I
iloveangels
Guest
No, they’re lousy because the co-pays are high on normal stuff.
Timothy Cardinal Dolan vows to fight President all the way to Supreme Court over birth control mandate
- Status
F
Follower
Guest
Unfortunately, there appears to be a lot of misunderstanding in this string. A great place to go for accurate information is the website of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty at www.becketfund.org The so-called “accommodation” by the administration is a mere non-binding promise of future rulemaking. It defies logic that it would be even possible to force an insurance company to provide anything without charging for it in some way. But even if that could be done, it would give no relief to hundreds of Catholic Dioceses and other Catholic institutions who self-insure - that, is, who provide health care coverage to their employees without using any insurance company at all. There are now 23 lawsuits pending around the country against the HHS mandate. I would encourage everyone to actually read the complaints and the briefs filed in those cases, and if your local newspaper does not report on what’s actually being briefed and argued in those cases, to urge your local reporters and editors to do their jobs and actually read the court filings. I posted a comment under one of the Sebelius/Georgetown strings - it was comment #65 or so on that string - and it attached an actual brief from one of the cases. The administration does not have a legal leg to stand on. The MSM has done the kind of “job” in its reporting/handling of this whole controversy that would make that old Soviet propaganda organ, Pravda, proud. Read that brief, and you’ll understand the Church (and the non-Catholics who have also sued) are very much in the right!
F
Follower
Guest
It’s also a false White House talking point to say that the HHS mandate is no different from what’s already on the books in 20-some states and that was imposed in Massachusetts under Romneycare. As the Becket Fund’s website points out (go to media / then “press releases” / then the “HHS mandate” category / then February 2012 / fact checking the white house), most of those states have broader conscience protections than the HHS mandate does, and most importantly, in ALL of those states, faithful Catholic employers can avoid contraceptive mandates altogether in one or more of the following 3 ways: (1) dropping prescription drug coverage altogether; (2) self-insuring (since the state mandates apply to insurers only, and not to employers) or (3) resorting to coverage under an ERISA plan. None of these options is available under the HHS mandate.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Follower
All regulatory rules are non-binding from one administration to the other. The only laws that are binding are those which go through congress and are signed by the president.
The next president can remove the regulation, or add to it.
Heck, in today’s world, my guess is the cost of child birth probably would cover five years of birth control pills. And of course that’s if the pregnancy goes without complications.
However, being that Obama Care allows parents to keep their kids on their own health insurance policies, the colleges that currently offer health insurance, won’t have many to insure, and so it won’t be cost effective.
It now seems that the Bishops now want the exemption for anyone who wants to use it.
Of course this would make a host of people asking for exemptions on whatever they don’t want to pay for, but claim it violates their conscience, i.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Church of Scientology come to mind first, but then who knows who else.
The original mandate, was clearly too narrow, and would in fact force Catholic institutions to pay for something that is against Church teaching.
I don’t see it as such anymore, and neither does the Catholic Health Association. You may not like them, but keep in mind one fact, they are in the trenches serving people in the health care area and they have lawyers who are experts on health-care laws.
I’m not sure this is the case for the lawyers for the USCCB, currently.
For now, I’m anxious to see how the law suit plays out. My opinion is that it will fail.
Jim
It’s an accommodation in the reg that goes into effect in 2013, which is the original date for the initial mandate.
All regulatory rules are non-binding from one administration to the other. The only laws that are binding are those which go through congress and are signed by the president.
The next president can remove the regulation, or add to it.
Insurance companies welcome paying for birth control over pregnancy and child birth. Merely take a look at what it cost to pay for birth control verses pregnancy and child birth.
Heck, in today’s world, my guess is the cost of child birth probably would cover five years of birth control pills. And of course that’s if the pregnancy goes without complications.
Dioceses were exempt in the original mandate. Those that weren’t were religious institutions associated with the Church, i.e. colleges and such.
However, being that Obama Care allows parents to keep their kids on their own health insurance policies, the colleges that currently offer health insurance, won’t have many to insure, and so it won’t be cost effective.
Well I read the Bishops web site and the complaints currently against the mandate, don’t make sense to me after the accommodation was made.
It now seems that the Bishops now want the exemption for anyone who wants to use it.
Of course this would make a host of people asking for exemptions on whatever they don’t want to pay for, but claim it violates their conscience, i.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Church of Scientology come to mind first, but then who knows who else.
The original mandate, was clearly too narrow, and would in fact force Catholic institutions to pay for something that is against Church teaching.
I don’t see it as such anymore, and neither does the Catholic Health Association. You may not like them, but keep in mind one fact, they are in the trenches serving people in the health care area and they have lawyers who are experts on health-care laws.
I’m not sure this is the case for the lawyers for the USCCB, currently.
For now, I’m anxious to see how the law suit plays out. My opinion is that it will fail.
Jim
J
JimG
Guest
Speaking of the Beckett Fund, here is their website listing the religious liberty cases now pending.
becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/
becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/
E
ellipsis2
Guest
One of the things that bothers me about the bishops’ protest is that Carndinal Wheul (sp?) went on the Fox News Sunday morning ( I’m not sure what the name of the show that Chris Wallace moderates) and made his case. If he didn’t want it to be political, why go on tv on Sunday mornings when all the shows are political. I felt that by doing that the whole issue melded the political and religious.
