J
JimG
Guest
I hope you are right. But it was my understanding that all health insurance policies will need to meet HHS guidelines, which may lead to the unavailability of previously available policies.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
You’re probably right. I think when I used to apply for insurance, I was just content to have it at all at a premium I could afford and made sure it covered every catastrophic event. It probably covered pregnancies and mamograms (which I didn’t see a need) but I just didn’t want to become bankrupt because of medical expenses.
L
LisaA
Guest
This is one of the unintended consequences of a healthcare law written by ignorant idealogues. The cost of insurance rises dramatically with mandates because it removes a significant element of competition. One cannot buy a “bare bones” policy anymore due to Obamacare and the latest estimate is that a family will pay $20000 yearl for a minimal policy by 2016.
One of the best ways for an employer to reduce premium cost is to tailor the insurance to his employees’ needs. For example a monastery probably won’t need pregnancy care (at least we hope not!) and an order of Religious won’t need Viagra. Although those are extremes, the kind of policy a particular company needs does depend on its employee mix.
Also one of the most cost efficient systems was an HSA with a high deductible wrap plan. Employees having control over their healthcare dollars were a lot more frugal than when everything was paid by a gold plated plan. But again Obamacare effectively destroyed this type of set up…after all it may not give Sandra free birth control pills!
Although the stated objectives of Obamacare’s supporters was to decrease cost and increase access, the reality is that the law is written to INCREASE cost and DECREASE access. They did nothing but remove the incentive to make careful economic choices, shop for the best prices, avoid overusing just because a benefit was available for “free.”
Lisa
9
90cacjdm
Guest
I was a little confused with regards to the Bishops remarks. It left me with the impression that they are open to negotiations with respect to Catholic Teachings. Also, Is there is an order of importance with respect to religious ministries, religious employers, and from for-profit business owners? Neither should be forced to pay for contraception including abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization. The USCCB seems to: first expressed concern over religious ministries, 2nd express concern for religious employers, and 3rd express concern for business owners with a properly formed conscience. Is there a reason for this? He DID state that they are NOT abandoning the for profit business owners, however, it seems that there is in an order of importance. Is this more important to protect religious ministries than those who “strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values.” Any knowledge of the Church’s teaching on this would be greatly appreciated.
I am concerned about the USCCB stance in general because, “We took a bit of a breather as we waited for Election Day because the results of Election Day could have changed the playing field." I was unaware of the Catholic Teaching that states that Catholics should take “bit of a breather” and wait until after an Election to oppose an intrinsic evil. Especially if the intrinsic evil was the law of the land. I am pretty sure this is NOT Catholic Teaching, but I am new and feedback is encouraged and welcomed.
I am concerned about the USCCB stance in general because, “We took a bit of a breather as we waited for Election Day because the results of Election Day could have changed the playing field." I was unaware of the Catholic Teaching that states that Catholics should take “bit of a breather” and wait until after an Election to oppose an intrinsic evil. Especially if the intrinsic evil was the law of the land. I am pretty sure this is NOT Catholic Teaching, but I am new and feedback is encouraged and welcomed.
N
nute
Guest
May your marriage be blessed with an abundance of children… but many women today want to be barren. Sex is not love, sex is a natural gift from God that is intended to bring forth children and to draw a husband and wife closer together spiritually and emotionally.
Trust me when I say that sex outside of marriage is not love from experience and worse,
if a child is conceived the situation is both unfair to that child and the child’s life could be in danger.
Concern, if the issue is framed as church blocks access to: birth control, abortion, and sterilization for women, the issue is framed such that the church won’t win.
Obama is a constitutional lawyer, shame on him. He should know better than to ignore religious freedom and attempt to impose a religion from the federal level that many of us
do not want. There are no majorities on same sex marriage, abortion, or even access to contraceptives. These are at best polarizing issues where half the country is on one side and the other half is on the other. The solution isn’t to: pick a side, ignore the constitution, and impose whatever you can. That is Obama’s approach, the
American people should have known that this time and they should have voted
accordingly.
