You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
estesbob
Guest
Our Bishops always seem to live things muddled in the end. These things are against Gods law but whether one can vote to support them or implement them in their business is a complicated issue???
J
J_Peterson
Guest
This is confusting to me. Massachusettes already has a contraception mandate (as do many other states). Church and church run organizations are exempt but everybody else has to have coverage (I checked about a week ago and I have coverage for them). I find it hard to believe that this is some sort of secret. Also, Plan B is sold over the counter here so there’s no need to have coverage for that. Abortion isn’t mandated but it’s not in Obamacare either.
Does he have a problem with the whole thing or just the way they are handling the exemptions for religious organizations (that’s really my only problem with it)?
Does he have a problem with the whole thing or just the way they are handling the exemptions for religious organizations (that’s really my only problem with it)?
E
estesbob
Guest
You can not opt out of providing contraception and abortificant coverage unless you are a religious institution. .Even then you have to arrange for them to get the coverage through a third party.I don’t understand.
Haven’t healthcare plans given by employers usually included/covered this?
NY Bishop Timothy Dolan, for example, has been offering health plans to employees at his archdiocese that covers contraception and abortion for the last decade or so, pre-Obama.
But…under Obama’s new guidelines, doesn’t an employer now get to also offer a plan that does not include contraception, etc? From what I understand, the President was very deliberate to add this in so that employees could opt out.
The employee, of course, has been given the “free will” to choose which one to take.
So a Catholic can choose a plan that does not include these things (even tho many Catholics do use ABC, as per recent polls).
I would think this is a step toward following “God’s law”–not against?
Is the problem now that some employers don’t want to offer* any* health plans at ALL that cover these things…even tho/if they have been covered all along in the plans they were already offering?
.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
But that is already the case in MA and has been for awhile. You need to be a church or church run organization to opt out (Catholic orgs presumably are able to opt out) This is why I’m confused. Maybe I misunderstand the MA law or what the Cardinal is saying?You can not opt out of providing contraception and abortificant coverage unless you are a religious institution. .Even then you have to arrange for them to get the coverage through a third party.
E
estesbob
Guest
The Church has a problem with the whole thing.But that is already the case in MA and has been for awhile. You need to be a church or church run organization to opt out (Catholic orgs presumably are able to opt out) This is why I’m confused. Maybe I misunderstand the MA law or what the Cardinal is saying?
J
J_Peterson
Guest
From what I can tell they didn’t have a problem back when it was put in place here (under Romney of all people). I didn’t pay attention to such things back then but if it was such an important issue for the Church you’d think it’d still be treated like an important issue. I didn’t even know we had a contraception mandate here until I was digging around with regards to Hobby Lobby (they have a store in MA with not so much as a peep from the company about the MA mandate either).The Church has a problem with the whole thing.
E
estesbob
Guest
There were several diocese that had acceded to State laws on this. I am glad that it has now come to light and the church has expressed their opposition.From what I can tell they didn’t have a problem back when it was put in place here (under Romney of all people). I didn’t pay attention to such things back then but if it was such an important issue for the Church you’d think it’d still be treated like an important issue. I didn’t even know we had a contraception mandate here until I was digging around with regards to Hobby Lobby (they have a store in MA with not so much as a peep from the company about the MA mandate either).
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
Then the two likely explanations are that either:From what I can tell they didn’t have a problem back when it was put in place here (under Romney of all people). I didn’t pay attention to such things back then but if it was such an important issue for the Church you’d think it’d still be treated like an important issue. I didn’t even know we had a contraception mandate here until I was digging around with regards to Hobby Lobby (they have a store in MA with not so much as a peep from the company about the MA mandate either).
- There’s something different about the MA law that makes it at least less bad (eg at least not forcing the religious institution to assist in acquiring the contraception), OR
- Because it was a state law rather than a national law so doesn’t have as large scope, and because there is/was a lot of other stuff going on, the bishops there (rightly or wrongly) decided to put most of their limited resources to other uses.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
My guess is probably a mixture of both 1 and 2 (personally I think these things should be done more at the state level).Then the two likely explanations are that either:
“Not extremely vocally opposing” and “supporting/being ok with” are not necessarily the same thing. As to whether a diocese offered bad health insurance policies under a particular bishop - well, that shouldn’t happen, but just because it did doesn’t mean the the government should force it to continue.
- There’s something different about the MA law that makes it at least less bad (eg at least not forcing the religious institution to assist in acquiring the contraception), OR
- Because it was a state law rather than a national law so doesn’t have as large scope, and because there is/was a lot of other stuff going on, the bishops there (rightly or wrongly) decided to put most of their limited resources to other uses.
I’d also like to point out that I love our Cardinal and have no problem with him at all. The article just wasn’t very clear to me, I’ll try looking over it again later on. I guess I’m just confused about why this is such an outrageous and horrible thing now under Obama but didn’t seem to be in the past. It’s very likely that I would have missed the objections since I was an apathetic atheist back then and didn’t pay much attention.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
There wouldn’t be 80 plus lawsuits against the HHS mandate if non-profits and for-profits could opt out.I don’t understand.
Haven’t healthcare plans given by employers usually included/covered this?
NY Bishop Timothy Dolan, for example, has been offering health plans to employees at his archdiocese that covers contraception and abortion for the last decade or so, pre-Obama.
