Ideas for what we could do if our fight against the mandate doesn't work

[foolishmortal]

We could have Catholic doctors go underground, with Patch Adams-like assembling of equipment (though by buying them, not stealing any, unless they can only be bought by medical care places in the system, though any with a private practice could take all equipment their practice bought, before closing) and teach students to cure families’ ills, which would be paid for to the doctor. Of course, they would not be centrally organized, in case a disapproving family member tells on him/her. We could have nurses trained like this, too.

Or, we could have Catholic hospitals be a complex, where different faiths work on different floors, where there’s some basic guidelines (like no abortions, and, if owned by The Church, no contraceptives) so that everyone gets treated at their hospital. And/or, nursing and doctors could take assignments in a united faith hospital, based on their shared faith of new admissions.

Due to confusion of ecumenism, where so many don’t think any person of any faith should be deprived of one of another faith’s exclusives, such as the Mormon’s temple or consecrated hosts of Catholics, maybe this ultimatum of Obama’s would give us a chance to regroup and appreciate what we’re given to the extent we understand why others don’t receive a certain privilege we do and that that privilege is not an entitlement or hand-out (in the case of Holy Communion) for an entitled-minded society. Still, we could have hospitals like the above, where each owns their own wing or are given a wing by the hospital’s owner. Clinics would be harder, but most don’t need them in emergencies.

The places could be Catholic, Methodist, Mormon etc-based places, as well. With this over-the-top ecumenism we have, today, social worker places, usually once Catholic, somehow feel squeamish about being particularly of one faith (active religious communities excepted, because they have to all be members of one faith).

These are serious ideas of mine, despite my critique of modern ecumenism.

 

[foolishmortal]

We could also have the 911 switchboard to get the nearest appropriate medical person that is of the other’s faith for home visits, should that be all that’s needed, if we fail to defeat the mandate. In any case, even if we would have to have medical places of one faith, only, with staff of that faith, does that mean that we, as individuals, can’t care for people of other faiths? Why must the basic ecumenism of being kind to those of other faiths, have to be so organized all the time?

 

[BillP]

I think you don’t really understand what the HHS mandate is actually mandating.

The current HHS mandate require health insurers to furnish contraception to their insureds upon the request of those insured without a co-pay. There is absolutely no requirement that any woman use contraception, nor is there any requirement whatever that any doctor prescribe it.

What are you taking about?

If the mandate stands as is, the Catholic institutions such as Georgetown, Notre Dame and St Joseph’s hospital can choose to not provide insurance and pay the associated cost,tax,penalty which will assist their employees in purchasing the insurance coverage they desire.

 

[Nimzovik]

Gee!!! What fun! Catholics get to pay double for their conscience! Some much for equality for all -eh?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If the mandate stands as is, the Catholic institutions such as Georgetown, Notre Dame and St Joseph’s hospital can choose to not provide insurance and pay the associated cost,tax,penalty which will assist their employees in purchasing the insurance coverage they desire.

Which, in turn, will lead to a diminished capacity to care for the sick, resulting in more deaths.

And then, they’ll try to blame us. “Well, if you hadn’t refused to provide the insurance, then none of this would have happened”

To which we’ll respond, to deaf ears, That “They never should have passed a bill that attempts to force us to turn against our conscience and religious beliefs.”

We’ll be ignored and blamed by the masses. What’s new.

At least the Earth is just a transitory state. It’ll be nice when we no longer have to concern ourselves with this nonsense.

 

[BillP]

Gee!!! What fun! Catholics get to pay double for their conscience! Some much for equality for all -eh?

The alternative is to have non-Catholic employees subject to the religious sensibilities of their Catholic employers. Do you like that better?

How about when a Catholic sales person comes on this forum complaining that his Witness boss is denying his kid a blood tranfusion because it goes against the bosses religion.

How about when another Catholic comes here complaining that her Christian Scientist boss is refusing to cover the surgery and chemotherapy she needs to fight breast cancer but the boss refuses because his religion doesn’t believe in medicine.

Lets agree to do what the master said and “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”

 

[Corki]

I think you don’t really understand what the HHS mandate is actually mandating.

The current HHS mandate require health insurers to furnish contraception to their insureds upon the request of those insured without a co-pay. There is absolutely no requirement that any woman use contraception, nor is there any requirement whatever that any doctor prescribe it.

What are you taking about?

