Obama Admin knew millions could not keep their health ins.

[bellasbane]

You keep quoting USCCB documents. Are the documents you quoted “decrees” according to Canon Law, where 2/3 of the Bishops vote on them and the Holy See gives its approval, or are they merely letters/documents from the various committees? It makes a difference.

I recommend you rely more on the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which better spells out the role of the State, subsidiarity and solidarity, based on magisterial documents.

Are you trying to undermine the authority of the documents I quoted? :tsktsk:

If you have a problem with them, then do your own homework and present the case that they are invalid sources of Catholic Social Teaching.

Weren’t we just talking about subsidiarity? I find that hugely ironic given how quick you are to run to Rome for interpretation of Catholic Social Teaching. Do you know what the Pope would say to you if you asked him what it means for the United States? He’d say “I am the Bishop of Rome, you need to ask your own Bishop”.

 

[bellasbane]

Well, so far we have Clinton lying, Bush lying, Kerry lying, Obama lying, Romney lying. Does anyone else notice a pattern here.

ummm…politicians lie?

Don’t be pointing out reality - folks here want to be outraged!

 

[Jeanne_S]

Are you trying to undermine the authority of the documents I quoted? :tsktsk:

If you have a problem with them, then do your own homework and present the case that they are invalid sources of Catholic Social Teaching.

Weren’t we just talking about subsidiarity? I find that hugely ironic given how quick you are to run to Rome for interpretation of Catholic Social Teaching. Do you know what the Pope would say to you if you asked him what it means for the United States? He’d say “I am the Bishop of Rome, you need to ask your own Bishop”.

Hmmmm…you sure about that?

 

[gamewell45]

Your understanding is incorrect. From the Obama Administration:

forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

*If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” as he did—and continues to do—on countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this all along. It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted massive disruption of the private insurance market.

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.*

I disagree. The article link you posted–written by Avik Roy-- amounts to nothing more then an opinion piece. Mr. Roy is a paid health care adviser to health care investors and industry stakeholders among other interests and as such I believe the article is biased.

 

[bellasbane]

Hmmmm…you sure about that?

Quite sure.

 

[gamewell45]

Is this the same reasoning and argument one uses when voting for Politicians who support abortion?

I couldn’t tell you; you’d have to do some research into the issue.

 

[gamewell45]

Obamacare won’t prevent that. In fact, it will exacerbate it.

What do you base this on? Can you provide a link which directly correlates what you are saying?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Quite sure.

So what you are saying is the Pope,who is Christ’s Vicar here on earth,has no authority to speak n Church Doctrine outside of Rome?That the teachings of our faith have different interpretations here in America,that our Bishops are free to interpret Church Doctrines apart from Rome?

 

[bellasbane]

So what you are saying is the Pope,who is Christ’s Vicar here on earth,has no authority to speak n Church Doctrine outside of Rome?That the teachings of our faith have different interpretations here in America,that our Bishops are free to interpret Church Doctrines apart from Rome?

No. That is not what I am saying.

What I am saying is that the Pope and Bishops operate in communion with one another as the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church. They are not in competition with each other and there is no disagreement on doctrine between Rome and the USCCB.

Each Bishop has the authority to teach his “flock” what Christian doctrine means. They do not derive this authority from the Pope or Rome, but from Christ himself through the apostolic succession. The Pope respects this and would not “trump” the teachings of any Bishop unless it contradicted Church Doctrine.

Nothing the USCCB has published falls into this category - so if you asked Pope Francis about what we should think about social justice in the United States, he would likely abide by the principle of subsidiarity and politely refer you to listen to what your local Bishop has to say about it.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

From the link…

Those getting the cancellation letters are often shocked and unhappy.

George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was “perfectly happy” with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The “comparable” plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.

And the best option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium, to $948 a month.

“The deductible is less,” he said, “But the plan doesn’t meet my needs. Its unaffordable.”
“I’m sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we’re sick,” Schwab added. “Everybody’s worried about whether the website works or not, but that’s fixable. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn’t fixable.”

The important thing is that he any abortion or contraception George may need is covered.

Not to make fun of the poor souls troubles. But, $228 a month? I wonder if it covered anything more than a grave marker.

ATB

 

[qui_est_ce]

Not to make fun of the poor souls troubles. But, $228 a month? I wonder if it covered anything more than a grave marker.

ATB

Mickey-
It’s possible this person had catastrophic insurance. That’s all he possibly wanted. My sister has that type of insurance. She also has an HSA where she saves to cover expenses not covered by her insurance. Over the years, the account has grown. So instead of buying a more expensive plan for $500.00/month, she was able to put the difference into her HSA where it grew and earned interest.

These people, with the federal mandates, no longer have that choice.

 

[HoneyBea]

Mickey-
It’s possible this person had catastrophic insurance. That’s all he possibly wanted. My sister has that type of insurance. She also has an HSA where she saves to cover expenses not covered by her insurance. Over the years, the account has grown. So instead of buying a more expensive plan for $500.00/month, she was able to put the difference into her HSA where it grew and earned interest.

These people, with the federal mandates, no longer have that choice.

If you read this thread I am one of those people and I was very pleased with my coverage.it was my choice, now I don’t have a choice, but that’s ok, so long as women everywhere still have the choice to kill their babies.

