Bishops rip HHS mandate That Forces Coverage of Birth Control, Abortion Drugs

[Tigg]

Right and the Catholic Church’s answer is they’re Catholics, albeit perhaps non practicing. So specifying the “kind” voting in a poll or in a democracy on election day is not a need. Those Catholics have as much of a right to vote.

If the polls on this are irrelevant, why did you bring one up?

After following your posts for a long time, we all know your stance on this, CMatt, and I’m sure you are delighted that the majority of Catholics are disobedient to Church teaching. We do not deny that and are well aware of the fact that many many “Catholics” will place their politics above their faith - we know perhaps better than you the internal fighting that is going on. We don’t care - we’ve been warned about this age and about persecution and suffering and we stand as the Remnant Church, small in number, but always faithful to Christ and His Church to the end. Is this the admission you’ve been fishing for? We have been preparing ourselves for this persecution for some time - those who were not blinded have known better than the others; may God have mercy on us all.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course a Catholic who is a Catholic according to Church teaching is also not asked at the polling booth when they go to cast a ballot, the degree in which they are practicing.

Here is more on the polling on this issue.

Yes 58% of all Catholics agree employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.

52% of Catholic voters agree as well

And a second poll, also released today, this one from Public Policy Polling, found similar results as the Public Religion Research Institute poll did.

In this second poll a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit.

content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/contraception-catholic-bishops-obama-hhs/1

They didn’t ask how many support Catholic institutions being forced to pay for abortifacients or sterilizations, did they? In fact, they didn’t ask whether Catholic institutions should even be forced to pay for birth control coverage.

They didn’t because they wanted to be able to make it look as if the majority of Catholics support this action against Church institutions.

Intentionally deceptive.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If no one will provide insurance it probably has more to do with government regulation. In the unregulated markets you can get all sorts of things insured. Professional athletes can be insured. Singers can have their voices insured. A Yo-Yo champs hands can be insured. So if insurance is not available the only possible cause is government. And that occurs because they write laws saying how you must cover a person you do insure and make it a money losing venture. Of course the insurance you want may be expensive. You might want future breast cancer related events treated. That would be costly since your risk is better known. No one expects accident free auto insurance rates if they’ve had ten accidents in the last year.

But you really dont want insurance. You want medical care. Insurance is just one way to get it. Another way is to save money. And another is charity. Part of the problem is insurance in the first place. The way insurance is used in America has driven up health care costs. If you go to a doctor without insurance and offer to pay cash they will usually treat you for about half the price they charge insured people. So when you look into health care costs you have to keep in mind the insurance rate is much higher than the cash rate.

The first paragraph is certainly true and instructive. But I think the second paragraph really gets to the matter. Some people, and I am not accusing anyone in particular, regard health care insurance as a method for obtaining health care at an affordable cost as if by inserting a middleman between you and the doctor you were somehow reducing expenses.

And certainly the way that employee-provided health insurance has operated, its understandable that people would think this. The money to pay for it is not coming out of your pocket, as far as you can see. But this doesn’t change the nature of insurance. But insurance is designed to smooth out unpredictable costs by pooling risk.

If you wait until you have contracted an expensive disease to obtain health care insurance, of course, it will cost more. And if insurers are limited in what they can provide, of course, many will choose not to offer certain policies.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I understand – and I haven’t read enough here or elsewhere. One last reply: I want to give you all something to think about. Not get mad at me - well that’s your prerogative – We had our own construction business for 25 years. i chose not to get insurance – in 18 years of raising kids, emergency rooms, and two operations we still paid less in those years to fund our medical bills than we would have had we bought insurance, and we didn’t have to deal with the insurance companies --yes we were young and thought omnipotent. I was then diagnosed with bipolar. No problem paying the bills. However, when I did decide to look into medical insurance at age 48 no one would insure me. Not One company.

Fast forward two years. I’m diagnosed with breast cancer. Luckily small, I have to have a lumpectomy. It would cost 50,000. in the US – it cost 3500. in Mexico. I researched Medical Tourism, found reputable doctor and hospital - and had to leave the great US of A – also did not have the recommended radiation because we can’t afford it. Now there are would’ve, could’ve, should’ve’s – but barring that – who is going to insure a woman with a history of breast cancer? What options do I have if it comes back? And after the recent downturn of the economy I am SOL – I need some sort of Universal Healthcare – and I realize this means we will have to pay extra for our employees.