I guess Catholic women who know better than God how many children they should have can’t use natural family planning. After all, natural family planning is what God wants married couples to engage in with Him.
Sexual arousal is fleeting. A single man who has a porn problem wants love, but the images don’t love him. Love is not spiritually harmful. Even if the man connects with a prostitute he does not experience love unless, the encounter is chaste and the prostitute has a change of heart. She must begin to care about both her spiritual health and his.
What is fleeting does not satisfy us spiritually where we are not merely natural beings.
To love is to want the absolute ultimate good for another, no matter the cost to yourself In mutual love, that cost is mitigated by the other party as much as possible because that other party doesn’t want you to suffer. Love needs a return, we are made to love and be loved ultimately by God our creator.
The single life after being sexually abused by a woman who treated sex as if it were love when in fact I was just being used by her is hard to live. If she could have gotten pregnant and had, this HHS mandate would make me pay potentially for the death of my own child. Women are given power in our society that doesn’t belong to them, the power to kill and to prevent the transmission of life artificially. This HHS mandate seeks to reinforce that as if women have to have sexual mastery over men or they are being denied their rights. Whatever happened to your rights end when the next person’s rights will be infringed? What about God’s rights which supercede man’s?
A change of heart is needed in America. We need to do a better job of teaching people why our values are what they are and we must attempt to reveal God’s burning love to those who deny him. A love so strong that one must either: accept God completely, repent and ask for healing, or reject God completely. God love is so great, those three options are your only options.
Obama needs to be impeached on a charge of attempting to violate freedom of conscience and ultimately render null and void the constitution. I have faith that the house could push for an impeachment, but I’m worried the Senate will not carry it.
Trust me when I say that sex outside of marriage is not love from experience and worse,
if a child is conceived the situation is both unfair to that child and the child’s life could be in danger.
Concern, if the issue is framed as church blocks access to: birth control, abortion, and sterilization for women, the issue is framed such that the church won’t win.
Obama is a constitutional lawyer, shame on him. He should know better than to ignore religious freedom and attempt to impose a religion from the federal level that many of us
do not want. There are no majorities on same sex marriage, abortion, or even access to contraceptives. These are at best polarizing issues where half the country is on one side and the other half is on the other. The solution isn’t to: pick a side, ignore the constitution, and impose whatever you can. That is Obama’s approach, the
American people should have known that this time and they should have voted
accordingly.
I guess Catholic women who know better than God how many children they should have can’t use natural family planning. After all, natural family planning is what God wants married couples to engage in with Him.
Sexual arousal is fleeting. A single man who has a porn problem wants love, but the images don’t love him. Love is not spiritually harmful. Even if the man connects with a prostitute he does not experience love unless, the encounter is chaste and the prostitute has a change of heart. She must begin to care about both her spiritual health and his.
What is fleeting does not satisfy us spiritually where we are not merely natural beings.
To love is to want the absolute ultimate good for another, no matter the cost to yourself In mutual love, that cost is mitigated by the other party as much as possible because that other party doesn’t want you to suffer. Love needs a return, we are made to love and be loved ultimately by God our creator.
The single life after being sexually abused by a woman who treated sex as if it were love when in fact I was just being used by her is hard to live. If she could have gotten pregnant and had, this HHS mandate would make me pay potentially for the death of my own child. Women are given power in our society that doesn’t belong to them, the power to kill and to prevent the transmission of life artificially. This HHS mandate seeks to reinforce that as if women have to have sexual mastery over men or they are being denied their rights. Whatever happened to your rights end when the next person’s rights will be infringed? What about God’s rights which supercede man’s?
A change of heart is needed in America. We need to do a better job of teaching people why our values are what they are and we must attempt to reveal God’s burning love to those who deny him. A love so strong that one must either: accept God completely, repent and ask for healing, or reject God completely. God love is so great, those three options are your only options.
