Health Insurance, Abortion and Cooperation with Evil

[Neil_Anthony]

Is paying for someone’s health insurance that includes abortion ever justified?

For example, if the only health insurance available includes abortion, would it always be a sin to buy an insurance policy for someone? Or if that was truly the only option would it become remote cooperation? Or would we have to be willing to die and/or let people die before purchasing such insurance?

 

[JRKH]

I guess that is what we are going to find out here in the good ole USA…

Peace
James

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Here in Ontario employers have to pay into the government health plan for their employees. The health plan includes abortion. We don’t like it but my understanding is that the government has the right to demand this money from us, since they are the legitimate government authority, and they bear the moral burden for determining how the money is used. So Catholics can still be employers.

 

[JRKH]

Here in Ontario employers have to pay into the government health plan for their employees. The health plan includes abortion. We don’t like it but my understanding is that the government has the right to demand this money from us, since they are the legitimate government authority, and they bear the moral burden for determining how the money is used. So Catholics can still be employers.

Well then it amounts to a tax, not an 'insurance premium"…

Peace
James

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Is an insurance policy possibly analogous to a gift card to a grocery store? The grocery store might have a pharmacy that might prescribe the plan B pill.

 

[JRKH]

Is an insurance policy possibly analogous to a gift card to a grocery store? The grocery store might have a pharmacy that might prescribe the plan B pill.

In the US, an insurance policy is a contract between someone (insurer) offering certain coverages / services for a fee, and someone (insuree) who purchases said contract.
The contents of the contract (items covered, co-pays, limits etc) have always been variable and so has the fee charged by the insurer.
The Government here is trying to say that the insurers MUST offer contraceptives and abortion coverage at 100% (no co-pay) on all of their policies.
Then they are saying that nearly Every Employer must offer (and pay into, provide access, information etc.) these plans.

The difference is that here, it is not a “government health plan”, that is it is not administered by the government, rather the government is setting these requirements for private insurers and employers.

If the government wants to provide free birth control to every woman, they do not need to violate the constitution to do it. They already fund Planned parenthood, and other agencies (not tied to a religious institution) and could just offer the items that way. But they are not doing that. They are trying to force private and religious people to go against their conscience and offer these baby killing drugs…

Peace
James

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I hope they have to reverse the HHS policy. However I suspect that Catholic entities could justify going long with the new law as remote cooperation with evil if they have no other choice. But I’m not an expert. Does anyone have an opinion on whether this would be allowed as remote material cooperation with evil?

 

[JRKH]

I hope they have to reverse the HHS policy. However I suspect that Catholic entities could justify going long with the new law as remote cooperation with evil if they have no other choice. But I’m not an expert. Does anyone have an opinion on whether this would be allowed as remote material cooperation with evil?

For now - I have no opinion…we will have to wait and see how this all shakes out.

Peace
James

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Do you believe your purchase of this health care plan or that would at all influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion?

 

[JRKH]

Do you believe your purchase of this health care plan or that would at all influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion?

No - but it would affect my participation in it.

The matter being thrashed out here in the States is not about abortion, and contraception though that certainly is the trigger issue. The matter being thrashed out is one of Government overstepping their authority as provided by the Constitution.

Much is made in the media about the woman’s right to such services. Legally - any woman today already CAN get access to these services. So no woman is denied access.
Any person, man or woman, boy or girl can walk into most any pharmacy and purchase contraceptive items over the counter. So where is the denial?? What is the purpose of this new rule?? It’s a solution to an non-existent problem.

What the rule DOES do is try to force the Catholic Church and others of like mind to act against their religious beliefs and conscience. That violates the first Amendment of the United States Constitution, and cannot be accepted by any right thinking Patriot.

Peace
James

 

[BillP]

Whats been lost in this whole debate are two facts. First, the Church herself is exempt from this requirement, direct employees of the parishes, dioceses and orders aren’t covered it is only ancillary institutions that are covered. The Constitution guarantees the rights of Catholics to worship as they choose, it doesn’t guarantee them the right to run hospitals, universities and social service organizations as they choose.

The second point is that Catholic institutions aren’t being forced to pay for the services. In point of fact, insurers prefer policies that offer these services because they are cheaper for the insurers. The premiums on policies that offer “free” contraceptive services are actually cheaper than those that don’t. That is the impetus behind the recent “compromise” put forth by the Obama administration. the insurance companies are more than willing to foot the bill for this because they know it will lower their overall costs.

The Church doesn’t have a leg to stand on here.

 

[JRKH]

Whats been lost in this whole debate are two facts. First, the Church herself is exempt from this requirement, direct employees of the parishes, dioceses and orders aren’t covered it is only ancillary institutions that are covered. The Constitution guarantees the rights of Catholics to worship as they choose, it doesn’t guarantee them the right to run hospitals, universities and social service organizations as they choose.

