Senate Dems stop "conscience exemption"

[buffalo]

A lot of Democrats have been exposed as liars; making up lies about how expensive and difficult to get hold of contraception is, saying Republicans want to ban contraception etc. Claims without any truth to them whatsoever.

Right on - see the hoops they jump through to protect their sacred cow.

Take A Stand for Religious Freedom

On Friday, 2/24 @ 10:30AM Rep. Kathy Hochul (NY-26) was surprised at her Town Hall Meeting in Lancaster, NY when well over 100 Catholics confronted her about the violation of religious freedom inherent in the HHS Mandate, and the inadequacy of President Obama’s so-called “compromise”.

Raw Footage:
Congresswoman Gets Booed
Dismisses Constitution and Gets Stumped by Simple Question

Local News Coverage:
Fr. Leon Biernat Began Leading the Charge Weeks Ago During Mass
Catholics are Passionate and Mobilizing
Local Report - WGRZ Buffalo
Town Hall - Part 1
Town Hall - Part 2
Town Hall - Part 3
Town Hall - Part 4
Town Hall - Part 5
Fr. Leon Biernat Interviewed on Local News Radio - Part 1
Fr. Leon Biernat Interviewed on Local News Radio - Part 2
Fr. Leon Biernat Interviewed on Local News Radio - Part 3

EWTN Coverage
Fr. Leon Biernat, Pastor of Our Lady of Pompeii, Interview with Teresa Tomeo on EWTN

 

[seekerz]

Good article. Thanks.

YW.

 

[Trader]

You raise some valid points, rights do come with the duty to act responsibly. Here is one of the Pope’s statements on the right to health care access: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm

Perhaps, strictly speaking, ‘coverage’ is not a right but access to health care must be extended to all and for the moment, this access is facilitated for most of us, by way of insurance coverage.

Read the article reference above: it made me laugh and cry at the same time.

The Catholic Church and it’s institutions have been leaders in providing access to health care for centuries, but now those good works will be forced to end unless we agree to also provide services that we know to be harmful to the human person, both physically and spirtually. Our bishops have made a remarkably unified stand on our rights and duties to provide health care to everyone.

I am awaiting the next step, where we get more guidance from the bishops on our duties to oppose great moral evil. Great harm will come to many if we wait for strong actions until after the coming election.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I believe that the right to health care came from the SCOTUS when they ruled against the Califorina law that prohibited hospitals from treating illegal aliens.

Health care is a basic human right, even the Bishops say so.

As a result, people who had no insurance were going into ER’s for common ailments, which cost three times as much to treat then if they had gone to a doctor. The cost for the uninsured was passed onto those of us who had insurance, through higher premiums and to taxpayers.

So, mandating that people have health insurance, is only fair for everyone.

Also, the mandate helps keep premiums lower, because they’ll have more healthy people paying into the system than sick people.

If it were not mandated, the system would be over-burdened with only sick people.

Also, people who don’t have insurance, don’t go for checkups, but wait until they’re sick, which is more costly than preventative medicine is.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

Also, people who don’t have insurance, don’t go for checkups, but wait until they’re sick, which is more costly than preventative medicine is.

When I worked for the American Dental Association, the dental insurance worked as follows: Upon yearly checkups, they would pick up 90% of the costs. Going by over a year dropped your coverage to 80%, two years 70%, and costs were all yours after that. That’s what I call preventive medicine.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When I worked for the American Dental Association, the dental insurance worked as follows: Upon yearly checkups, they would pick up 90% of the costs. Going by over a year dropped your coverage to 80%, two years 70%, and costs were all yours after that. That’s what I call preventive medicine.

So you’re saying people going in for regular checkups, mamogrmas etc is not cost effective, than ending up in an ER with a heart attack or stage 3 cancer that could’ve been treated more effectively if caught earlier?

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

So you’re saying people going in for regular checkups, mamogrmas etc is not cost effective, than ending up in an ER with a heart attack or stage 3 cancer that could’ve been treated more effectively if caught earlier?

IS cost effective I would think to have checkups often. Monetary incentives could help as well. If you apply for individual insurance, you’re almost required to have a recent doctor visit. With group insurance, no such requirement. Why, I don’t know.

 

[Suudy]

So, mandating that people have health insurance, is only fair for everyone.

The ends do not justify the means. Forcing another to another denies the basic right to private property–which the Catechism asserts must be protected. There must a balance. Forcing another to purchase a good for another is slavery. CCC 2414:
The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity.** It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit.** St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord.”
Mandated coverage and services reduces people “by violence to their productive value.” Forcing people to contribute to another is not charity. All efforts for the common good must respect the dignity of the individuals involved.