Obama needs to be impeached on a charge of attempting to violate freedom of conscience and ultimately render null and void the constitution. I have faith that the house could push for an impeachment, but I’m worried the Senate will not carry it.
B
BigBlueCane
Guest
It seems the US Bishops will reject anything this admin will do because they just are more conservative. Thats the problem I have with the Bishops.
L
LisaA
Guest
HILARIOUS! Actually the Bishops are CATHOLIC and their rejection of the HHS Mandate is with respect to CATHOLIC doctrine. You know that pesky little prohibition against killing unborn babies?
Lisa
J
JimG
Guest
Actually, many in the USCCB were lobbying FOR healthcare legislation. They also had discussion with the White House in which they were assured that the HHS would not mandate Catholic institutions to provide for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization in violation of their conscience and their religious liberty. The administration double crossed them, leading to numerous lawsuits, and not just from Catholic institutions.
O
Orianna
Guest
The issue of insurance mandates in religion-run institutes confounds me for several reasons. While I feel religious organizations should not be forced to go against their beliefs, health care and abortion rights are nationally recognized. I believe in separation of church and state and that the church is specifically not taxed because it is an entity that does not become involved in governing matters for the state (or country).
How do you keep this understanding in line with the new mandates? And, what keeps this great land of ours from determining that all organizations that are set up to collect fees from individuals and function with all the benefits which a community derives from its tax base, will then become itself subject to paying taxes into the system?
Religious entities should be kept separate, but also then should not expect they have the rights of corporations and for-profit organizations to lobby and move policy. If the church (and church) demands otherwise, i.e., to control how it provides insurance benefits to its many employees, than it also needs to realize its blurred the lines of what is taxable and what is exempt and non-taxable. Does it not?
Personally, I think universal health care should be medicare based and not a burden to any employers, for profit or non-profit. Keep in all in the public domain, like basic education, and there is no offense given to any entity, church or otherwise.
In this scenario, the church maintains its vital position of guiding its constituents against abortive procedures but does not have legal authority to do so… which perhaps is where the problem with the government is technically based.
How do you keep this understanding in line with the new mandates? And, what keeps this great land of ours from determining that all organizations that are set up to collect fees from individuals and function with all the benefits which a community derives from its tax base, will then become itself subject to paying taxes into the system?
Religious entities should be kept separate, but also then should not expect they have the rights of corporations and for-profit organizations to lobby and move policy. If the church (and church) demands otherwise, i.e., to control how it provides insurance benefits to its many employees, than it also needs to realize its blurred the lines of what is taxable and what is exempt and non-taxable. Does it not?
Personally, I think universal health care should be medicare based and not a burden to any employers, for profit or non-profit. Keep in all in the public domain, like basic education, and there is no offense given to any entity, church or otherwise.
In this scenario, the church maintains its vital position of guiding its constituents against abortive procedures but does not have legal authority to do so… which perhaps is where the problem with the government is technically based.
L
LisaA
Guest
You make the common error of confusing the demand that the Church PROVIDE AND PAY FOR contraception, abortion inducing drugs and sterilization, and the laws that make these products and services legal.
The Church is not trying to prevent women from contracepting or getting their tubes tied or using Plan B. We may wish and pray they would not engage in these practices but the Bishops are not reaching into women’s pocketbooks and pulling out their pills, Democrat bumper stickers to the contrary.
The HHS Mandate is forcing a private (non governmental) organization to provide a specific product or service that is against its teaching. Tell me what law allowing abortion extends to forcing an organiztion to provide it?
You don’t understand what makes an organization tax exempt. Most charities are “run like corporations” because the same accounting principles, human resource principles and asset utilization principles apply to them. Non profits that do not operate in a rational and businesslike manner are soon gone.
Further your theory about all healthcare being government is a disaster in the making. I know it sounds wonderful but only to those who are not knowledgeable about how healthcare is delivered and paid for.
Lisa
O
Orianna
Guest
Thanks for providing feedback. I’ve edited my post a bit after reading, though perhaps changes little of the content in your response.