This is actually not true. The First amendment says:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;*
  This rule affects the ability of believers to freely exercise their faith. Therefore it is unconstitutional.

The second point is that Catholic institutions aren’t being forced to pay for the services. In point of fact, insurers prefer policies that offer these services because they are cheaper for the insurers. The premiums on policies that offer “free” contraceptive services are actually cheaper than those that don’t. That is the impetus behind the recent “compromise” put forth by the Obama administration. the insurance companies are more than willing to foot the bill for this because they know it will lower their overall costs.

This issue is actually a bit more complicated than that, but since the idea of group insurance is to spread the payment for services over a large pool of subscribers, it is foolish to think that we would not be 'paying" for these services just because of some accounting shell game.
If everyone has to buy the same coverage, the same policy, and everyone has to pay in, then everyone shares the cost - including the disputed services. No amount of accounting hocus-pocus changes that.

The Church doesn’t have a leg to stand on here.

Well - We shall see…

Peace
James

 

[BillP]

This is actually not true. The First amendment says:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*;
  This rule affects the ability of believers to freely exercise their faith. Therefore it is unconstitutional.

Really? How? Specifically. No PERSON is being forced to purchase, use or submit to contraception. No entity is being forced to provide insurance. I don’t see where ONE SINGLE PERSON is going have their exercise of religion impacted here.

This issue is actually a bit more complicated than that, but since the idea of group insurance is to spread the payment for services over a large pool of subscribers, it is foolish to think that we would not be 'paying" for these services just because of some accounting shell game.
If everyone has to buy the same coverage, the same policy, and everyone has to pay in, then everyone shares the cost - including the disputed services. No amount of accounting hocus-pocus changes that.

Well - We shall see…

Peace
James

Its not an “accounting shell game”, it is a fact that every dollar spent by an insurance company on access to contraception and abortion reduces overall claims by $4 to $6.

It also shoots the “I don’t want to pay for it” argument that right in the tuchas!

 

[JRKH]

Really? How? Specifically. No PERSON is being forced to purchase, use or submit to contraception. No entity is being forced to provide insurance. I don’t see where ONE SINGLE PERSON is going have their exercise of religion impacted here.

Under the new rules, the employer MUST provide insurance to their employees.
Failure to do so results in hefty fine to the government. Therefore, religious employers opposed to these things are forced to pay into insurance that provides coverage for services contrary to their conscience.
That constitutes an interference in the free exercise of the religion of the employer.

And since every American who wishes to do so already has access to contraceptives…what is the point of this rule - other than to limit the free exercise of religion.

Ultimately this will most likely have to be decided by the courts. At least three lawsuits have already been filed.

Its not an “accounting shell game”, it is a fact that every dollar spent by an insurance company on access to contraception and abortion reduces overall claims by $4 to $6.

It also shoots the “I don’t want to pay for it” argument that right in the tuchas!

Your the only other person I’ve seen who uses the term “tuchas”…

hhmmm…So it’s cheaper not to have kids than to have them…So what…what is the benefit of this argument???

You stated in your earlier post that the Church doesn’t have a leg to stand on…
Well lets ask the same question about the government.

The birth rate has already fallen in this country.
more than 4000 babies die every day from clinical abortions -
Lord knows how many more due to chemical abortion.
Various forms of contraception are widely available - even “over the counter” at most drug stores.
The opposition touts statistics about how many Catholics (let alone the population as a whole) already use contraceptives…

And - of course - ALL of this, from the Choice to have sex, to the choice of using contraception to the choice of having an abortion to the choice of having the child are all “Elective” decisions - CHOICES…

So just what is so all fired important about free access to these things that the government feels the overwhelming need to include these elective services in the health care requirements - When they know that people and institutions of faith are going to have a problem with it?

Frankly - I don’t see where the government has a leg to stand on…

Peace
James

 

[BillP]

Under the new rules, the employer MUST provide insurance to their employees.
Failure to do so results in hefty fine to the government. Therefore, religious employers opposed to these things are forced to pay into insurance that provides coverage for services contrary to their conscience.
That constitutes an interference in the free exercise of the religion of the employer.

And since every American who wishes to do so already has access to contraceptives…what is the point of this rule - other than to limit the free exercise of religion.

Ultimately this will most likely have to be decided by the courts. At least three lawsuits have already been filed.

Your the only other person I’ve seen who uses the term “tuchas”…

hhmmm…So it’s cheaper not to have kids than to have them…So what…what is the benefit of this argument???

You stated in your earlier post that the Church doesn’t have a leg to stand on…
Well lets ask the same question about the government.

