains that since the health care bill was passed last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued at 733 exemptions-and-counting to friends of the White House in order to shelter them from the massive insurance rate hikes that the rest of America will get stuck paying, that is if the bill is not overturned or declared unconstitutional. It began with 111 waivers, which gradually rose to 222, and that has now topped 733. Recipients include various cities and states, businesses, and unions, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). SIEU, of course, contributed $27 million to the Obama campaign back in 2008, so perhaps the union's waiver was a friendly "thank you" gift. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031181_Obamacare_waivers.html#ixzz1m1mFHxvG Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers. Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees. The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district was the hands-down winner in the latest set of health care law waivers announced by the Obama administration. More than three dozen businesses with locations in Pelosi's district were granted temporary exemptions from the law in April, according to information released by the Department of Health and Human Services. The businesses -- mostly restaurants and cafes, with a few upscale hotels and clubs mixed in -- accounted for about 20 percent of all waivers granted last month. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/17/restaurants-cafes-pelosis-district-eat-health-care-law-waivers/#ixzz1m1nYfLYQ Take a few minutes of your time and there are plenty more articles on the subject, grinch. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, Sorry, I thought you meant permanent exemptions - I already knew about the temporary waivers - by the way the number of people who'll benefit from them is currently up to 2.2 million. They've got nothing to do with contraceptives though, they're a temporary measure to allow the insurers to comply with the new law without raising premiums and they expire no later than 2014. The new legislation sets the minimum indemnity at $750,000, any employer who has a policy that doesn't meet this minimum standard can apply for a waiver above and beyond the provision that allows them to keep their grandfathered policy. The waiver is basically an insurance in case their existing policy is pulled before the insurance exchange is fully up and running. My guess is the temporary waivers will increase in number as employers with really bad policies realise the risks involved in not applying. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Amid a backlash from many Catholics and proponents of religious liberty, President Barack Obama announced Friday that his administration will not require religious institutions like hospitals and universities to provide free contraception to their employees in their health insurance. Speaking to reporters at the White House Friday, Obama offered a compromise that would allow women to obtain free contraception but would require them to obtain it directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control because of religious beliefs. Obama's staff was deeply divided over the decision to require free contraception, with Vice President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, both Catholics, very opposed, ABC's Jake Tapper reported earlier this week. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-announce-accommodation-religious-groups-contraceptive-rule-enough-170500694.html |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Question: If a Catholic institution pays for health insurance from insurance company A under an insurance policy that excludes birth control items it objects to, do that Catholic institutions employees now still get those items for free from insurance company A if the Catholic institution has a policy with insurance company A or do the employees get the items free from another/any other insurance company; are the items being available contingent on the Catholic Institution paying for a policy with insurance company A? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The insurance company supplies a policy to the employer that doesn't include contraceptives and the same company offers an optional, add on, policy to the employee that is paid for by the insurance company. Everyone's a winner. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
That sounds like a reasonable compromise. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. But it's contingent on the employer buying a policy from the insurer; without which the insurer offers nothing free? And it's mandatory these free items be offered as a consequence of the policy being purchased? In a simple case an employer buys a policy from an insurer who otherwise has no money; how does the insurer pay for the free items? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Health insurers have no money! In which universe?  The insurers will pay for it out of their profits and they'll be happy to do it too if they have any sense because not supplying contraceptives will cost them more in the long run. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
