Catholic Health to Obama, HHS: No contraception compromise

[the_phoenix]

Why aren’t Catholic owned businesses never mentioned?

Very good question.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Catholic Health ’s proposal (about what a religious institution is) could make things worse, not better

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/06/catholic-health-***-s-proposal-about-what-a-religious-institution-is-could-make-things-worse-not-better

 

[catharina]

catharina

How did she do that and what appeal are you referring to, the lawsuit? That’s going forth without Sister’s interference. She’s actually working in parallel with it. Fact is, it’s gonna get thrown out because the suit had to do with the mandate before the first accommodation so the court will probably won’t even hear it.

And how is Sister Keehan being immoral?

Again, please specify how Sister Keehan has been immoral while serving the poor?

Jim

Sister’s terrible choice of supporting obamacare
is completely immoral. Is she culpable? I have no
idea. Perhaps she is terribly naive.

I do know that obama’s extremist positions re abortion
hev been well-documented AND newsworthy since 2002.

 

[buffalo]

Course Correction: Sister Carol Keehan Now Opposes Obama ‘Accommodation’ for HHS Mandate

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/course-correction-sister-carol-keehan-now-opposes-obama-accommodation-for-h?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2012-06-18#ixzz1yArc75m4

 

[catharina]

Why aren’t Catholic owned businesses never mentioned?

My opinion?
They are not Church-linked or Church-sponsored.

 

[buffalo]

My opinion?
They are not Church-linked or Church-sponsored.

I get that - however a Catholic business owner is still being forced to violate his conscience.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sister’s terrible choice of supporting obamacare
is completely immoral. Is she culpable? I have no
idea. Perhaps she is terribly naive.

I do know that obama’s extremist positions re abortion
hev been well-documented AND newsworthy since 2002.

The Bishops supported Obama Care after he gave the executive order that would prohibit abortion funding.

The HHS mandate was a newer development, but even then, the Bishops were still trying to work through an accommodation.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I get that - however a Catholic business owner is still being forced to violate his conscience.

The Catholic Business owner will buy health insurance for his employees, who will pay part of the cost.

The coverage for contraception and such, would be paid for by the insurance company.

However, the HHS mandate accommodation failed to protect self-insured Catholic Hospitals, which is what the CHA revoked what was proposed.

My guess is the administration is going to have to step and and force HHS Secretary to come up with an acceptable accommodation, soon, before the election.

The HHS mandate was the dumbest political move the administration could’ve allowed to go forward.

My understanding is that there were strong debates over the issue between the President’s staff and HHS Secretary.

Jim

 

[catharina]

The Catholic Business owner will buy health insurance for his employees, who will pay part of the cost.

The coverage for contraception and such, would be paid for by the insurance company.

However, the HHS mandate accommodation failed to protect self-insured Catholic Hospitals, which is what the CHA revoked what was proposed.

My guess is the administration is going to have to step and and force HHS Secretary to come up with an acceptable accommodation, soon, before the election.

**The HHS mandate was the dumbest political move the administration could’ve allowed to go forward. ** Yes. Very true. Sister’s alignment with obamacare (rather than a full and instaneous alignment with Bishops when they spoke) stood as an impediment to unity within the Church. That is, Sister’s uninformed stand has made the situation much worse.

My understanding is that there were strong debates over the issue between the President’s staff and HHS Secretary.

Jim

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Catholic Business owner will buy health insurance for his employees, who will pay part of the cost.

The coverage for contraception and such, would be paid for by the insurance company.

However, the HHS mandate accommodation failed to protect self-insured Catholic Hospitals, which is what the CHA revoked what was proposed.

My guess is the administration is going to have to step and and force HHS Secretary to come up with an acceptable accommodation, soon, before the election.

The HHS mandate was the dumbest political move the administration could’ve allowed to go forward.

My understanding is that there were strong debates over the issue between the President’s staff and HHS Secretary.

Jim

Regarding contraception, abortifacients and sterilisation, insurance company is not going to pay for services out of their own money without a return, they are a business. They will not be able to charge a deductible or co-pay for that coverage, so they will add the cost of those services to the standard premium everybody has to pay which means people who oppose those services for conscience reasons will also have to pay.

