"Middle ground" on HHS mandate

[manualman]

I still think the better way to end legal abortions is to remind physicians of their Hippocratic oath.

Very few doctors take the Hippocratic oath anymore. Med schools mostly dropped it years ago. Such is the world these days.

 

[St_Francis]

Perhaps, but the Gun does not cause the violence it is the person who chooses to do so.

as for drugs not covered, most against the HHS for this reason are also against the birth control pill.
That is one drug I was on for years due to other reasons not the controlling of birth. I was grateful my insurance paid for them (at that time they cost $20-30/month and I made very little) My previous insurance did not. That same level of the drug still has an actual cost of $8 but many are less.

In my case, the ‘gun’ was being used as a very valuable tool to prolong life and to increase the quality of that life while reducing pain. of course, the side effect was that I have never had children, but by the very nature of my ailment it would be highly unlikely that I would conceive anyway.

I still think the better way to end legal abortions is to remind physicians of their Hippocratic oath.

The HHS mandate is not related to the use of hormonal drugs for the purposes of treating an actual health problem.

The HHS mandate is related to “treatments” for the normal state of physical behavior of the human body, not a deviation from the normal behavior or state of the human body. In fact, the HHS mandate imposes that causing an *abnormality *of the state of behavior of the human body is “preventative health care” to be *fully *funded by the insurance policy.

Notice that the HHS mandate does not require that policies *fully *cover, say, diabetes treatments, altho they prevent diabetic people from going into diabetic shock. There is no requirement to cover heart meds, altho they prevent heart attacks.

Sterilization is *fully *funded by the HHS mandate, but those operations which prevent strokes are not.

So you can see that overall, the HHS mandate is focused on *preventing conception and dealing with it if/when it occurs, *rather than actual medical treatment or preventative action.

 

[Bill_Martin]

It is dead wrong for the government to compel anyone to purchase a product. It is even worse if this product supports infanticide.

There is no middle ground here; the government has no business requiring the purchasing of a product, nor do they have any business requiring that people violate their religious beliefs while doing so. The health care mandate is an abomination.

 

[CatherineOH]

St F… I think you better re-read the HHS you state too many inaccuracies to properly reply to your post.

Bill Martin is spot on with his statement. In short, the whole thing is unconstitutional.

My opinion is still that anyone wanting to have government run heath care should move to a country that has government run heath care. Some good examples are Canada, UK, France…

This USA HHs mandate is not government run heath care. It is mandated insurance. The only folks it assists is the insurance companies in guaranteed sales… I"m still wondering who’s pockets (politicians) insurance companies have helped line, and which insurance companies these are… There are many insurance policies available across the company, but when it comes down to brass tacks, there are only about a handful of actual separate companies.

 

[St_Francis]

St F… I think you better re-read the HHS you state too many inaccuracies to properly reply to your post.

Well, I can’t really figure out where I went wrong with such a vague reply…

Bill Martin is spot on with his statement. In short, the whole thing is unconstitutional.

And I agree.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I have a question for all the Catholics here: if the HHS mandate were changed so that Plan B and other abortifacents were no longer required in insurance policies, but condoms, spermicides and other contraceptives which do not hurt a fetus once concieved remained, would this still be a big issue?
Here’s a metaphor: Suppose that we lived in a rather silly nation in which food was bought by insurance rather than by individuals. Different policies would allow you to eat different kinds of food. Now suppose that you, as a Catholic, worked at an institution run by Muslims. Muslims do not eat pork, because they consider it dirty. So, logically, they would not supply you with insurance that allowed you to buy bacon. Enter Obama. The new Hungry Human Services mandate says that bacon is a fundamental right of all people, and so all employers must provide policies allowing pork to their employees. An Islamic institution would not like this mandate, but a reasonable Muslim would realize that eating pork hurts nobody, or at most hurts the participants, and so people should be allowed pork insurance if they are not Muslim.
Hindus believe that it is immoral to eat beef. But their reasoning is different from Muslims’. From my understanding of Hinduism, a cow is considered to be the highest form of earthly life, above even humans. So, to kill a cow is worse than murder, and to eat it, worse than canniballism. Therefore, it would not be reasonable for a Hindu company’s food insurance to cover beef. No matter what everyone else believes about cows, because a Hindu believes bovine life is sacred, he should not be forced to fund the beef industry in any way.
Similarly, Catholicism believes that contraceptives are wrong, but that their use does not directly hurt anyone. Sinful or no, it is not up to Catholics to prevent others from using them, and it would not be reasonable for a Catholic employer to take steps to prevent a non-Catholic employee from using them by choosing only contraceptive-free policies. But it is of course unreasonable to expect an employer to fund abortions through insurance, because his beliefs tell him that this is murder- by providing this policy, he is letting a child be hurt.
Would it be reasonable for Catholics to give in on the contraceptives, however distasteful, and fight only the abortifacents?

Cardinal Raymond Burke has said it would be a sin for a Catholic employer to provide contraception coverage

 

[lk2236]

Here’s a more practical question?
Given that Church agencies won’t comply with the law, because it would be sinful for them to collaborate in this, is it permissible for me to keep my individual health insurance coverage now that it covers all these iniquities?

How formal is my cooperation in this evil, if I keep the policy?
On the one hand, there’s no policy available without it. On the other hand, there is just paying the fine and going uninsured (with the possible financial ruin and the risk of “stiffing” my health care providers). No one seems to be addressing this.