The birth rate has already fallen in this country.
more than 4000 babies die every day from clinical abortions -
Lord knows how many more due to chemical abortion.
Various forms of contraception are widely available - even “over the counter” at most drug stores.
The opposition touts statistics about how many Catholics (let alone the population as a whole) already use contraceptives…

And - of course - ALL of this, from the Choice to have sex, to the choice of using contraception to the choice of having an abortion to the choice of having the child are all “Elective” decisions - CHOICES…

So just what is so all fired important about free access to these things that the government feels the overwhelming need to include these elective services in the health care requirements - When they know that people and institutions of faith are going to have a problem with it?

Frankly - I don’t see where the government has a leg to stand on…

Peace
James

Nah, the “hefty fine” is $750 per employee, which is what? 38 cents per hour?? Puhleeze!!

Secondly, the money the employer spends is actually money earned by the employee. The only reason that employers hire employees is because of the economic benefit that accures from their labor, and a portion of that economic benefit is given to the employee. It doesn’t matter whether that benefit is rendered in the form of a wage, an insurance premium or a pension contribution. It still belongs to the employee. Hint, this is why there is an annual tax on employers who don’t offer insurance, the money collected goes into a pool to provide subsidies for employees who don’t have access to employer plans.

Lastly, If you have two choices, a health insurance plan that doesn’t offer contraceptive services for say $100 per employee per year and one that does offer such services for $95 per year, you can’t credibly claim that you are paying for the services. In effect the Church want to charge their employees MORE MONEY so they can deprive them of access to the services.

 

[JRKH]

Nah, the “hefty fine” is $750 per employee, which is what? 38 cents per hour?? Puhleeze!!

It still boils down to “violate your conscience of run afoul of the law and be punished”.

Secondly, the money the employer spends is actually money earned by the employee. The only reason that employers hire employees is because of the economic benefit that accures from their labor, and a portion of that economic benefit is given to the employee. It doesn’t matter whether that benefit is rendered in the form of a wage, an insurance premium or a pension contribution. It still belongs to the employee. Hint, this is why there is an annual tax on employers who don’t offer insurance, the money collected goes into a pool to provide subsidies for employees who don’t have access to employer plans.

Money “earned” by an employee, in whatever form, is a variable between Employer and Employee. Yes the Company seeks to hire people in order to accrue financial benefits. The Company, in the course of hiring then offers to the potential employee compensation in various forms. So what the employee “earns” is what they and the employer agree on.
It is the Employer who determines what will be offered to the employee in compensation and how. That might or might not include varying levels of insurance coverage. At least that is how it has traditionally worked…

Lastly, If you have two choices, a health insurance plan that doesn’t offer contraceptive services for say $100 per employee per year and one that does offer such services for $95 per year, you can’t credibly claim that you are paying for the services. In effect the Church want to charge their employees MORE MONEY so they can deprive them of access to the services.

Since I don’t know the particulars on various policies and charges, I cannot speak to this…

I am still interested in your take on why everyone seems to think that all of these elective items MUST be included in EVERYONE’S insurance policy as a matter of LAW…

Peace
James

 

[BillP]

It still boils down to “violate your conscience of run afoul of the law and be punished”.

Only if you’re intentionally trying to be offended, otherwise, if it bothers you to pay for insurance covering those services, don’t do it, just give the money to your employee and let them do it themselves.

Money “earned” by an employee, in whatever form, is a variable between Employer and Employee. Yes the Company seeks to hire people in order to accrue financial benefits. The Company, in the course of hiring then offers to the potential employee compensation in various forms. So what the employee “earns” is what they and the employer agree on.
It is the Employer who determines what will be offered to the employee in compensation and how. That might or might not include varying levels of insurance coverage. At least that is how it has traditionally worked…

But the frameworks of that offer are formulated by the government. Minimum wage, overtime pay, OSHA protections, right to collective bargaining, even the mandate that wages be paid in US currency are all dictates of the government.

Since I don’t know the particulars on various policies and charges, I cannot speak to this…

I assure you it is true. You can see it here: aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml

I am still interested in your take on why everyone seems to think that all of these elective items MUST be included in EVERYONE’S insurance policy as a matter of LAW…

Peace
James

For no other reason than that the duly elected government decided that it should be. In America, neither the USCCB nor The Catholic Church trumps the sovereignty of the people, and that I see no conflict whatever with the First Amendment.

 

[JRKH]

For no other reason than that the duly elected government decided that it should be. In America, neither the USCCB nor The Catholic Church trumps the sovereignty of the people, and that I see no conflict whatever with the First Amendment.

However the Constitution DOES trump the government and so I guess we will ultimately have to wait and see what the courts have to say on the matter. Suits are already filed.

Peace
James

 

[BillP]

However the Constitution DOES trump the government and so I guess we will ultimately have to wait and see what the courts have to say on the matter. Suits are already filed.

Peace
James

Tru dat! (Except of course that the Constitution and the Courts ARE PART of the Government!)

 

[JRKH]

Tru dat! (Except of course that the Constitution and the Courts ARE PART of the Government!)

touche…:knight2:

Peace
James