 

[Rence]

I see two ponts being ignored: 1. that catholic employers who are *not *in a charitable business would be forced to pay for something against their conscience, and 2. the government wants women not to have to pay for child-prevention, but gives no special aid to women *having *children.

What a world we’ve created!

I don’t know how much more the government could give to women having children. I see women everyday who get free health insurance when pregnant, just because they are pregnant. Then the government insures the child until they are 18. They get food stamps, stipends, wic. When the kids reach school age, they get free lunches in school.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Regarding contraception, abortifacients and sterilisation, insurance company is not going to pay for services out of their own money without a return, they are a business. They will not be able to charge a deductible or co-pay for that coverage, so they will add the cost of those services to the standard premium everybody has to pay which means people who oppose those services for conscience reasons will also have to pay.

How they pay for it is entirely up to them,

However, no one will be paying for these, directly in their premium.

Also, keep in mind that birth control and sterilization is often used for the health of the woman, not for contraception.

Should we allow a woman’s health to be damaged because of a dogma that doesn’t deal with health?

Also, do you understand that insurance companies actually don’t make money off of premium payments? Premium payments covers their administration cost. Where they make most of their money is by having the legal right to invest and have the investment earn profits tax free.

Jim

 

[catharina]

I don’t know how much more the government could give to women having children. I see women everyday who get free health insurance when pregnant, just because they are pregnant. Then the government insures the child until they are 18. They get food stamps, stipends, wic. When the kids reach school age, they get free lunches in school.

Rence, you are speaking of assistance to very poor children.
Overall, a comprehensive view that welcomes Life, that hopes
for babies, that rejoices in a growing brth-rate - all would go
a long way toward a correction in attitudes.

Much of Europe is in agony over low (and no) birth rates.
that signal the death of a nation.Yet we live in a nation
where the president hope to secure abortion rights to insure
the death of his grandchilren, should his daughters so choose.

Obama Says He Doesn’t Want His Daughters Punished with a Baby
" A lot has been made (by both sides) in this Democratic primary race that “words matter”. Well, The Brody File brings you this:

"At a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania on Saturday afternoon, Barack Obama told the crowd that he didn’t want his daughters, “punished with a baby.” Read the transcript below:
“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include – which should include abstinence education and teaching the children – teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include – it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

 [blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/03/31/obama-says-he-doesnt-want-his-daughters-punished-with-a.aspx](http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/03/31/obama-says-he-doesnt-want-his-daughters-punished-with-a.aspx)

SO SAD. SO BRUTAL.

 

[catharina]

Today, even CNN has acknowledged this enormous change.

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/18/key-catholic-group-drops-support-for-white-house-contraception-plan/?hpt=us_c2

"Key Catholic group drops support for White House contraception plan"

“By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor”

(CNN) – The Obama administration’s key Catholic ally on its controversial plan to require health insurers to provide free contraceptive coverage is dropping support for the plan, potentially complicating the president’s relations with Catholics in an election year.

The Catholic Health Association, which comprises 2,000 Catholic hospitals, health systems and related organizations, said Friday that although it had initially supported what the White House called a compromise on the contraception issue, it is now “deeply concerned” about the plan and says the White House “has not relieved our initial concerns.”

Many Catholic groups expressed opposition to the Obama administration’s proposal to require employers to provide free contraception coverage to their employees. Although the plan exempted churches, other religiously affiliated employers - including colleges and hospitals - were not exempt.

In the face of that opposition, the Department of Health and Human Services tweaked its original rule in February to require health insurers, not employers, to cover the cost of contraception coverage, reasoning that would prevent Catholics instructions from having to finance such coverage.

The so-called compromise won support from certain Catholic groups, most significantly the Catholic Health Association, which calls itself the nation’s largest group of nonprofit health care providers.

“The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions,” Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association, said in a February statement.

But on Friday, the Catholic Health Association sounded a much different line, saying in a letter to the agency that “We remain deeply concerned … with the approach the Administration has taken with respect to contraceptive services, especially abortifacient drugs and sterilization.”

The administration denies that its contraception mandate covers abortifacients - drugs that cause abortions - but some socially conservative groups disagree.

