My Health Care Plan

[mashie]

With the recent ruling by HHS, i decided to check my benefits for my work health care plan. I figured I should know what I have before talking about anything else. It turns out that my plan already includes sterilization benefits and contraceptive benefits. The benefits kick in after my deductible and then pay at 80%. The pill is a prescription and costs $10.

With a wife and 7 kids, I need health insurance. Generally we max out the out of pocket maximums every year. It’s only $2500 max out of pocket ( I have a very good plan).

Buying a private policy is not feasible.

Where do I stand? Am I sinning everyday? I don’t control the benefits offered by the company.
Are there other people in the same situation? I’m guessing many people are.

All thoughts are welcome.

Mashie

 

[Richard320]

No, you’re not sinning. Unless you use that part of the coverage.

My insurance covers “family planning” too. It also covers mammograms, and I don’t use that benefit, either!

The whole brouhaha is because the government is mandating that organizations go against their well-established beliefs. Imagine the outrage if the government mandated that every restaurant had to serve pork. The Jews would be enraged - it’s unclean. They can’t even touch it. Likewise the Muslims. Likewise the Hindus. Even Seventh Day Adventists would be angry, although they would be least likely to cause a riot and burn cities to the ground…

 

[prstoessel]

I am in a similar predicament. I think the “lesser of two evils” applies here. You must have insurance to properly care for your family. It is not your choice that the plan offers immoral products and services.

 

[Castello]

Unless you are running/working for a Catholic org, the HHS mandate does not apply to you.

 

[prstoessel]

Unless you are running/working for a Catholic org, the HHS mandate does not apply to you.

That is incorrect. The mandate applies to everyone with some very narrow exclusions.

But this isn’t about the mandate. The OP’s only three choices for health insurance are 1) Buy an affordable health plan even though it covers immoral products/services; 2) Buy a cost-prohibitive health plan that might exclude these immoral products/services; or 3) Buy no health plan.

I see #1 as the only feasible option.

 

[1ke]

It turns out that my plan already includes sterilization benefits and contraceptive benefits.

Of course it does. It likely also pays for abortion as well.

Where do I stand? Am I sinning everyday?

No. You are not sinning. Why do you believe you are?

Are there other people in the same situation?

Yes.

You personally do not use that particular benefit and therefore personally commit no sin. You are not contributing materially to anyone else committing a sin. Your *employer *may have cupability for facilitating such coverage. You do not.

Your private situation is not analogous to the current situation with HHS forcing Catholic employers to pay for such services.

 

[Castello]

That is incorrect. The mandate applies to everyone with some very narrow exclusions.

But this isn’t about the mandate. The OP’s only three choices for health insurance are 1) Buy an affordable health plan even though it covers immoral products/services; 2) Buy a cost-prohibitive health plan that might exclude these immoral products/services; or 3) Buy no health plan.

I see #1 as the only feasible option.

The current problem with MAKING Catholic orgs pay for sin does not apply to the poster. The secular business he works for or runs has no choice,.

 

[Corki]

With the recent ruling by HHS, i decided to check my benefits for my work health care plan. I figured I should know what I have before talking about anything else. It turns out that my plan already includes sterilization benefits and contraceptive benefits. The benefits kick in after my deductible and then pay at 80%. The pill is a prescription and costs $10.

With a wife and 7 kids, I need health insurance. Generally we max out the out of pocket maximums every year. It’s only $2500 max out of pocket ( I have a very good plan).

Buying a private policy is not feasible.

Where do I stand? Am I sinning everyday? I don’t control the benefits offered by the company.
Are there other people in the same situation? I’m guessing many people are.

All thoughts are welcome.

Mashie

No, you are not doing anything immoral (unless you use the contraceptive benefits). The issue with the HHS plan is not that some plans that some Catholic employees have will have immoral benefits or even that some Catholics will use these immoral benefits. The issue is that employers, including Churches and other Catholic organizations will be forced to provide these benefits.

As the rule stands now, my parish would not qualify under the exemption. It’s a small parish and all of our employees are Catholic. But we do have a large RCIA program, which by definition is a program for non-Catholics and we have an active outreach to the homeless and hungry regardless of their religious affliation. Those two things alone would mean we would have to pay for contraception and sterilization coverage benefits. It is unlikely that anyone would use them since the employees are mostly older (past chldrearing age) women but the parish would be forced to pay for them anyway.