I think you are twisting a little. While no doctor **in private practice **is currently required to prescribe contraception, the mandate is unclear as to how this applies to hospitals and to medical practices that accept federal funds, such as medicare. If a patient is in a Catholic hospital and has insurance that covers contraception, can a physician there refuse to write the prescription if the patient demands it? I don’t think we will know the answer to that until the first wave of law suits. The law also does not exempt pharmacies in Catholic hospitals from filling contraceptive prescriptions, or for that matter, any pharmacy from being required to fill contraceptive prescriptions.

If the mandate stands as is, the Catholic institutions such as Georgetown, Notre Dame and St Joseph’s hospital can choose to not provide insurance and pay the associated cost,tax,penalty which will assist their employees in purchasing the insurance coverage they desire.

Which is why the mandate is so evil. It forces employers into choosing to provide health insurance which includes immoral coverage or no insurance at all, which is not a very Christian choice either. There is no moral choice left for a Catholic employer.

 

[BillP]

I think you are twisting a little. While no doctor **in private practice **is currently required to prescribe contraception, the mandate is unclear as to how this applies to hospitals and to medical practices that accept federal funds, such as medicare. If a patient is in a Catholic hospital and has insurance that covers contraception, can a physician there refuse to write the prescription if the patient demands it? I don’t think we will know the answer to that until the first wave of law suits. The law also does not exempt pharmacies in Catholic hospitals from filling contraceptive prescriptions, or for that matter, any pharmacy from being required to fill contraceptive prescriptions.

Once again the mandate covers only insurance companies. Period. There’ no ambiguity about it covering pharmacies or physicians because it doesn’t even refer to pharmacies and physicians. You’re truly see problems that don’t exist. The Medicare example is rather absurd since having Medicare** requires one to be over 65 years of age**. how many 65 year old women are out there looking for a prescription for birth contol pills?

Which is why the mandate is so evil. It forces employers into choosing to provide health insurance which includes immoral coverage or no insurance at all, which is not a very Christian choice either. There is no moral choice left for a Catholic employer.

That dog won’t hunt either. The entire purpose of the tax/penalty/fine is to create a pool of money that will be used to **subsidize their employee’s purchase of health insurance **which they will be required to have.

There is nothing immoral about not offering health insurance to one’s employees. but I think it is profoundly immoral to attempt to dictate your religious sensibilities to you employees.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The alternative is to have non-Catholic employees subject to the religious sensibilities of their Catholic employers. Do you like that better?

How about when a Catholic sales person comes on this forum complaining that his Witness boss is denying his kid a blood tranfusion because it goes against the bosses religion.

How about when another Catholic comes here complaining that her Christian Scientist boss is refusing to cover the surgery and chemotherapy she needs to fight breast cancer but the boss refuses because his religion doesn’t believe in medicine.

Lets agree to do what the master said and “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”

This is a failure in logic. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Blood transfusions are necessary for saving lives, as are surgery and chemotherapy. If contraceptive medications were necessary for saving lives them the church would likely acquiesce and provide for them. However, the purpose of contraceptive and abortive medications / procedures it quite the opposite. These things are geared towards the TAKING of life, and are therefore intrinsically evil.

We are not calling for someone to be denied something they need to live, as in the cases you put forth. You are incapable of proving a point this way because there is no point to be proven. We are trying to save lives, the government is trying to take them.

 

[BillP]

This is a failure in logic. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Blood transfusions are necessary for saving lives, as are surgery and chemotherapy.
…
However, the purpose of contraceptive and abortive medications / procedures it quite the opposite. These things are geared towards the TAKING of life, and are therefore intrinsically evil

Nonsense. The Jehovah’s Witness and Christian Scientist see these acts as deeply immoral and sinful and devout ones cheerfully die rather than avail themselves of them. to them, **these procedures are viewed exactly the same way that we view abortion. **

In our society, neither you nor the Catholic Church get to define “intrinsically evil” for non Catholics. Why do you think religious liberty only apply to Catholics??

… If contraceptive medications were necessary for saving lives them the church would likely acquiesce and provide for them… .

Like they’ve done with condoms to prevent AIDS? Yeah, pull the other leg!

 

[Cristiano]

The alternative is to have non-Catholic employees subject to the religious sensibilities of their Catholic employers. Do you like that better?

How about when a Catholic sales person comes on this forum complaining that his Witness boss is denying his kid a blood tranfusion because it goes against the bosses religion.

How about when another Catholic comes here complaining that her Christian Scientist boss is refusing to cover the surgery and chemotherapy she needs to fight breast cancer but the boss refuses because his religion doesn’t believe in medicine.

Lets agree to do what the master said and “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”

I think that you are quite confused about the concept of “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”.