OK, I've never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I confess I'm lost here. Tell me where I go wrong here, grinch (which you have a lot of experience doing) Under normal circumstances, a company pays an insurance company for employee coverage. One facet of that is to provide contraceptives to employees. The cost of providing those contraceptives is factored into the premiums. Under this compromise, the company is not required to pay for them. The employees would now take out a policy with the insurance company to provide contraceptives, free of charge. Does that mean.. (1) The insurance company will lower the premiums allow for the fact they took the contraceptives out...or (2) Would the premiums remain the same? In the first case, the insurance would be eating the cost of the contraceptives. I'm certainly not crying over the insurance company's profits being reduced, but that goes against the "everybody wins" comment. In the second case, if the premiums remain the same, then it is still the organization paying for the contraceptives, which they claim goes against their beliefs. The only difference is that the items will be asked for by the employees directly from the insurance companies. WHere am I going wrong here? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Any existing plan would stay the same on day one under the grandfather clause - they would have done even without this latest change. The Catholic organisations would get zero reduction in premiums because their current plans don't include contraceptives. So the answer is number two. quote: They win Mike because their profits will be maximised by supplying contraceptives. It isn't hard to work out why, contraceptives prevent pregnancies which are generally covered in their policies and cost the insurance companies a hell of a lot more than supplying free contraceptives. Then you have the reduction in STD's including expensive medical costs for Aids etc. Like all insurers, the ideal for Health Care insurers is to collect premiums and pay out as little as possible, in that context preventative medicine such as free contraceptives makes perfect sense. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. But for a religious institution's employees to have these free items the institution opposes from the insurer the religious institution has to buy a policy with the insurer so the religious institution is acting against itself by doing so. The religious institution is clear of any responsibility only if those items it opposes are offered to its employees regardless of whether it buys a policy or not. Now the church could just not buy any policy, increase their employees' wages by what would have been the cost and let their employees decide what to do with the extra money. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
STD's? Catholics? Blasphemy!! Thanks, grinch. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You'd think so - but when questioned 96% of Catholic's admitted to using contraceptives at some point during their lives so perhaps Catholics are just as promiscuous as non-Catholics. quote: It's a good idea but what stops the employees from simply spending the money and not taking out any health insurance at all? If that happens everyone else's premiums will go up and someone is going to have to pick up the tab for the health care of all those Catholics without cover when their STD's etc. become life threatening. . |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I believe there’s something most are missing here: The Catholic Church owns the insurance companies supplying their employee coverage. Here’s one, just for NY. Fidelis Care They are in the business of competing with other insurance companies for company/employer group healthcare plans. And, yes, their healthcare plan directs/redirects the employee to their Catholic hospital chains, whether you’ve had prior coverage with SAID non-Catholic hospital for years with SAID non-Catholic Dr…too bad, they are no longer members of the new group affiliated with your new Catholic healthcare plan. It doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic or not. The employee doesn’t make the decisions. Employers go with the most affordable plans and they can switch companies on the employee without notification, until after the fact. Catholic hospitals push Catholic health insurance packages not only as medical facilities & employers, but under the Catholic Church as founder of two enterprises with sister companies, affiliations and chains across the U.S. Now, does that mean that you can’t work for them UNLESS you accept Catholic healthcare?? I dunno. What kind of Opt Out plan do they have? They do accept Medicaid and Medicare. I don’t know what other plans of coverage they accept as a walk-in, but their services are limited to what is permitted under canon law. Google--Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. (The Url was too long to post it properly) “Catholic health care does not offend the rights of individual conscience by refusing to provide or permit medical procedures that are judged morally wrong by the teaching authority of the Church.” (Tim Redmond) who is a recent recipient of a new health care plan/redirect thru his employer says: “But still: It's a Catholic hospital chain. With all the issues that creates. And it's part of the city's public-health infrastructure. A lot of us didn't choose a religious-based medical center; our insurance company did that for us.” I believe that “assault on religious freedom” could be smacked right back at ‘em, but more importantly, here I go again—listening to what’s NOT being said: Why isn’t the Church kicking up a hell-storm about the loss of revenue?? Oh, yeah. They’re a Church. That would seem . . . tacky . . . in the least. But I do not believe this issue is solely one of moral bounds or grounds. There is too much money at stake changing hands in too many handshaking ways!! And if anyone takes the time to read the directives link I posted above? You are granted rights within their rights of rites with rights thrown all over the place except the right to services extended to citizens by US Gov. Brilliant! But acrobatically dangerous! |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Here’s what the Obama plan would mean in practical terms: If a “non-exempt religious employer” — that is, a religiously affiliated employer, such as a Catholic social-service agency, that is not exempt from