Contraceptive mandate could face tough sledding in Supreme Court

[Scott_Lafrance]

There are also a great many people that don’t have any kind of healthcare plan, access to health savings accounts or money to put into the health savings account if they had one. Not all problems in the world can be laid at the feet of the person suffering the problem. And even if they could be, that does not alleviate our Christian responsibility to help those people.

What does my “Christian responsibility to help the poor” have to do with the government forcing me to buy a product under threat of violence?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Are you seriously suggesting that the US has one of the premier healthcare systems in the world? If so, I think you may be the only person in the US to feel that way.

I agree that access and quality are different, but quality is meaningless without access. The best meal in the world is of no use if its locked away from those that are hungry. Good medical care that is not actually available to those in need of it is neither "good’ nor “care”.

He is hardly alone. In fact, there is quite a bit of traffic from Canada to the US for medical treatment, to give just one example.

Nor is anyone being denied basic medical treatment (or food). In fact, one of the biggest health issues among the poor is obesity.

Every measure that puts the US below other countries includes an equitablility factor as if that were a genuine measure in health care.

 

[pnewton]

Why do you hate the poor?

Only poor women. I am a chauvenist.

 

[TMC]

What does my “Christian responsibility to help the poor” have to do with the government forcing me to buy a product under threat of violence?

One possible Christian response to the problem is to elect and fund a government that helps with the problem. That is not the only possible Christian response, but it is one. In my view, its one that has been shown to work in other countries, and could also work here.

 

[Suudy]

Are you seriously suggesting that the US has one of the premier healthcare systems in the world? If so, I think you may be the only person in the US to feel that way.

When care is received, yes, “the US has one of the premier healthcare systems in the world”. Those who receive treatment for cancer, diabetes, trauma care, etc, are all receive the very best healthcare in the world.

I agree that access and quality are different, but quality is meaningless without access. The best meal in the world is of no use if its locked away from those that are hungry. Good medical care that is not actually available to those in need of it is neither "good’ nor “care”.

You are presuming that it is either full, unfettered access to any/all treatments, or none at all. That’s a false dichotomy. The truly poor are eligible for medicare via Medicaid. The elderly are eligible for care via Medicare. Neither Medicaid nor Medicare cover everything. But it does provide decent care.

Edit: Not everyone need receive the exact same coverage. This equal outcome thinking is part of the problem in fixing the system.

 

[TMC]

He is hardly alone. In fact, there is quite a bit of traffic from Canada to the US for medical treatment, to give just one example.

Nor is anyone being denied basic medical treatment (or food). In fact, one of the biggest health issues among the poor is obesity.

Every measure that puts the US below other countries includes an equitablility factor as if that were a genuine measure in health care.

I don’t know why people keep repeating that no one is denied basic medical treatment in the US. That is simply not true. Try going to any physician or medical center, tell them you have neither money nor insurance, and then ask for a physical, or pre-natal care, or anything other than emergency treatment. Yes, the poor are free to flood our emergency rooms when they are actually in medical distress. That is not a healthcare system.

 

[vz71]

Ther is always a choice. They do not have to pay the fine. This would force the issue to the courts. Then they can close the doors and terminate all employees. This too is a preferable option than committing sin.

Why do you hate the poor?

This is not about hatred of the poor.
This is about the free exercise of religion by a religous institution.

If the regulations of the state make it impossible for the religious institution to continue without contradicting its own mandates, then the law needs to be changed.

It is a greater service to the poor to stop this type of overextension of power before it becomes too big to stop.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

One possible Christian response to the problem is to elect and fund a government that helps with the problem. That is not the only possible Christian response, but it is one. In my view, its one that has been shown to work in other countries, and could also work here.

That is not a Christian response. That is a secular response.

You are not funding help for the poor, you are empowering a secular authority to force others to help the poor.

It is a secular response because puts secular authorities in charge of the matter, with such baggage as the requirement to fund abortion.

A Christian response is to operate through charity. A Christian response is to be helpful to the poor, not to force others under threat of fines or jail to be helpful.

 

[TMC]

When care is received, yes, “the US has one of the premier healthcare systems in the world”. Those who receive treatment for cancer, diabetes, trauma care, etc, are all receive the very best healthcare in the world.

You are presuming that it is either full, unfettered access to any/all treatments, or none at all. That’s a false dichotomy. The truly poor are eligible for medicare via Medicaid. The elderly are eligible for care via Medicare. Neither Medicaid nor Medicare cover everything. But it does provide decent care.

I am not forwardig a false dichotomy, I am merely describing our system. No one doubts that the well-off to rich get good care. But it is also indisputable that the average level of care in the US is middling, at best, and often poor. Most systems look great if you look at how they treat the rich and powerful. I am suggesting that is not the proper way to evaluate a healthcare system.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t know why people keep repeating that no one is denied basic medical treatment in the US. That is simply not true. Try going to any physician or medical center, tell them you have neither money nor insurance, and then ask for a physical, or pre-natal care, or anything other than emergency treatment. Yes, the poor are free to flood our emergency rooms when they are actually in medical distress. That is not a healthcare system.