This article by Bishop Robert C. Evans will probably give you a better insight:

Render Unto: Caesar’s Law, God’s Law, and the Church

 

[john78]

Ideas for what we could do if our fight against the mandate doesn’t work

direct action through non-violent civil disobedience, be prepared to be arrested and go to jail or prision for violating Obama Care.

IF it boils down to it,

though like any law, there are loop holes to be found and used, and exceptions that would and or should exempt those based on religious beliefs.

And when that doesn’t that work , then back to non-violent direct action,

and it works, it worked when women had to establish their right to vote and when black Americans had to establish theirs and end segregation.

I suspect that Obama care is nothing more than an attempt to divide and conquer move that the marxists/ communist/ socialist party is putting into place to hopefully cause a big enough rift later down the road.

It will be a tough thing to undo and will need to be fought tooth an nail every step of the way to make sure it is destroyed.

 

[Glennford]

The alternative is to have non-Catholic employees subject to the religious sensibilities of their Catholic employers. Do you like that better?

Yes. Much. In that case, they can go to the drugstore and pay for their contraceptives which does not infringe on the religious rights of their employers. I prefer this solution because I value religious freedom higher than $10/month.

 

[BillP]

Yes. Much. In that case, they can go to the drugstore and pay for their contraceptives which does not infringe on the religious rights of their employers. I prefer this solution because I value religious freedom higher than $10/month.

And when the JW employer denies your child a blood transfusion and she dies?

 

[Cristiano]

…There is nothing immoral about not offering health insurance to one’s employees. but I think it is profoundly immoral to attempt to dictate your religious sensibilities to you employees.

First I do not see anything immoral with that, employees are free to work for a Catholic agency or not. Second a Catholic employer does not force people to accept the Catholic teachings, the employer does not forbid the use, it simply does not support it.

 

[Corki]

Once again the mandate covers only insurance companies. Period. There’ no ambiguity about it covering pharmacies or physicians because it doesn’t even refer to pharmacies and physicians. You’re truly see problems that don’t exist. .

The portion of the rules that defines what a plan must contain is only one small part of the HHS rules and procedures for implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

The Medicare example is rather absurd since having Medicare** requires one to be over 65 years of age**. how many 65 year old women are out there looking for a prescription for birth contol pills?

Simply accepting Medicare patients has been used as a reason to require hospitals and medical practices to comply with many other federal requirements.

That dog won’t hunt either. The entire purpose of the tax/penalty/fine is to create a pool of money that will be used to **subsidize their employee’s purchase of health insurance **which they will be required to have.

Talk about not hunting. The subsidies don’t cover anywhere near the amount that employers would have covered and are only available to a portion of the population.

There is nothing immoral about not offering health insurance to one’s employees

I disagree. There are, of course, some employers that cannot afford to do this but it is part of the obligation to pay a just wage. If the prevailing compensation for a given type of work includes benefits, it would not be just to offer compensation that does not if the employer has the means to do so.

but I think it is profoundly immoral to attempt to dictate your religious sensibilities to you employees

I think that’s an opinon that you would have a hard time justifying with Church teaching but even if you did it’s not any more immoral than to dictate how an employer’s religious sensibilties are reflected in the compensation he offers his/her employees.

So, again - no moral choices on the table.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Nonsense. The Jehovah’s Witness and Christian Scientist see these acts as deeply immoral and sinful and devout ones cheerfully die rather than avail themselves of them. to them, **these procedures are viewed exactly the same way that we view abortion. **

Why do you think religious liberty only apply to Catholics??

To be completely honest, I think it would create a world devoid of war and geared towards the proper development of humanity.

That said, we are not talking about JW or Christian Scientists, we are talking about Catholics.

Also, as stated, they are attempting to deny LIFE-SAVING procedures, which is evil. We are attempting to deny LIFE-TAKING procedures, which is not.

 

[Cristiano]

And when the JW employer denies your child a blood transfusion and she dies?

How can a JW employer deny a transfusion?
Are you talking about a physician in a JW hospital?

 

[BillP]

First I do not see anything immoral with that, employees are free to work for a Catholic agency or not. Second a Catholic employer does not force people to accept the Catholic teachings, the employer does not forbid the use, it simply does not support it.

So you’re now in favor of allowing religious discrimination in the workplace…

I don’t know where you’re from or how much American or British history you’re familiar with, but historically speaking, that sort of thing hasn’t worked out too well for Catholics, at least in those two countries…

Sheesh!

 

[BillP]

How can a JW employer deny a transfusion?
Are you talking about a physician in a JW hospital?

No, he can deny it intentionally purchasing health insurance for his (in this example Catholic) employees that specifically denies coverage for it.