the mandate as a house of worship — chooses to offer health insurance to its workers, that insurance must always include among its benefits free contraception, sterilization, and access to abortion-inducing drugs. Which is to say that if they offer health insurance at all, many religious employers would be complicit in funding products and services that are in direct violation of the fundamental norms of their faiths. The substance of the “compromise” is the fact that the requirement to provide these services free of charge would be relocated, moving out of the employers’ insurance contract and into a federal regulation governing what insurers must include in the policies they sell to non-exempt religious employers. In effect, religious employers will be told that they can buy whatever policies they want, but insurers will be able to sell them only policies that cover contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and the like. This “compromise” leaves religious employers in precisely the same position they were in before: with no way to offer insurance that does not include coverage they find morally objectionable.” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290899/compromise-isn-t-editors . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of “increased access” to “reproductive services” for “poor” women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling. As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” “ http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290717/lsquoto-stop-multiplication-unfitrsquo-michelle-malkin . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The only 'contraceptive' that even reduces the chances of contracting STD's are condoms. Not something covered under any insurance policy that I am aware. Birth control pills, abortofacients and sterilization procedures have nothing to do with preventing STD's. But they do increase the risk of stroke, breast and uterine cancer down the road. I don't believe that any insurance company will be giving anything away 'free'. They will just recoup the cost in the next round of premium increases. I also don't believe that the government has the right to demand that a private company provide anything for free. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: They don't have that right Denise, they can only suggest it. The health insurance industry will then either decide it makes financial sense or not. If they decide to go along with the idea individual companies will then work out whether they will absorb the costs based on longer term savings or recoup the costs by increasing premiums. However if they decide not to go along with the idea they'll definitely pass on the increased costs of all the extra pregnancies etc, they be dealing with. What the government does have a right to do is to demand that the goods and services supplied are of a minimum standard and applied equally. In the case of health care the government has decided that contraceptives should be included as part of that minimum standard in all new policies. You could make an argument that the standard is too high, that contraceptives shouldn't be included in any policy but then you also have to accept that the additional costs those services prevent will be passed on to you in the form of increased premiums. Is that what you're suggesting Denise? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What I'm suggesting is that organizations should not have to provide or pay for policies that contain items and services that violate that organizations moral and religious beliefs and the government shouldn't force them to. If people who work for these organizations wish those services they should be able to purchase a separate rider through the insurance company. The government shouldn't mandate they be provided for 'free', which will only result in the cost being passed along in higher premiums to the employing organization anyway. Or people can get their contraceptives and abortofacients and abortions through Planned Parenthood, whichever makes better economic sense for them. Of course the cheapest and most effective form of birth control is abstinence. That's always an option for people who don't want to get pregnant. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
That's one possible solution Denise. Contraceptives and the other services involved could be removed from all policies sold to religious institutions and anyone who wants them could pay extra out of their own pocket. Any increased costs incurred due to unwanted pregnancies etc. would be paid for by raising the premiums of all policies. What were the original problems with the American health care system again? Wasn't it high costs and limited coverage? There are lots of options. The government could allow individuals to opt out of any employer managed schemes that don't include contraceptives. The employer would pay the employee what they'd normally pay in premiums and the employee could join an alternative public option scheme that did include those services. Of course the costs for those employers would go up as the number of employees opting out of their schemes increased. Though at least they'd not be violating any of their beliefs and the employee would be free to choose what sort of services they wanted. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Currently people are free now to opt out of accepting employer insurance programs. The government doesn't have to allow it. Some employers will pay a certain amount per month to those who opt out, some don't. People can prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD's simply by going to the Pharmacy and purchasing a box of condoms for about $7 to $10. That would also reduce the use of cancer causing and blood clot causing chemicals and hormones found in oral contraceptives. Obamacare isn't doing anything to contain costs. They are skyrocketing. I believe I mentioned that my portion of the premium skyrocketed 400% last March, and mine is through the AFL-CIO/AFSCME union....one of the ones who got the waivers to keep their costs down in the near term. It didn't stop them from raping their members' pocketbooks. It's all a scam. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
