Double Effect Regarding HHS Mandate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimcanova
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not completely certain of all the aspects of an answer

But as I noted: are we speaking of an “side effect” here?

And if we are — remember too that the secondary effect can not be the means to the good effect.

I am sure though that greater minds will tackle these questions in months to come.
 
BillP said:
The Catholic hospitals are free to not purchase health insurance and pay the tax ($750 per employee per year). No hu-hu.
Click to expand...
and go out of buisness

(and of course it is a violation of the Constitution…to make em to that)
 
Bookcat said:
and go out of buisness
Click to expand...
Really? over 38 cents an hour in additional wages ($750 per employee divided by 2000 hours per year)?

Or because they can’t attract quality employees by offering sub-standard insurance?

By the way, you do know that many Catholic institutions already offer such health insurance to their employees right?
 
BillP said:
Really? over 38 cents an hour in additional wages ($750 per employee divided by 2000 hours per year)?
Click to expand...
I suggest watching last weeks EWTN World Over (or was it the week or so before that)
 
Bookcat said:
The Theologian Fr. John Hardon’s terse description of the Principle

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215
Click to expand...
Then providing Health Insurance under the HHS mandate seems to be a clear-cut case of double effect:
  1. The institution intends to provide access to proper healthcare (a very good thing which it can’t legally do without permitting access to the C&A services.
  2. Providing access to the healthcare doesn’t require usage of contraception or abortion services
  3. It isn’t trying to get people to use the contraceptives
  4. The “good” provided by access to proper healthcare (IMO) arguably FAR outweighs the bad effect (access to the C&A services, which everyone already has access to anyway)
Now, mind you the Church is certainly free (and even probably required) to lobby against the mandate, but at the end of the day, it certainly doens’t have to be a deal-breaker.
 
Bookcat said:
Watch and Enjoy.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s not an argument. Are you too lazy to summarize it? Or don’t you sufficiently understand it? Or is there some other reason you want me to do your job for you?
 
I do not see it as a “clear cut case of double effect”.

There is the very question of is it even an “side effect” or rather the paying for contraceptives and abortive drugs…

and even if it was…is the good effect being obtained by means of the evil effect…

I leave it to the professional theologians to get into the nitty gritty of the question.
 
Bookcat said:
Yes

(but I will note…one can watch the discussion of how the fines will effect many such institutions…)
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen it, but if a hospital administrator tells me with a straight face that another 38 cents an hour in labor costs is going to bankrupt the institution I’m simply not going to believe him. Especially since he can simply cut the hourly wage by the same amount.

No if he wants to make the argument that he won’t be able to hire good employees because they will all go to places that DO offer insurance…that I believe! But I have no sympathy with him.
 
I suggest you need to look further into the issue.

By the way the fines (what ever they are) go UP in time.
 
EWTN would be fined some $600,000 in the first year!..and it would increase in the following years.
 
Bookcat said:
I suggest you need to look further into the issue.

By the way the fines (what ever they are) go UP in time.
Click to expand...
Yes, in 2014, but only for employers whose employees are claim tax credits for purchasing their own insurance (that is those earning less than 400% of the poverty rate roughly $44,000) then they are liable for $2000 per full-time employee over 30 (count, not age) so a firm with 50 employees would pay $40,000 ([50-30] x $2000).

And as I’ve pointed out before, the cost of covering C&A services is minimal. So they have this problem even if they get their exemption from including that coverage.
 
I refer you to the Bishops… EWTN etc…This is taking things off the topic of the thread…so I am not going to continue here on this aside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top