Senate Dems stop "conscience exemption"

  • Thread starter Thread starter garn9173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
Do you think a bill would of passed in a majority Democrat senate if the bill had more narrow religious exemptions? I do not.
Click to expand...
It may have, plenty of Dems objected to the HHS regulation. A better question is will the GOP give the Senate a chance to try?
 
JimG said:
I don’t really think that the bill was too broad.

What is too broad is the HHS Secretary’s powers under the health care bill.

This time the mandate requires coverage of contraception, sterilization, morning after pills. Next time it might be abortion. HHS could mandate coverage of euthanasia. It could mandate coverage of assisted suicide. It could mandate no medical coverage for those deemed in a persistent vegetative state. It could mandate organ retrieval from those deemed brain dead.

The Secretary has the power to mandate. Only a broad conscience exemptions can protect the religious freedom of those who do not wish to violate their conscience at the order of the government.
Click to expand...
That’s why the whole Department of Health has to be disbanded. It’s done nothing but mandate and regulate since inception. And people still die.
 
TMC said:
This was a bad bill, written so broadly that any employer could literally deny his employees coverage for pretty much anything. I have heard that Rubio had proposed a much more narrowly tailored bill that would only address contraception and religiously affiliated employers, but apparently the GOP decided to go for the broader bill.
Click to expand...
Which is why I’m not frustrated the bill went down. Government shouldn’t be dictating to us that employers have the final say on what health care coverage people get. Better left to the individual and their doctors rather than to their bosses to decide the care needed.
 
L_piperatus said:
I just lost some respect for Senator Rubio. Senator Blunt did the right thing - we do need precisely those broad exemptions in order to protect us from being forced to cover other immoral stuff that’s yet to come down the pipeline (euthanasia, sex change surgeries, embryonic stem cell based therapies, etc) and we most assuredly need to protect non-religiously affiliated employers as well. If a layperson operates his own company or small business, he should enjoy the same right of denying contraception coverage to his employees as a Catholic hospital or university would. Non-religiously affiliated (lay) employers should not be expected to violate their own moral consciences by offering abortion/contraception/sterilization coverage to their employees.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t disagree more. Under the Blunt amendment, any employer could deny his employees virtually any treatment for virtually any reason. For example, an employer could deny end of life coverage, claiming that he finds it morally offensive to extend the life of people that are fatally ill, or deny coverage for blood transfusions, organ transplants, vaccinations, or any coverage that he claims offends his morality in some way. He would not even have been required to point to a religious reason, simply saying it offends his morals would be reason enough. Do you believe employees should be forced to surrender all health decisions to their employers like that? I don’t. Do you doubt employers would exploit this loophole regardless of their real “moral” convictions?
 
TMC said:
Couldn’t disagree more. Under the Blunt amendment, any employer could deny his employees virtually any treatment for virtually any reason. For example, an employer could deny end of life coverage, claiming that he finds it morally offensive to extend the life of people that are fatally ill, or deny coverage for blood transfusions, organ transplants, vaccinations, or any coverage that he claims offends his morality in some way. He would not even have been required to point to a religious reason, simply saying it offends his morals would be reason enough. Do you believe employees should be forced to surrender all health decisions to their employers like that? I don’t. Do you doubt employers would exploit this loophole regardless of their real “moral” convictions?
Click to expand...
Maybe insurance vouchers is a good idea after all. That way individuals hold the cards.
 
buffalo said:
Maybe insurance vouchers is a good idea after all. That way individuals hold the cards.
Click to expand...
I agree that it would be best to move away from a system where people get their insurance from their employers. It is a historical anachronism that we should abandon.
 
TMC said:
Couldn’t disagree more. Under the Blunt amendment, any employer could deny his employees virtually any treatment for virtually any reason. For example, an employer could deny end of life coverage, claiming that he finds it morally offensive to extend the life of people that are fatally ill, or deny coverage for blood transfusions, organ transplants, vaccinations, or any coverage that he claims offends his morality in some way. He would not even have been required to point to a religious reason, simply saying it offends his morals would be reason enough. Do you believe employees should be forced to surrender all health decisions to their employers like that? I don’t. Do you doubt employers would exploit this loophole regardless of their real “moral” convictions?
Click to expand...
I’m not afraid that a Catholic employer will pull those tricks - denying coverage for morally sound blood transfusions, vaccines, and end-of-life care. Other employers are a separate business, but then again, we are free to choose not to work for an employer who doesn’t offer a satisfactory health insurance package. We are free people, no employer forces anyone to surrender their health decisions. If you don’t like your employer’s healthcare package, why don’t you go work for someone else who makes a better offer, or even start your own business and buy your own health insurance?
 