But…under Obama’s new guidelines, doesn’t an employer now get to also offer a plan that does not include contraception, etc? From what I understand, the President was very deliberate to add this in so that employees could opt out.
The employee, of course, has been given the “free will” to choose which one to take.
So a Catholic can choose a plan that does not include these things (even tho many Catholics do use ABC, as per recent polls).
I would think this is a step toward following “God’s law”–not against?
Is the problem now that some employers don’t want to offer* any* health plans at ALL that cover these things…even tho/if they have been covered all along in the plans they were already offering?
.
New York Times wrote a story in 2013 about the Archdiocese and birth control and a statement was released from the Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of New York:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 27, 2013
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH ZWILLING IN RESPONSE TO NEW YORK TIMES STORY
Joseph Zwilling, Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of New York, released the following statement today, May 27, 2013.
"Today’s New York Times story, “Archdiocese Pays for Health Plan That Covers Birth Control,” incorrectly equates the health care benefits of the members of Union 1199 – including those 1199 employees at Catholic facilities – with the Health and Human Services mandate that improperly attempts to define the Church’s religious ministry and could force religious employers to violate their conscience. The Constitution and other provisions of federal law prohibit the government from imposing the mandate on the Archdiocese. A labor union is not subject to the same constraints as the federal government in this regard, and so the fact that 1199 requires these benefits as part of its plan does not excuse the government’s violation of the Archdiocese’s federal rights.
archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=29417What the 1199 health plan and the HHS mandate share is that the Archdiocese has objected to the dilemma of choosing between providing health care to employees or violating its sincere religious beliefs in both instances. ArchCare did not exist at the time the contract with 1199 was finalized. When ArchCare was formed, it inherited this situation and objected to these services being included in the 1199 health plan. However, ArchCare had no other option but to pay into the fund which administers the union members’ benefits “under protest” to continue to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York. Similarly, the Archdiocese has attempted to negotiate with the Administration, advocated for a change in legislation in the Congress, and filed a lawsuit last May objecting to the HHS mandate. In all cases where the health insurance benefit plan is under the control of the Archdiocese, including for all non-union ArchCare employees, contraceptive care services are not provided."
I don’t understand why there is ‘no other option but to pay into the fund.’ I don’t know enough about Archcare and of 1199.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t think the Church has a problem with those with pre-existing conditions being able to get individual insurance plus a subsidy to help pay for it. Group insurance is another can of worms that never got fixed.The Church has a problem with the whole thing.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, exactly so. This is the problem the Little Sisters of the Poor are having with the HHS Mandate. They cannot in conscience agree to provide coverage for contraceptives include those which are abortifacient, or sterilization, which are required by the HHS mandate. They refuse to cooperate. The HHS tells them, well all you have to do is sign a paper which allows a third party to provide the coverage. The Little Sisters refuse to do that because that in itself involves cooperation with evil. They have received a temporary injunction in their favor, but the case is not yet decided and will likely end up in the supreme court.You can not opt out of providing contraception and abortificant coverage unless you are a religious institution. .Even then you have to arrange for them to get the coverage through a third party.
Even when the HHS mandate appears to provide an ‘exemption,’ what it really amounts to is this: all right, since you are a religious group, we won’t require you to violate your conscience. But we will require you to give permission for someone else to provide the very thing you are objecting to.
You can either violate your conscience, cooperate with evil, pay huge daily fines, or go out of business.
E
estesbob
Guest
I was referring only to the contraception mandate There was much in the bill the USCCB supporterdI don’t think the Church has a problem with those with pre-existing conditions being able to get individual insurance plus a subsidy to help pay for it. Group insurance is another can of worms that never got fixed.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
This statement is at the very least misleading. Archbishop Dolan was installed as the New York Archbishop in 2009. Therefore, he did not offer plans to employees at his archdiocese that covers contraception and abortion for the last decade or so.…NY Bishop Timothy Dolan, for example, has been offering health plans to employees at his archdiocese that covers contraception and abortion for the last decade or so, pre-Obama…
E
estesbob
Guest
No.All plans must include contraception.Yes, I know the employer must give a variety of choices…but the employee can choose a health care plan that does not include contraception, correct?
The employer must offer this alternative under Obama’s guidelines, I think.
Is the issue that some employers only want to offer their workers plans that *do not *include contraception?
.
E
estesbob
Guest
Many did.I think this is incorrect. I will check it out.
So are you saying that all these employers all these years have been offering healthcare plans that *do not *include any coverage for any contraception?
.
P
ProVobis
Guest
They very well could have, subject to deductibility, of which 40% don’t know much about. Correct me if I’m wrong but as I understand it, there is no such deductibility involved in the new regulations.I think this is incorrect. I will check it out.
So are you saying that all these employers all these years have been offering healthcare plans that *do not *include any coverage for any contraception?
.
E
estesbob
Guest
Many, like Hoby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor never offered it.It should note the employers choice- not the GovtsSo then…“many” of these employers did indeed offer healthcare plans that included contraception…but now they want to take away that kind of coverage in the plans they offer?
.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That might have been the case, but even if the insurance company didn’t directly pay for it, the money used from individual FSA deductions, which companies administer, could have been applied, I believe. There were very liberal allowances from such deductions, because if it’s not used, they become forfeited.Many, like Hoby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor never offered it.It should note the employers choice- not the Govts
It’s really hard to see the before and after effects of Obamacare. Even without Obamacare, the Dept of Health had a lot of leeway in such matters.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.