Yes. And I’m sure all can sympathize with you. But the thread is not about the high cost of healthcare in general. It’s about the Obama mandate that “well woman” care be a) free and b) that Catholic institutions have to pay for contraceptive, abortifacient and sterilization coverage.

Can you think of a compelling reason for your employees and you to pay higher premiums so that wealthy women can avoid paying anything at all for “well woman” care? This new regulation does not distinguish between those who are wealthy and those who are not. Do you really think you and your employees should pay more so Nancy Pelosi, Ann Romney and Melinda Gates don’t have co-pays or deductibles?

Does that make any sense at all to you?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No fines necessary. All they have to do is to stop paying for any health insurance for their employees. They can then take that money they would use to pay for the health insurance and add it to the wage of the employee.

The employee would then have to go out and buy their own health insurance.

Employers are not obligated to pay for health insurance of any kind. It has just become a part of a person’s wages.

 

[turtle18]

No fines necessary. All they have to do is to stop paying for any health insurance for their employees. They can then take that money they would use to pay for the health insurance and add it to the wage of the employee.

The employee would then have to go out and buy their own health insurance.

Employers are not obligated to pay for health insurance of any kind. It has just become a part of a person’s wages.

I thought the new healthcare law passed required all employers to cover their employees. If they didn’t cover them, the employee can buy individual health insurance, but the employer would be fined for not covering them.

 

[Tigg]

They didn’t ask how many support Catholic institutions being forced to pay for abortifacients or sterilizations, did they? In fact, they didn’t ask whether Catholic institutions should even be forced to pay for birth control coverage.

They didn’t because they wanted to be able to make it look as if the majority of Catholics support this action against Church institutions.

Intentionally deceptive.

We can only hope so.

 

[Corki]

No fines necessary. All they have to do is to stop paying for any health insurance for their employees. They can then take that money they would use to pay for the health insurance and add it to the wage of the employee.

The employee would then have to go out and buy their own health insurance.

Employers are not obligated to pay for health insurance of any kind. It has just become a part of a person’s wages.

Which, in my opinion, is part of the plan. The current administration would like to see health insurance entirely out of the hands of employers and everyone forced into government-run pools. That’s the only way it can ensure a true single-payer system.

My prediction is that they will get their wish but the government plan will be so far below the level of care that most Americans are used to that employers will offer supplemental coverage in order to attract top employees.

 

[iloveangels]

I thought the new healthcare law passed required all employers to cover their employees. If they didn’t cover them, the employee can buy individual health insurance, but the employer would be fined for not covering them.

My guess is that this is what will happen. And we’ll just have fewer paid employees, but that’s okay. We’ll manage. We always have.

 

[iloveangels]

No fines necessary. All they have to do is to stop paying for any health insurance for their employees. They can then take that money they would use to pay for the health insurance and add it to the wage of the employee.

The employee would then have to go out and buy their own health insurance.

Employers are not obligated to pay for health insurance of any kind. It has just become a part of a person’s wages.

I thought the new healthcare law passed required all employers to cover their employees. If they didn’t cover them, the employee can buy individual health insurance, but the employer would be fined for not covering them.

My guess is that this is what will happen. And we’ll just have fewer paid employees, but that’s okay. We’ll manage. We always have.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

No fines necessary. All they have to do is to stop paying for any health insurance for their employees. They can then take that money they would use to pay for the health insurance and add it to the wage of the employee.

The employee would then have to go out and buy their own health insurance.

Employers are not obligated to pay for health insurance of any kind. It has just become a part of a person’s wages.

That’s true right now, but in 2013 or 2014 any employer with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a penalty.

 

[Corki]

I thought the new healthcare law passed required all employers to cover their employees. If they didn’t cover them, the employee can buy individual health insurance, but the employer would be fined for not covering them.

Of course we will have to see how it shakes out but the orginally proposed fine was something like $1500 per employee. That’s a LOT less than the cost of providing insurance for employees.

 

[LisaA]

Yes. And I’m sure all can sympathize with you. But the thread is not about the high cost of healthcare in general. It’s about the Obama mandate that “well woman” care be a) free and b) that Catholic institutions have to pay for contraceptive, abortifacient and sterilization coverage.

Can you think of a compelling reason for your employees and you to pay higher premiums so that wealthy women can avoid paying anything at all for “well woman” care? This new regulation does not distinguish between those who are wealthy and those who are not. Do you really think you and your employees should pay more so Nancy Pelosi, Ann Romney and Melinda Gates don’t have co-pays or deductibles?