For my part, I’d far prefer a national healthcare system to mandated coverage as long as 1) private coverage was still permitted and 2) it competed fairly with private systems. Mandates and exclusive providers deny freedom. So far, there have been no proposals that meet these criteria.

Also, the mandate helps keep premiums lower, because they’ll have more healthy people paying into the system than sick people.

The ends do not justify the means.

 

[seekerz]

The ends do not justify the means. Forcing another to another denies the basic right to private property–which the Catechism asserts must be protected. There must a balance. Forcing another to purchase a good for another is slavery. CCC 2414:
The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity.** It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value** or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord.”
Mandated coverage and services reduces people “by violence to their productive value.” Forcing people to contribute to another is not charity. All efforts for the common good must respect the dignity of the individuals involved.

For my part, I’d far prefer a national healthcare system to mandated coverage as long as 1) private coverage was still permitted and 2) it competed fairly with private systems. Mandates and exclusive providers deny freedom. So far, there have been no proposals that meet these criteria.

The ends do not justify the means.

Wow, amazing how a quote on reducing a human being to the value of what they can produce, by means of violence, can be stretched like elastic to equate to a legislative mandate. And our Church hierarchy would see this outrage and keep silent? Is that what you would have us believe? Perhaps taxation should be added to our list of recognized sins; mortal or venial do you think?

 

[Suudy]

Wow, amazing how a quote on reducing a human being to the value of what they can produce, by means of violence, can be stretched like elastic to equate to a legislative mandate. And our Church hierarchy would see this outrage and keep silent? Is that what you would have us believe? Perhaps taxation should be added to our list of recognized sins; mortal or venial do you think?

There is a distinction between taxing to fund the government and forcing people to pay for other’s goods or services. You don’t see the difference? One is forcing people, under the threat of violence, to engage in commerce.

(Edit: BTW, on the other thread, that was closed, your bolded text was my exact point earlier in the thread. When people say “He’s not a Christian”, what they really mean is “He is not acting/speaking like a Christian”.)

 

[seekerz]

There is a distinction between taxing to fund the government and forcing people to pay for other’s goods or services. You don’t see the difference? One is forcing people, under the threat of violence, to engage in commerce.

The government forces motorists to purchase vehicle insurance and car seats. Heck, parents can be jailed for not buying food for their kids and letting them starve! What’s the difference in saying you must pay for your health care coverage/your family’s coverage?

(Edit: BTW, on the other thread, that was closed, your bolded text was my exact point earlier in the thread. When people say “He’s not a Christian”, what they really mean is “He is not acting/speaking like a Christian”.)

Then why not just say the latter? We make such criticisms of people all the time. The question is phrased in the former manner only for Obama, in my mind, for a deliberate purpose. If I’m wrong then I would be happy for an alternate explanation of his unique treatment.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

IS cost effective I would think to have checkups often. Monetary incentives could help as well. If you apply for individual insurance, you’re almost required to have a recent doctor visit. With group insurance, no such requirement. Why, I don’t know.

I’m not required to have a regular check up by my inurance company.

However, I can understand why a person without a job and insurance, just wouldn’t bother, and that’s the problem. It’s also a problem for parents with children, who don’t get their kids immunized, because they can’t afford health insurance.

THe sad reality is, it is insurance companies who ran the cost of health care up, so that few could afford health care, without health insurance.

I remember growing up when health insurance only covered major surgery, child-birth and such. Doctors visits, well actually the doctor came to the house, prescriptions, you paid out of your pocket and many doctors would give their service to poor families for free.

The insurance industry ended all of that.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The ends do not justify the means. Forcing another to another denies the basic right to private property–which the Catechism asserts must be protected. There must a balance. Forcing another to purchase a good for another is slavery. CCC 2414:
The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity.** It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value** or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord.”
Mandated coverage and services reduces people “by violence to their productive value.” Forcing people to contribute to another is not charity. All efforts for the common good must respect the dignity of the individuals involved.

For my part, I’d far prefer a national healthcare system to mandated coverage as long as 1) private coverage was still permitted and 2) it competed fairly with private systems. Mandates and exclusive providers deny freedom. So far, there have been no proposals that meet these criteria.

The ends do not justify the means.

In this case the ends do justify the means. It’s a nice cleche which is some times appropriate, other times not.

The ends in this case is not makin yourself a burden on everyone else and also providing health care for those everyone.

Personally, I would’ve prefered a universal health care system over this, and I supported Obama’s government option, which Pelosi removed.

The for-profit system we have will break, even with Obama Care.

Jim

 

[Dranu]

Under ERISA it is not required that an employer provide any health insurance at all, but if health insurance is provided certain coverage minimums and other standards must be met. It is true that PPACA is the first time that health insurance was required by federal law, that is true. The suggestion was that the government has not previously been involved in regulating insurance coverage, which is wrong.