"Before the President’s announcement, it was the intention of the administration to force religious groups to purchase health insurance that provided contraceptive services free of charge. Now it is the intention to require religious groups to purchase health insurance from a carrier that will provide contraceptive services free of charge. The coverage would be provided as a part of the employer’s policy, not as a separate rider. What’s the difference? For all intents and purposes: none. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . And this duck, as far as conscience rights are concerned, is a dead one." http://aclj.org/obamacare/accommodation-not Obama's 'compromise' is just a distinction without a difference. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. There's also the issue of Catholic institutions that are self insured. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Well there you go - I'm sure those nice Catholic employers would be willing to render unto their employees that which they normally render unto the insurers. That way the employees can decide for themselves whether they want cover for contraceptives. Problem solved. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That's a good point, John. What happens with the employers who self-insure and have religious or moral objections to covering birth control and abortions? Private coverage costs far more than employer group coverage, though, Grinch, so most probably wouldn't be able to afford to pay for a policy with the money the employer would give them in lieu of employer provided coverage. Most folks who opt out of employer coverage have coverage under a spouse so they don't need it, and if they do get money from the employer in lieu of coverage it is extra bucks in their monthly budgets but certainly not enough to buy a personal policy. Plus the plan under Obamacare is to charge a penalty to an employer who doesn't provide a 'government approved' plan. I don't know how that will impact the current practice of being able to opt out. It probably won't be allowed if the employer will be charged a penalty payable to the government. From what I can see this government intrusion into health insurance/healthcare has solved none of the problems and only created new problems. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here is a very informative article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577220950656734864.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “whose services are being offered . .. free of charge” http://www.smh.com.au/world/mobile-euthanasia-units-go-on-the-road-t o-make-house-calls-20120302-1u7y3.html Watch for it in a second term . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Margaret Sanger was a mixed bag to say the least. She was apparently quite serious about her goal of "improving the race," and I believe there was a lot of what we'd consider to be racism today in her motivation. It's difficult to argue with the best facts and information you can get. I disagree with birth control and Abortion both as means of achieving a better race, if only because I think you'd be hard pressed to define what a race is in the first place, at least if my understanding of modern anthropology is correct. I do agree that women ought to have free access to Abortion and to contraception, however, on demand. Just because Ms. Sanger seems to have been a racist, doesn't mean that some of the things she was saying and some of the conclusions people have come to building on her work are wrong. We see evidence of trephining when we look at the skulls of some of our new stone age ancestors. I doubt that any of those holes chipped in any of those skulls were for the purpose of allowing any sort of sophisticated decompression work, slipping little pieces of teflon behind a place where a vein presses on a nerve, for example, to allow intractable pain to subside. Simply because Those neolithic folk were probably dealing with evil spirits more than anatomy doesn't mean that we've stopped drilling bore-holes in skulls; nor does it mean that our current reasons aren't good ones. The inference the earlier posting would have us make, as it was made in the article by Ms. Malkin the posting seems inspired by, seems to be otherwise: That because Ms. Sanger was a racist, all her actions must necessarily be disposed of without discussion or examination as to their merit independent of that glaring flaw in their originator. Despite the fact, for example, that Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, he was also one of the finest and most innovative of the Generals who fought in the Civil War. The one doesn't make the other go away; not in either direction. Ms Malkin should, however, pay more attention to her facts. The Abortion Clinic in Philadelphia she speaks of deserves all the scorn she heaps upon it, but she allows the readers to believe that it was a legal clinic, and that it was performing legal abortion under legal conditions. In fact, it was performing illegal abortion in violation of Pennsylvania law and should have been closed down long before it was. I know of no prochoice agencies that would approve of abortions delivered under those conditions, by unlicensed providers, on third trimester pregnancies and on fetuses that were viable. Ms. Malkin implies that this is not the case, and should be ashamed of herself for doing so. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