In its letter, the Catholic Health Association urged the administration to broaden its exemption on the contraceptive mandate to include different kinds of religiously affiliated institutions.

The American Roman Catholic bishops have steadfastly criticized the Health and Human Services rule. The Catholic Health Association’s support for the rule gave the Obama some Catholic political cover in the face of such attacks.

Catholic voters represent one of the largest swing voting blocs in the nation, voting with the winning presidential candidate in every election since the 1970s."

**BOLDED above **is mine.
Although so far CNN has only allowed
a blog regarding this - it is progress.

 

[_Abyssinia]

How they pay for it is entirely up to them,

However, no one will be paying for these, directly in their premium.

Also, keep in mind that birth control and sterilization is often used for the health of the woman, not for contraception.

Should we allow a woman’s health to be damaged because of a dogma that doesn’t deal with health?

Also, do you understand that insurance companies actually don’t make money off of premium payments? Premium payments covers their administration cost. Where they make most of their money is by having the legal right to invest and have the investment earn profits tax free.

Jim

Nobody should expect an employer to be put in a position where they have to forced to pay for something against their conscience. Birth control is $9 a month at Target ($4 in some states), Walmart etc. Is it worth forcing an employer to go against their conscience for $9 / $4 a month cost to an employee?

If you work for an employer who opposes contraception, sterilisation, abortifacients on conscience, and you want that covered in insurance, then maybe you should not be working for them, but you can not expect that employer to pay for those services.

This is how it is going to work

Here’s the step-by-step of the mandate for the plans to which it applies, which is nearly every employer-based plan:

Insurers are required to pay the cost of all birth-control pills, without copay. As the insurer’s liability increases, the premium for the insurance plan increases. So employees pay higher premiums, as do employers. But because this plan applies to nearly all employers, the employers pass the cost onto employees in the form of lower pay.

So your pills are not “free.” The cost isn’t reduced to zero – it’s instead spread among all your employees, whether they be gay, infertile, male, observant Catholic, post-menopausal, chaste, pregnant, eager to have as many kids as possible, or Shakers.

Drive up demand for pills, and make that demand have no cost sensitivity, what do you think happens to the price of those pills? Avik Roy explains:

Under the new mandate, this price incentive disappears. Insurers will be required to pay for any and all oral contraceptives, without charging a co-pay, co-insurance, or a deductible. This “first dollar coverage” of oral contraception kills the incentive to shop based on price.

If history is any guide, this significant change will drive up the price of oral contraception. Today, Tri-Sprintec costs $9 a month. In 2020, don’t be surprised if it costs $30. Drug companies will be able to market “branded” contraceptives at premium prices, knowing that women are free to choose the most expensive, designer product because it will cost them the same as the cheapest generic. Prepare yourself for multi-million-dollar Super Bowl ad campaigns from competing manufacturers.

So rather than “free contraception,” we actually have more expensive contraception, just with the cost being shared, unwittingly, by people not using contraception. And this isn’t about helping the poor – they’re already covered by Medicaid. This is about the Catholic grandmother working as a secretary to help her kids afford Kindergarden tuition at St. Patrick being forced to buy birth control for the wife of the CEO who makes twenty times more.

And as Roy lays out, this amounts to a huge subsidy to the drugmakers, who backed the bill, and have spent and raised millions for Democrats in the last three elections:

If you were surprised that PhRMA, the pharmaceutical trade group, backed Obamacare, now you can see why: the HHS contraception mandate alone will be a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle for the pharma industry. If your health insurance plan allowed you to buy a television, of any price, without any cost-sharing on your part, would you buy a 13-inch CRT or a 60-inch flat screen?

campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/daily-contraception-mandate-lie-free-pills/413006

 

[Seeker1961]

I would like to see the mandate changed to exclude those who do not receive federal funding. It doesn’t seem right that there is no way for an organization to avoid it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Abyssinia

Nobody should expect an employer to be put in a position where they have to forced to pay for something against their conscience.

Then employers could use conscience excuse to opt out of paying for anything they wish, including child birth, because it could involve blood transfusions.

Birth control is $9 a month at Target ($4 in some states), Walmart etc. Is it worth forcing an employer to go against their conscience for $9 / $4 a month cost to an employee?