TMC said:
It may have, plenty of Dems objected to the HHS regulation. A better question is will the GOP give the Senate a chance to try?
Click to expand...
Three Democrats did support the amendment, and I think those were the 3 that have spoken out against it previously. The argument that the bill that was too broad is nothing but an excuse, this bill provided the religious exemptions that are much needed.
 
The Democrats clearly are supporting abortion. But what about the Republicans, really? I am convinced they are more against Obama than abortion. I remember too well the 1980 election when they said that abortion was the number one priority before the election but not after.

Some conservative commentators I stopped listening to several years ago because of their attacks on church teaching on contraception. I don’t trust their opinions now. And today they have focused on the death of Andrew Breitbart. While that is sad and I am sorry to hear that it seems to be a greater story today among conservatives than the mandate vote which I believe has much greater long range consequence.
 
wondrousgnat said:
The Democrats clearly are supporting abortion. But what about the Republicans, really? I am convinced they are more against Obama than abortion. I remember too well the 1980 election when they said that abortion was the number one priority before the election but not after.

Some conservative commentators I stopped listening to several years ago because of their attacks on church teaching on contraception. I don’t trust their opinions now. And today they have focused on the death of Andrew Breitbart. While that is sad and I am sorry to hear that it seems to be a greater story today among conservatives than the mandate vote which I believe has much greater long range consequence.
Click to expand...
I would say it is a truism that Republicans are more against Obama than against abortion. On the other hand, being opposed to abortion is equivalent to being opposed to Obama.
 
TMC said:
Couldn’t disagree more. Under the Blunt amendment, any employer could deny his employees virtually any treatment for virtually any reason. For example, an employer could deny end of life coverage, claiming that he finds it morally offensive to extend the life of people that are fatally ill, or deny coverage for blood transfusions, organ transplants, vaccinations, or any coverage that he claims offends his morality in some way. He would not even have been required to point to a religious reason, simply saying it offends his morals would be reason enough. Do you believe employees should be forced to surrender all health decisions to their employers like that? I don’t. Do you doubt employers would exploit this loophole regardless of their real “moral” convictions?
Click to expand...
I have made bold the text in question. Which religious organizations are opposed to such services?

The Blunt amendment would have restored the conscience protections that existed for 220 years before Obama’s health care law. Under the Blunt amendment if an employer had a religious or moral objection to a type of coverage, they would have the same rights they had before Obama’s health care law, to negotiate a plan with a health insurance company.
 
JimG said:
Government shouldn’t be dictating insurance coverage at all.
Click to expand...
States regulate the insurance industry. Yes, Feds should stay out of it; otherwise more and more insurance companies will be going bankrupt, which currently they’re prohibited from doing. (Holding companies, like AIG or Conseco for example, can file bk.)
 
The concern that some have expressed that it is too broad is found on pg 4 lines 22-25 and pg 5 lines 1-6 of the amendment

Conceivable a health insurer could claim, “sorry I have a moral obilgation to paying for this transplant based on…(insert their moral objection)…”

And it doesnt have to be a religious objection or due to religious convictions, just a moral objection.
 
_Abyssinia said:
I have made bold the text in question. Which religious organizations are opposed to such services?

The Blunt amendment would have restored the conscience protections that existed for 220 years before Obama’s health care law. Under the Blunt amendment if an employer had a religious or moral objection to a type of coverage, they would have the same rights they had before Obama’s health care law, to negotiate a plan with a health insurance company.
Click to expand...
There are some, such as Jehova’s Witnesses and some sects of Judaism. But my point is that the Blunt Amendment did not require a religious objection - any employer could claim a “moral” objection to any procedure. If the bill were to have been limited to religious objections that would have been a good start to narrowing its scope, but it was not.
 
Marie5890 said:
The concern that some have expressed that it is too broad is found on pg 4 lines 22-25 and pg 5 lines 1-6 of the amendment

Conceivable a health insurer could claim, “sorry I have a moral obilgation to paying for this transplant based on…(insert their moral objection)…”

And it doesnt have to be a religious objection or due to religious convictions, just a moral objection.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t be a concern if the left, specifically Obama, hadn’t tried to force the mandate. Now, people whine about the solution. We wouldn’t NEED a solution if we had a better President.
 
Interesting. Since the pro-choice movement is no long supporting choice, what do we call them?
 
TMC said:
There are some, such as Jehova’s Witnesses and some sects of Judaism. But my point is that the Blunt Amendment did not require a religious objection - any employer could claim a “moral” objection to any procedure. If the bill were to have been limited to religious objections that would have been a good start to narrowing its scope, but it was not.
Click to expand...
Finally a voice of reason by some one who read the bill.

My belief is this bill was written to fail, for political reasons, knowing most people don’t look into the details of proposed legislation, as evidenced in this thread.

The headline appeals to the emotions, but they knew it wouldn’t pass in the senate.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top