When you think about it, even a congregation of nuns wouldn’t fall under the exemption.

The rule is stupid not only because it is an affront to conscience but it is wasteful. It forces employers to pay for insurance coverage that is expensive and inappropriate for their employee base. That’s just dumb.

 

[mashie]

I feel like subsidizing other peoples use of the benefits I object to is the same as tacitly condoning the use of those benefits.

The more I think about it though it seems like a stretch. I don’t make the decisions for other people. They have free will.

Now that I actually know the benefits in the plan. I can advocate for a policy that does not contain those benefits. We have 3 plans available. I think they could put together a plan that excludes those benefits.

Probably a long shot but worth a try.

Mashie

 

[prstoessel]

I feel like subsidizing other peoples use of the benefits I object to is the same as tacitly condoning the use of those benefits.

Yes, but only if you’re voluntarily doing so when there is another practical choice. For you, there is not.

I can advocate for a policy that does not contain those benefits. We have 3 plans available. I think they could put together a plan that excludes those benefits.

All health plans will be forced to include these services, with only a few narrow exceptions. You would make more headway in writing your representatives and encouraging your friends to do the same.

 

[runningdude]

The contraception mandate is such a mess all around because contraception is inherently immoral. In the ideal world, the Catholic Church would have the stuff banned outright.

Instead, Catholics must play a complicated political game. Attacking the legality of birth control is a huge long term goal, but for now, the church has been able to carve out a moral niche, where Catholic affiliated organizations have been able to provide insurance that won’t pay for immoral behavior. The new HHS ruling will destroy this niche.

The secular thought in the past was that birth control was one of many “choices” that one could make, in the broad continuum of the “pro-choice” mentality. Its now being classified as a fundamental right, even though it is fundamentally immoral. It is equally immoral Catholics, protestants, atheists, Buddhists, etc to use birth control, and yet organizations that teach the truth about its immorality would be forced to pay for it.

This is basically a distraction. The church must in the short term protect itself from committing sin by paying for birth control methods, while in the long term fight the immoral mindset that promotes contraception.

 

[mashie]

Your right prstoessel. I have written my rep and senators. No reply except the auto reply.

 

[BillP]

Imagine the outrage if the government mandated that every restaurant had to serve pork. The Jews would be enraged - it’s unclean. They can’t even touch it. Likewise the Muslims. Likewise the Hindus. Even Seventh Day Adventists would be angry, although they would be least likely to cause a riot and burn cities to the ground…

Uh, no. It would be like the government mandating that every restaurant had to have pork on the menu for diners to choose if they wanted it.

Should Quakers (or other pacifists) be exempt from Federal Income tax because of it goes to kill people?

Should Jehovah’s Witnesses be able to “opt out” of insurance that covers blood transfusions? What about Catholics that work for individuals that are JW? Should those Catholics be able to choose health insurance that covers blood transfusions…?

The insurance is what it is, no one is being forced to **use **contraceptive or aboriton services. Nor are they being forced to directly pay for them.

 

[manualman]

Uh, no. It would be like the government mandating that every restaurant had to have pork on the menu for diners to choose if they wanted it.

You’re OK with that, eh? Legally forcing Jewish deli owners and employees to prepare ham sandwiches upon the demand of their customer, even if their own beliefs forbid even handling the stuff? Nice.

In the America I love, people who go to the trouble of building their own restaurant can tell those customers to go to some other restaurant that will serve what they want.

 

[BillP]

You’re OK with that, eh? Legally forcing Jewish deli owners and employees to prepare ham sandwiches upon the demand of their customer, even if their own beliefs forbid even handling the stuff? Nice.

In the America I love, people who go to the trouble of building their own restaurant can tell those customers to go to some other restaurant that will serve what they want.

Yeah, I guess you weren’t too happy with the public accomodation laws passed requiring restaurant, hotel and theater owners to service Blacks, Hispanics etc then, Huh?

BTW, I’ve never seen even the most Kosher deli in NYC NOT serve salami, breakfast sausage or swiss cheese on their Ruben Sandwiches. I guess they hire the Goyim to handle the treyf stuff…

 

[Corki]

Uh, no. It would be like the government mandating that every restaurant had to have pork on the menu for diners to choose if they wanted it.

