Help with a discussion against HHS Mandate

  • Thread starter Thread starter NolePaul2011
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You mean the one where health insurance dictator Sebelius just takes who the mandate is directed at back another step so self-insurers are not directly mandated?

Tell your friend to think about it like this:

The government hands you a loaded gun and mandates you shoot it at a certain position when they tell you to. It then mandates another guy to place his head where it just told you to aim. It then mandates that you shoot your gun and what do you know, you kill the other guy. Your are then supposed to feel alright about that because you just followed directions and didn’t “technically” kill the guy, you just fired your gun at his head.

This example starkly shows just how wrong their line of thinking is that this compromise fixes everything just because they aren’t directly mandating people to ignore their consciences.

I mean lets think about this…If I don’t mandate what you have to buy but I make sure you only have one option of what to buy how is that any different from mandating you pick that option directly?
 
Tell your friend, that the mandate comprimise isnt a comprimise. Our Parish Priest gave us this example: Someone breaks into your house, stealss your jewleryy, hd tv and laptop, you catch him, and he says " oh looks like u caught me, well i’ll give you your laptop back, and the rest ill keep. So its a not a comprimise at all
 
The easiest way to see it is just to write out the situation before and the situation now.
Before: Everyone must buy coverage that includes contraception.
Click to expand...
Now: Everyone must buy coverage, and any company that provides coverage must provide contraception to the people they cover.
Click to expand...
The intent is to try to make it look like there’s a difference between an insurance company including contraception in all of their policies and giving contraception to all people who have a policy. That’s stupid. Any difference is a technicality in phraseology, and can be ignored. So, we can modify the “Now” case to:
Now: Everyone must buy coverage, and any company that provides coverage must include contraception in all of their coverage policies.
Click to expand...
But this is the same thing as saying that everyone must by coverage that includes contraception. So, really, we’re here:
Before: Everyone must buy coverage that includes contraception.
Click to expand...
Now: Everyone must buy coverage that includes contraception.
Click to expand...
 
NolePaul2011 said:
Im having a discussion with a liberal friend of mine on Facebook. She throws ANPRM out and claims there is a compromise…Any feedback or suggests or help with this would be greatly appreciated…

facebook.com/paul.sulzbacher/posts/351314911579173?notif_t=share_comment
Click to expand...
Even if the “compromise” were not just a “cheap accounting trick” it would not help the many Catholic institutions that are self-insured.

The following article is useful and is by some important names.

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26523
 
Also tell your friend, that with all due respect, the comprimise wouldnt have accepted even OUR LORD and the Apostles!! think of that!, that is BEYOND OUTRAGEOUS!. No CATHOLIC CAN STAND FOR THIS!:mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top