HHS Mandate "Compromise"

[LotusCarsLtd]

I’m a little behind here, but from what I gather the “compromise” that the White House offered on the HHS mandate isn’t any better than the original mandate itself.

Since I’m short on the details, can someone fill me in on why the “compromise” isn’t such?

Pax!

 

[Bookcat]

Goto the USCCB website there one will find a whole library of things on it.

 

[Nate13]

I’m a little behind here, but from what I gather the “compromise” that the White House offered on the HHS mandate isn’t any better than the original mandate itself.

Since I’m short on the details, can someone fill me in on why the “compromise” isn’t such?

Pax!

The difference in the “compromise” is a matter of semantics. The first mandate directly required the religiously affiliated groups to buy health insurance that provides contraceptives, sterilizations, and the plan B pill. This mandate was blatantly against the First Amendment and is still actually the one that has been written into the bill as of the last time I checked even though the White House has said they have a compromise. They haven’t changed the bill to the compromise yet.

The compromise basically said hmm alright we won’t tell you directly to buy health insurance that provides all these things that go against your belief, we will just make it so you have no other option but to buy health insurance that does provide it. They have basically decided to mandate that all health insurance providers provide these services.

If all insurance companies are required to provide said services then it only follows that everybody (including religiously affiliated organizations) is required to pay for said services, and thus by getting rid of all other options requiring everyone to pay for them.

Constitutionally this mandate falls short because they cannot show that said mandate is necessary or even the best way to make sure everyone who wants these services can get them or that right now everyone who wants them isn’t getting them for little to no cost. In other words there is no express need for this mandate or any compelling state interest to do so and the First Amendment should not be trampled on for something so frivolous.

The second way in which it fails is that the new requirement does not apply to everyone. Thousands upon thousands of waivers have been given out mostly to Obama supporting groups, and it thus follows that the law is not being applied equally to all and the Church can claim it is being unfairly targeted.

In short basically instead of requiring them directly to provide a service, the White House made it so the only option they had was to buy the service they wanted them to buy.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

The difference in the “compromise” is a matter of semantics. The first mandate directly required the religiously affiliated groups to buy health insurance that provides contraceptives, sterilizations, and the plan B pill. This mandate was blatantly against the First Amendment and is still actually the one that has been written into the bill as of the last time I checked even though the White House has said they have a compromise. They haven’t changed the bill to the compromise yet.

The compromise basically said hmm alright we won’t tell you directly to buy health insurance that provides all these things that go against your belief, we will just make it so you have no other option but to buy health insurance that does provide it. They have basically decided to mandate that all health insurance providers provide these services.

If all insurance companies are required to provide said services then it only follows that everybody (including religiously affiliated organizations) is required to pay for said services, and thus by getting rid of all other options requiring everyone to pay for them.

Constitutionally this mandate falls short because they cannot show that said mandate is necessary or even the best way to make sure everyone who wants these services can get them or that right now everyone who wants them isn’t getting them for little to no cost. In other words there is no express need for this mandate or any compelling state interest to do so and the First Amendment should not be trampled on for something so frivolous.

The second way in which it fails is that the new requirement does not apply to everyone. Thousands upon thousands of waivers have been given out mostly to Obama supporting groups, and it thus follows that the law is not being applied equally to all and the Church can claim it is being unfairly targeted.

In short basically instead of requiring them directly to provide a service, the White House made it so the only option they had was to buy the service they wanted them to buy.

In addition, the so-called “Compromise” makes no provision to exempt individual business owners who object on moral as well as religious grounds to contraception and abortion (e.g. Orthodox Jews, Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Christians) from providing the insurance to their employees.

 

[Corki]

In addition, the so-called “Compromise” makes no provision to exempt individual business owners who object on moral as well as religious grounds to contraception and abortion (e.g. Orthodox Jews, Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Christians) from providing the insurance to their employees.

Nor seemingly for other religious institutions that cannot be classified as “houses of worship”. As I said before the “compromise” was announced, the exemption wouldn’t seem to even include a congregation of religious sisters. They are not a “house of worship” and they frequently care for non-Catholics as part of their mission.

Does anyone not see the absurdity of requiring a bunch of nuns to purchase coverage for contraception and sterilization?

There has been a lot of talk about Catholic universities but what about other Catholic schools? Parishes with schools usually have a single payroll and benefit plan for their employees whether at the school or the Church itself. While the Church is a “house of worship” under the exemption (as long as it doesn’t employ non-Catholics), the school is not. How do you treat this employer? Nor does it seem that diocisan offices such as the chancery employees would meet the exeption hurdle. So for a Catholic diocese, the chancery would have to pay for contraception, the parishes without schools would not but the parishes with schools would. And this doesn’t even address other related organizations such as Catholic Social Services or Pregnancy Resource Centers operated by the diocese.

 

[Nate13]

In addition, the so-called “Compromise” makes no provision to exempt individual business owners who object on moral as well as religious grounds to contraception and abortion (e.g. Orthodox Jews, Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Christians) from providing the insurance to their employees.

The way it should work is that employees can choose whether they want the employer health insurance plan and take a cash payment for the amount the plan would be worth were they to go through their employer. The cost of buying an insurance plan should be the same price whether you buy it individually or through your employer as well. The market should be allowed to provide all the options there is a market for, and then everyone can get the coverage they want. This allows the employer to respect his conscience and the employees to respect theirs. This isn’t rocket science.