If I go to a restaurant and tell them that I have no money to pay for a meal they will throw me out of the restaurant. That doesn’t mean I can’t eat.

You are denying the very facts you present. If the poor are getting treated for health issues in emergency rooms then they are receiving health care whether or not you call it a “healthcare system”.

 

[TMC]

That is not a Christian response. That is a secular response.

You are not funding help for the poor, you are empowering a secular authority to force others to help the poor.

It is a secular response because puts secular authorities in charge of the matter, with such baggage as the requirement to fund abortion.

A Christian response is to operate through charity. A Christian response is to be helpful to the poor, not to force others under threat of fines or jail to be helpful.

Couldn’t disagree more. Using the institutions of society to further Christian ends has long been a important principle of Catholic teaching. That does not alleviate our responsibility to act privately, but neither does acting privately alleviate our responsibility to act through public institutions.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Couldn’t disagree more. Using the institutions of society to further Christian ends has long been a important principle of Catholic teaching. That does not alleviate our responsibility to act privately, but neither does acting privately alleviate our responsibility to act through public institutions.

You are disagreeing with reality, then.

It is nothing less than hubris to think that Christians are using the secular institutions of society to further Christian ends. You are only empowering those who oppose Christian values, as the HHS policy amply demonstrates.

You are the one being used.

 

[TMC]

You are disagreeing with reality, then.

It is nothing less than hubris to think that Christians are using the secular institutions of society to further Christian ends. You are only empowering those who oppose Christian values, as the HHS policy amply demonstrates.

You are the one being used.

I would respectfully suggest that the Church disagrees, or at least that the last several Popes do. The Church has repeatedly affirmed the duty of governments to provide for their citizens, and for Christians to encourage their government’s to do so.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I would respectfully suggest that the Church disagrees, or at least that the last several Popes do. The Church has repeatedly affirmed the duty of governments to provide for their citizens, and for Christians to encourage their government’s to do so.

The Church has never taught that government is the primary provider to citizens. That is not Church teaching, that is socialist theory.

See e.g. the Church teaching on subsidiarity.

 

[Suudy]

The Church has never taught that government is the primary provider to citizens. That is not Church teaching, that is socialist theory.

See e.g. the Church teaching on subsidiarity.

Pfft…save your breath. I’ve hashed this out with TMC and others multiple times. See this thread and how TMC disagrees with our understanding of Centesimus Annus.

 

[pnewton]

This is not about hatred of the poor.
This is about the free exercise of religion by a religous institution.

I think Scott was yanking my chain a little. It has been a heavy day in the news for the anti-abortion folks. While I would never want to laugh off the seriousness of abortion, sometimes we have to laugh a little to keep going. Sorry for the inside joke.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Pfft…save your breath. I’ve hashed this out with TMC and others multiple times. See this thread and how TMC disagrees with our understanding of Centesimus Annus.

Understanding? How about the plain language of it. And the repeated admonishments of both Pope’s John Paul II and Benedict XVI that the nanny state is not something that we as Catholics should be supporting.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Pfft…save your breath. I’ve hashed this out with TMC and others multiple times. See this thread and how TMC disagrees with our understanding of Centesimus Annus.

Me too (not TMC but others).

But I do wonder if there if the HHS policy, in all it’s evil, is perhaps a teaching moment. Many Catholics made a Faustian bargain and are now complaining that they were “betrayed”.

Perhaps when Catholic hospitals start shutting down and bishops start going to jail.

 

[vz71]

I think Scott was yanking my chain a little. It has been a heavy day in the news for the anti-abortion folks. While I would never want to laugh off the seriousness of abortion, sometimes we have to laugh a little to keep going. Sorry for the inside joke.

I noticed way after the fact (actually, after you mentioned it.)



Just another friendly reminder from God that I should have stayed in bed today.

 

[Dawnia]

Because if you don’t buy insurance for yourself or your family, if you end up needing emergency care, you force the taxpayers and those with insurance, to pay the higher premiums in order to provide free healthcare to you.

Emergency care is not free to people without insurance. The hospital will use all means to collect from the person that care was provided too including suing them in court. The idea that if you don’t have insurance, you won’t be billed is plainly false.

The mandate to purchase health insurance is to stop irresponsible people from becoming a burden to society.

This is just too funny. Insurance doesn’t prevent irresponsibility. Infact it could have the opposite effect. What prevents someone from risking their health if they know they can just run to the doc whenever they feel like it and get a magic pill to make all their problems go away?

Also, the way insurance works, having healthy people paying into the system keeps the cost of premiums down.
If only sick and elderly people purchase insuance, the cost would be unaffordable.

Very true, but you’re assuming that everyone will be put into the same insurance pool.

But again, this is a for profit system which was written by insurance providers and health groups which are in essence, corporations.

It will break and we’ll end up with people uninsured and burdening the system anyway, until the government begins to pick up their health care.

It is bound to fail, especially considering the feds are involved. If you want something screwed up, have the government run it.