 

[Melissa]

Mickey-
It’s possible this person had catastrophic insurance. That’s all he possibly wanted. My sister has that type of insurance. She also has an HSA where she saves to cover expenses not covered by her insurance. Over the years, the account has grown. So instead of buying a more expensive plan for $500.00/month, she was able to put the difference into her HSA where it grew and earned interest.

These people, with the federal mandates, no longer have that choice.

Exactly–it was a legitimate choice to elect for a catastrophic coverage and gasp pay directly for actual incurred expenses. For example, at the hospital I work at, uninsured people get a 20% discount off the top. Insured and uninsured alike (except for medicare-covered people) were also eligible to get a 20% discount if they pay the bill within 30 days (of the date it becomes due from pt). For a great many people, it was far more cost effective to pay directly for healthcare.

Quite frankly, even now, if my coverage weren’t so heavily subsidized by my employer, it would be far cheaper for me to have no coverage and pay the fine while paying directly for any care I do require. The cheapest plan I have heard about with Obamacare means that we would have to choose between eating and paying for utilities or paying for healthcare insurance (plus the actual costs of healthcare since the least expensive plans have such high deductibles that I’d never meet them).

But at least … for now … one is exempted from buying insurance if the lowest-priced coverage would cost more than 8 percent of household income. But that still leaves people who had opted for catastrophic only coverage worse off than before, since the catastrophic-only is no longer an option.

 

[Jeanne_S]

No. That is not what I am saying.

What I am saying is that the Pope and Bishops operate in communion with one another as the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church. They are not in competition with each other and there is no disagreement on doctrine between Rome and the USCCB.

Each Bishop has the authority to teach his “flock” what Christian doctrine means. They do not derive this authority from the Pope or Rome, but from Christ himself through the apostolic succession. The Pope respects this and would not “trump” the teachings of any Bishop unless it contradicted Church Doctrine.

Nothing the USCCB has published falls into this category - so if you asked Pope Francis about what we should think about social justice in the United States, he would likely abide by the principle of subsidiarity and politely refer you to listen to what your local Bishop has to say about it.

How is what you have just stated,any different from what Augustine 25 posted? Seems you are in agreement re subsidiarity,therein is the crux of this whole ACA debate.It should be left to the individual states to govern accordingly.The federal gov’t has no business getting involved.Isn’t this the glaring difference between Obamacare and what Romney proposed?Also.the option to not sign up ?

 

[SaintAugustine]

Are you trying to undermine the authority of the documents I quoted? :tsktsk:

If you have a problem with them, then do your own homework and present the case that they are invalid sources of Catholic Social Teaching.

Weren’t we just talking about subsidiarity? I find that hugely ironic given how quick you are to run to Rome for interpretation of Catholic Social Teaching. Do you know what the Pope would say to you if you asked him what it means for the United States? He’d say “I am the Bishop of Rome, you need to ask your own Bishop”.

I actually just asked about the nature of the document, as not all documents from the USCCB have the same authority. A USCCB committee document does not have the same authority as a decree. “Asking your own Bishop” does not equate to a USCCB document. The US has a lot of Bishops, and a USCCB does not present all of their opinions.

Are you questioning the authority of the Papal Encyclicals my quotes from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church draw from? :tsktsk: Do you believe your USCCB documents provided are equivalent or trump Papal Encyclicals?

So, again, I ask…were the documents you provided decrees? Did they have the assent of 2/3 of the US Bishops? You avoided my question.

 

[SaintAugustine]

What do you base this on? Can you provide a link which directly correlates what you are saying?

A base this on common sense. Medical costs don’t disappear. Shifting them to the taxpayers via mandates and premiums means the tax payers are still paying. The added costs of Obamacare will increase the total medical costs, since it is added cost.

 

[qui_est_ce]

A base this on common sense. Medical costs don’t disappear. Shifting them to the taxpayers via mandates and premiums means the tax payers are still paying. The added costs of Obamacare will increase the total medical costs, since it is added cost.

Or logic perhaps?

 

[qui_est_ce]

How is what you have just stated,any different from what Augustine 25 posted? Seems you are in agreement re subsidiarity,therein is the crux of this whole ACA debate.It should be left to the individual states to govern accordingly.The federal gov’t has no business getting involved.Isn’t this the glaring difference between Obamacare and what Romney proposed?Also.the option to not sign up ?

I think there should be a real open market. People ought to be able to chose what they want across state lines. The only regulations should be that limitations are clearly spelled out.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I think there should be a real open market. People ought to be able to chose what they want across state lines. The only regulations should be that limitations are clearly spelled out.

If Obamacare was worth anything, they would at least offer catastrophic coverage (they only offer that for people under 30 in my state) along with expansions of HSA to actually give people choice. As an aside, it is ironic that the same people claim choice is a good thing when it comes to murdering your baby in the womb.

 

[Jeanne_S]

If Obamacare was worth anything, they would at least offer catastrophic coverage (they only offer that for people under 30 in my state) along with expansions of HSA to actually give people choice. As an aside, it is ironic that the same people claim choice is a good thing when it comes to murdering your baby in the womb.

For the leftists,choice,tolerance,are one way streets.It’s their way or the highway!