T
The_Rock
Guest
The mandate itself “melded the political and religious”. Specifically it asserts that the political can dictate to the religious that it must do something immoral. The Church has a moral obligation to fight this intrusion of the state into matters that violate religious conscience.
T
The_Rock
Guest
What accommodation? None was written into the final rule.
J
JimG
Guest
I think he should make his case to any network that will invite him on. For the most part, the networks have been giving only the administration’s side of the story, ignoring and playing down the Church’s religious liberty concerns.
When the government attempts to force Church institutions to violate Church teachings or go out of business, it is the government that has started the political fray, not the Church. The Church has an obligation to fight this mandate. To do that, public relations to give its side of the story is certainly necessary.
When 40 Caholic dioceses and Catholic institutions sue the administration over the HHS mandate, and it gets a total of 19 seconds of news coverage on the three major news networks, it is obvious that the Church will have to take its case to the public in whatever way it can.
T
The_Rock
Guest
How about the 40 other Catholic institutions who joined in the latest lawsuit? Many of them are also in the trenches serving people in the health care area. Do you think their lawyers are not experts on health-care laws?
This is not primarily a case about healthcare anyway. It is about usurping religious freedom and forcing individuals and institutions to violate their consciences. I believe as a Catholic that the Bishops are indeed the authority when it comes to assessing the moral culpability involved in cooperating with immoral actions and laws, not the Catholic Health Association.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Can you imagine how much auto collision insurance would be if the deductible weren’t high enough to discourage policyholders from making claims for minor dents and dings? Why, they would flood the body shops and insurance companies with their claims. If you were an insurance company, would you have a policy to pay out a claim that was less than the cost of processing it? Just a couple of things to consider about those “evil” insurance companies.
K
kwitz
Guest
Actually, my insurance through the Archdiocese of St. Louis is excellent. It is much better than what my husband’s company makes available. I have also compared my coverage with what a friend in the local public school gets and our family plan is much more reasonable in price and coverage. And my insurance has an added rider that specifically prohibits excludes birth control coverage.
I just hope I get to keep it.
R
rlg94086
Guest
What about individuals who receive money from government? Should they also have their rights abrogated because they receive money from the government? If not, why not?
R
rlg94086
Guest
It bothers you for a Bishop to speak out about a political issue on a tv show? Why? When did free speech equate to a “melding” of political and religious? Should the Bishops be silenced?
S
sedonaman
Guest
Not “take[ing] a dime of taxpayer money” can be difficult at times. I do not have a reference, but read that not long ago, a small college decided not to “take a single dime of taxpayer money” in order to get out from under the government’s regulations. This included not accepting money from tuition assistance or student loans. Government bureaucrats hounded them for years until they finally caved.
S
sedonaman
Guest
I know folks who believe that no one should be allowed to express a religious idea in the public square because somehow it violates “the separation of church and state” or some IRS regulation or other.
L
LisaA
Guest
Which simply proves they are TOTALLY ignorant about the actual laws regarding exempt organizations. There is a great deal of leeway for churches and other exempt organizations to participate in the political process. And there is no reason that the Bishops or any other religious authority should be silenced, particularly where their very survival and the survival of their incredible charitable work is in jeopardy.
The one place that you can get in trouble is to promote a particular CANDIDATE. Interestingly enough the secular Left seemed to look the other way when Hilary and Barack headed for churches to give campaign speeches in 08. OTOH if a Bishop or Priest speaks up about an issue, then there is great wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the Left. Jesse Jackson is featured, the ACLU pontificates on the separation of church and state which was never a part of the Founding Documents of this country.
I’m happy that Cardinal Wuerl and Cardinal Dolan and others are brave enough to get out in front of this issue. They are clarifying that this is about religious liberty…that the government has shut down too many Catholic charitable efforts already because we won’t provide abortions. The HHS mandate was just a bridge too far.
Lisa
S
sedonaman
Guest
The Knights of Columbus were gathering signatures for a ballot initiative after Mass one Sunday. As I was signing it, one parishioner started ranting and raving about how he wanted “this church to be taxed” for engaging in political activity. I tried to explain in a polite way that non-partisan issues were OK. We got into an argument and he called me a liar [ad hominems are the final resort of those who have lost]. I kept wondering what side he was on, and why he didn’t go and join the local ACLU instead of a Catholic Church. At times we are our own worst enemy.
“Anyone who is aware of the high degree of selectivity of Leftist indignation, and of how they remain utterly impassive in the face of any injustice that doesn’t serve to further their agenda, keeps their complaints in perspective.” – Poster “Thucydides”
M
Moore11
Guest
Funny how the idea of taxing a Church for political activities doesn’t seem to apply to leftist agendas. Ask the prez if his “Church” and pastor should have been taxed with all the stuff before 2008. Or if the Rev jesse jackson should be taxed, or if Rick warren should not have had the candidates debate at his Church. I dont buy into all this bullying. Throw us in jail if you must, we should speak the gospel and speak the Truth. Often and ESPECIALLY when it comes to politics.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Yes. But I know the reason for it: it’s because Leftists support the “correct” political causes. Everyone knows that.
“Anyone who is aware of the high degree of selectivity of Leftist indignation, and of how they remain utterly impassive in the face of any injustice that doesn’t serve to further their agenda, keeps their complaints in perspective.” – Poster “Thucydides”
- Status