Honestly, given state laws, ERISA has often been used to deregulate by preempting companies from the more onerous state laws.

But socialistic health care or not, less like conscience rights, is all largely prudential stuff anyhow. There are more arguments both ways that are not necessary repugnant to the Holy faith.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The government forces motorists to purchase vehicle insurance and car seats. Heck, parents can be jailed for not buying food for their kids and letting them starve! What’s the difference in saying you must pay for your health care coverage/your family’s coverage?.

Operating a car is a priviledge, not a right. In order to exercise this priveledge, the government can implement preconditions, such as having insurance. Being alive is not a priviledge, it is a right. Making insurance a condition of being alive is a fundamental violation of the right to life and a serious misinterpretation of the commerce clause.

 

[CMatt25]

So you’re saying people going in for regular checkups, mamogrmas etc is not cost effective, than ending up in an ER with a heart attack or stage 3 cancer that could’ve been treated more effectively if caught earlier?

Jim

I’m not one of them but from what I gather some people do seem to think going to a hospital ER constitutes adequate care.

 

[CMatt25]

Nice quote but what you actually advocate would read more like this…

“I was sick and you voted to tax others to take care of me and then considered it your own personal charity.”

It’s been around 2000 yrs since Jesus gave His mandate to take care of the sick in the quote I provided. Personal charity and faith based groups alone haven’t gotten the job done.

 

[ishii]

It’s been around 2000 yrs since Jesus gave His mandate to take care of the sick in the quote I provided. Personal charity and faith based groups alone haven’t gotten the job done.

And neither will the federal govt. - which is not capable of taking care of the sick. It is a folly to trust the federal govt. to do anything efficiently and effectively. Perhaps you could point out where I’m wrong on this. In other words, this side of paradise, the poor will always be with us - and there is not one federal govt. program which will “cure” poverty. There are, however, lots of federal govt. programs which will create more poverty. Anyone who has an open mind and a knowlege of history can see that. Of course some let their partisan, liberal, rigid ideology prevent them from seeing the truth.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

So the choice is either a non-existent utopia or the government forcing organizations which help the poor - like Catholic charities - to provide coverage they don’t believe in **or else? ** Obama wants you to believe that’s the only choice, Cmatt, but it isn’t. “I was sick and you took care of me.” Indeed. If you believe that, then why do you support mandates which call for stiff penalties against non-compliant organizations which will threaten their existence or at best limit their ability to do what they do best, which is help the poor? The question I have for you is this, Cmatt: Is your allegiance to the secular, socialist ideology so strong and ingrained in you that you are okay with seeing private charities’ ability to help the poor threatened by government? Which do you prefer? Helping the poor or furthering a partisan ideology?

Ishii

I prefer as Jesus mandated to see the poor helped and the sick cared for, and in that light what I personally believe, Ishii, is Catholic Charities should comply, avoid any penalty, and do so. But it’s not up to me. Whatever they decide is their choice. It’s up to them.

 

[greenwoj]

It’s been around 2000 yrs since Jesus gave His mandate to take care of the sick in the quote I provided. Personal charity and faith based groups alone haven’t gotten the job done.

It’s not charity when the federal government forces you, under penalty of law, to forfeit your property to another individual. Charity is an act of the free will. Christ’s mandate was to his disciples. I’m not sure why that’s not painfully obvious?

Furthermore, by the federal government inserting itself as a mediator in this reconfiscation of private property, it weakens the accountability that an otherwise able-bodied recipient would possess to stabilize themselves financially so as not to further burden his fellow citizens, an accountability that is much more likely to be present in actual charity. Thus this breeds the entitlement culture that is the scourge of so many countries today, where people literally have no idea how to take care of themselves, and thus depend on the taxpayers for their very existence.

Furthermore, any program run by and through massive bureaucracies, with absolutely no incentive to be efficient or consumer-focused or profitable, with the sole motivation to acquire more power and a bigger budget year after year, with no conceivable connection to the actual parties involved---- the idea that this is the answer, that this is what Christ would compel of his disciples, is sickening.

Never mind that NONE of this is even constitutional in the first place!

When government pays for anything, that thing gets more expensive. Tuition, healthcare, you name it. That’s where our healthcare crisis came from, government as an ever bigger buyer of healthcare. Yet the solution for some is always more government, not less. And we also know that when government pays for something, there are always strings attached. Like HHS mandates for Catholics to buy other people’s birth control pills, to name just one example. These strings increasingly infringe on our liberty and our consciouses, which used to be considered God-given in this country.

Like many others, I’m very concerned and need to do a much better job praying that the Lord will send us the right leaders before it’s too late.