Well, if you want to go with that analogy, it would be like mandating that all resturants, even Kosher ones, order, stock and prepare pork dishes just in case a diner chooses to order it.

 

[Richard320]

BTW, I’ve never seen even the most Kosher deli in NYC NOT serve salami, breakfast sausage or swiss cheese on their Ruben Sandwiches. I guess they hire the Goyim to handle the treyf stuff…

If they CHOOSE to do so, that’s their business. Do they choose to do so, or are they forced to do so?

 

[manualman]

1. Yeah, I guess you weren’t too happy with the public accomodation laws passed requiring restaurant, hotel and theater owners to service Blacks, Hispanics etc then, Huh?
2. BTW, I’ve never seen even the most Kosher deli in NYC NOT serve salami, breakfast sausage or swiss cheese on their Ruben Sandwiches. I guess they hire the Goyim to handle the treyf stuff…

1. You seriously equate these things? Racial discrimination creates an environment where fundamental human dignity is violated, leading to a cascade failure in social integrity (lynchings, rapes, etc). Refusal to pay for an employe’s abortion pill leads to said employe having to shell out $75 from their own pocket at a pharmacy of their choice (leaving aside the moral question of what abortion actually is or whether it should be legal). You either have a lot of nerve equating the two or a lot to learn.
2. All these meats are available in kosher, porkless varieties (I don’t know cheese rules). Those are what you saw in kosher delis. A deli that offers pork is, by definition, NOT kosher!

 

[BillP]

1. You seriously equate these things? Racial discrimination creates an environment where fundamental human dignity is violated, leading to a cascade failure in social integrity (lynchings, rapes, etc). Refusal to pay for an employe’s abortion pill leads to said employe having to shell out $75 from their own pocket at a pharmacy of their choice (leaving aside the moral question of what abortion actually is or whether it should be legal). You either have a lot of nerve equating the two or a lot to learn.

Probably nerve.

You can’t (with any intellectual honesty) claim that you should be free, in principle, of government interference when only when you disagree with what the government is trying to accomplish.

As to your second point, the employees are EARNING the money the employers spend on Health Insurance. That money is part of the employee’s compensation. It doesn’t belong to the employer.

Does a Catholic employer have the right to prevent non-Catholic employees from donating a portion of their income to Planned Parenthood (or even purchasing and consuming meat on Lenten Fridays!)?

In my other example, what about the Quakers and Jehovah’s Witnesses? Do they get to opt out of Defense spending or demand that Health Insurance for their employees not include blood transfusions?

Even Christ told the Pharisees to pay the tax

15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial taxa] to Caesar or not?” 18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

despite the fact that Roman’s got up to all sorts of sinful mischief (Caesar is divine!! Forsooth!) with the proceeds.

 

[manualman]

As to your second point, the employees are EARNING the money the employers spend on Health Insurance. That money is part of the employee’s compensation. It doesn’t belong to the employer.

You don’t seem to understand insurance. What you describe above is what happens when insurance DOESN’T cover contraception or sterilization. THEN the employee is paying for the contraceptive.

When employers are forced to cover these things, the outcome is rather different. Insurance is fundamentally based on the idea that the group makes the same payment so that individuals aren’t overwhelmed by isolated costs AND the group gets better bargaining power. When the insurance plan has to pay for Betty’s tubal ligation, the funds for that don’t come out of Betty’s paycheck, they come out of Betty, Lisa, Lucy and the checks of the other 50 employees in the pool. All 53 of them share the cost of Betty’s tubal. It is inherently unfair to make all those others pay for an elective procedure that simply isn’t medically necessary. It is even WORSE when all those others are being forced to pay for procedures and drugs that they find morally objectionable.

A reasonable compromise that I haven’t heard suggested yet would be to require all insurers to include these services and drugs in the negotiated pricing schemes that insurance companies work out with providers, but not require the pool to actually fund any of the patient’s resulting costs. The insured person still gets the benefit of the (often drastic) insurance company negotiated discounts, but the other employees aren’t actually forced to PAY for any portion of those objectionable drugs/services.