Does that make any sense at all to you?

A great point and yet another example of an Obama answer in search of a problem. This mandate is deemed to come under “preventative services” which one would think would cover preventative services for an actual disease, not a natural state of being like a pregnancy.

Also, there is a huge difference between a mandate where a compelling need exists and one like this that simply pushes through an agenda that is a pet project of Obama and his administration. He is quite simply the most anti-baby man ever to occupy the White House. His determination to prevent or abort babies borders on pathological yet he seems to be a truly devoted father to his own daughters. But it is clearly his personal attitude (voted against Babies Born Alive law,said he didn’t want his daughter PUNISHED with a baby).

Further in the “answer in search of a problem” realm, was it ever shown that sterilization, contraception and abortofacient drugs were neccessary to maintain life and health AND difficult to obtain? They are no more necessary than Viagra and easy and inexpensive to obtain. So tell me why mandate THESE drugs be forced and free? The only answer is Obama’s particular agenda ginned up by “Catholics” like Pelosi and Sebelius.

Lisa

 

[_Abyssinia]

**USCCB Spokesman: Hawaii Bill ‘Not Much of a Compromise’ to Fix Contraception Mandate

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-bishops-spokesman-hawaii-bill-not-much-of-a-compromise-to-fix-contrace#ixzz1ljwjHGnC**

 

[_Abyssinia]

Non Catholic, pro-contraception Kirsten Powers has written a column denouncing the decision by the Obama admin for its decision regarding the HHS mandate:

thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/07/birth-control-trumps-religious-freedom-in-obama-s-catholic-decision.html

 

[iloveangels]

Of course we will have to see how it shakes out but the orginally proposed fine was something like $1500 per employee. That’s a LOT less than the cost of providing insurance for employees.

Yup, and having to pay the extra cost should do a pretty decent job of focusing clients of Catholic schools and services on voting out Obama and his crowd. It might be worth the cost we have to pay the feds.

 

[_Abyssinia]

They didn’t ask how many support Catholic institutions being forced to pay for abortifacients or sterilizations, did they? In fact, they didn’t ask whether Catholic institutions should even be forced to pay for birth control coverage.

They didn’t because they wanted to be able to make it look as if the majority of Catholics support this action against Church institutions.

Intentionally deceptive.

Exactly.

 

[turtle18]

Of course we will have to see how it shakes out but the orginally proposed fine was something like $1500 per employee. That’s a LOT less than the cost of providing insurance for employees.

I guess back to my original question, though-what if they refuse to pay the fines (even though they are less than the cost to cover employees?)

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Charlotte Diocese website gives information on the options:

For a religious employer that does not want to offer such services, the regulation sets out a narrow exemption: An exempt religious employer is one that “(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a nonprofit organization” under specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code. The exact language of the exemption was announced Aug. 1 by the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

Catholic leaders across the country are decrying this exemption as too narrowly written – particularly parts 2 and 3 – and violates the Church’s religious liberty. The Church’s ministries do and should go beyond serving and employing Catholics, they say.

For example, the Charlotte diocese’s social services ministries serve thousands of people each year – and they’re not all Catholics. From food pantries to adoption services, refugee resettlement and more, the diocese does not scrutinize clients’ religious tenets before they help them. The diocese also hires people of all religious faiths, and diocesan schools enroll non-Catholic students.

Terri Wilhelm, diocesan human resources director, said the diocese may be “all right for now,” but there is a very real risk that the diocese could soon be forced to choose from three bad options: offer contraception coverage, limit its ministries to serving Catholics only, or stop offering insurance to its employees altogether.

But if they were to get backed into a corner by the HHS regulation, only the third option would really be on the table, Charlotte diocese officials said. Many other Catholic employers are saying the same thing (Read the Sept. 4 edition of Our Sunday Visitor).

news.charlottediocese.net/features/usworld/45-rokstories-local/768-north-carolina-bishops-urge-opposition-to-hhs-contraception-mandate

I do not think the Bishops or other Catholic employers would let it get to a stage where they would be fined, they just would not offer insurance to employees - if this happens or a threat that this could happen, I bet a lot of employees of Catholic institutions will vote against Obama in November 2012.

 

[iloveangels]

Of course we will have to see how it shakes out but the orginally proposed fine was something like $1500 per employee. That’s a LOT less than the cost of providing insurance for employees.

They could come after us. Good luck with that.