Because of the vast difference in cost between birth control and pregnancy and childbirth, the majority of health insurance companies are all too happy to pay for the latter.

If you work for an employer who opposes contraception, sterilisation, abortifacients on conscience, and you want that covered in insurance, then maybe you should not be working for them, but you can not expect that employer to pay for those services.

This is how it is going to work

Again, employers purchase health insurance for their employees. What the employee uses for services is up to the employee and their doctor, not the employer.

Jim

 

[catharina]

How desensitized can abortionists become?
From India, “Abortionists who fed babies to dogs charged with homicide”

lifesitenews.com/news/abortionists-who-fed-babies-to-dogs-charged-with-homicide

"by Ben Johnson
Mon Jun 18, 2012 18:42 EST

BEED, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA, June 18, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Indian court has charged the abortionists accused of feeding unborn babies to dogs with homicide in the death of a 30-year-old woman undergoing a sex-selective abortion.

Dr. Sudam Munde and his wife Saraswati surrendered to Parli police around 9 p.m. local time last night.

The two had performed an abortion on May 18 that resulted in the death of 30-year-old Vijaymala Patekar, who was then six months pregnant.

The pair fled authorities on May 23. The Parli court charged the couple with culpable homicide in her death. In a sign the court is taking the crime seriously, it may also charge those who hid the couple after they jumped bail last month.

The couple stands accused of conducting a botched abortion after running illegal sex-determination tests.

Patekar was pregnant with an unwanted girl. It was her sixth pregnancy.

A member of the anti-gender bias charity Lek Ladki Abhiyan obtained evidence years ago that the couple fed aborted babies to dogs in order to dispose of the evidence. Authorities arrested Munde at the time but let him go, pro-life officials say because of his wealth and influence.

The two will be held in custody until at least June 25."

Kill the babies.  Feed the dogs.
Makes perfect sense if that's the way your mind works.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Abyssinia

Then employers could use conscience excuse to opt out of paying for anything they wish, including child birth, because it could involve blood transfusions.

There must be Jehovah’s Witnesses who are employers who do refuse to cover blood transfusions, and that is there is right as an employer.

If somebody expects contraception, abortifacients, sterilisation to be covered, then they should check with their employer before taking a job, what is included.

Why isn’t there a federal mandate for Jehovah’s Witnesses to be forced to cover blood transfusions in their insurance?

BTW it is not a fair comparison to compare blood transfusions to contraception, you can buy contraception at most supermarkets, it is cheap. You can not get a blood transfusion at a supermarket and if you could I am sure the cost would be high.

Who would oppose covering child birth because of religious liberty concerns?

Because of the vast difference in cost between birth control and pregnancy and childbirth, the majority of health insurance companies are all too happy to pay for the latter.

Similar to what Kathleen Sebelius said, that the mandate pays for itself because of less humans being born.

Think of the thins you buy for a baby, you add to the economy much more than the cost of having a child.

It is a very scary path to think that more people = health care costs. The next step could be on child policy.

In pragmatic terms, less people being born means less tax revenue. Since 1974, 50 million plus babies that have been aborted, if they had not been, the tax that these people could of contributed would of helped Medicare and Medicaid.

You also have to take into consideration birth control failure, birth control pills have an 8% failure rate. You also have to take in to consideration the effects of birth control pill which can lead to illness that will need to paid for by the insurance company. Breast surgical oncologist and co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, says birth control pill a ‘molotov cocktail’ for breast cancer.

Again, employers purchase health insurance for their employees. What the employee uses for services is up to the employee and their doctor, not the employer.

Jim

If the employer is paying for insurance it is up to them what is covered. If the government tries to compel employers to pay for services that go against their conscience, they are making it the employer’s business.

 

[_Abyssinia]

National Cancer Institute says that the birth control pill increases risk of breast cancer and liver cancer.

World Health Organisation lists the birth control pill as a class 1 carcinogen like tobacco and asbestos.

If birth control pills create health problems, insurance companies have to pay.

Claim that abortion and birth control reduces cost to insurance company because of cost of child birth is rubbish. Health problems that can come from abortion and birth control will cost the insurance.