The church should not be having to provide any type of insurance. That is where difficulties arise and is the crux of the mandate.
A universal medicare system causes problems only when you view the solution from the current messy situation of which you appear to be very knowledgeable.
However, changing your perceptions to what has worked well in most industrialized nations (contrary to media planted scare stories from insurance companies) ultimately resolves the nightmare you are envisioning. It’s a radical change from how USA now provides health care. It’s change that also isn’t good for insurance companies, who will lose a bulk of business and move toward innovative coverage of premiere plans for those who can afford better conveniences. I think what is critical is to insist that congress must use the same policy as the taxpayers are provided will also ensure the universal plan is not a nightmare. I speak with many people from other countries and attest their health issues are not the nightmare it is in America, where bankruptcy and loss of coverage is commonplace in devastating illness. I know many who suffer and cannot get care, though we are a rich, rich nation.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree wholeheatedly with this. The existing system, however, does not allow for group insurance (immediately covering pre-exising conditions) except through one’s employer or after termination of same.
It seems with the oncoming exchanges where there would be no more denial based on pre-existing conditions, employers can simply hire on a contractural basis. It should provide the same employment (with perhaps an increase in pay) but allow the employee to get his own insurance, make SS payments, etc. Even many, if not most, Medicare patients buy extra private insurance, so it’s not all government entitlements.
O
Orianna
Guest
By making the taxpayers the owners of universal health care, the premium is drastically dropped because we no longer support a billion dollar insurance industry just to be protected with healthcare. Everyone gets a decent policy, no one left behind and the $20,000 premiums would only be billed for the wealthy, no longer the middle class who cannot afford it.
Again, the plan works if it becomes law that congressmen must use the universal plan and not purchase an additional policy… that ensures a quality program for all, based on ability to pay.
O
Orianna
Guest
Wouldn’t it be grand if the catholic church did not have to fight this ridiculous battle to provide a service they are against?
It’s incomprehensible we are in this position, but this only became an issue because the single payer group could not fight all the payoffs in congress. The best compromise was a very watered down bill which left so many problems, like forcing the church to do something against its beliefs. The best fight is to get health care off the backs of all employers.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Exactly. I think somewhere along the line, expansion of Medicare was proposed as well and that was voted down. And it was mostly because of opposition from people who were already in Medicare fearing it would be busted. Lots of misinformation was spread about the bill and thus we ended up with a very watered-down bill as you said.
L
LisaA
Guest
Look i am all for patient controlled healthcare which can easily be done without either the government or an employer based insurance plan.
Tell me you want the same people who have bankrupted Social Security, Medicare, and the Post Office running a government healthcare system. Tell me you want a nameless faceless panel in Washington DC deciding whether your mom gets a new hip or if your child with a severe birth defect gets medical care…I didn’t think so.
When patients are in control of their healthcare, they make rational decisions both to the extent of healthcare provided and the cost. Nothing like a little bit of competition to drop prices.
HSAs and other medical savings accounts with a “wrap” policy for catastrophic care work very well. Too bad Obamacare got rid of them for the most part.
What is really the issue is the amount of control over your life. Obamacare did not address the real isses which are costs and access. It’s fine to provide some kind of high risk pools to cover those who are uninsurable or some kind of catastrophic coverage for those with astronomical bills. It did not take a 3000 page bill, a takeover of the student loan system, additonal taxes on medical devices and the sale of your home to cover those costs.
The whole thing was just a power grab. Too bad no one read it before voting. They have sowed in haste and repenting in leisure.
Lisa
N
nute
Guest
B
BigBlueCane
Guest
The HHS mandate has a religious exemption now. So whats the problem?
B
BigBlueCane
Guest
Yeah “off the backs of the employers” and leave millions uninsured again. That definitely is in line with catholic positions.
B
BigBlueCane
Guest
Oh I see so if the government doesn’t uphold the morals that YOU have then you just recommend everyone to take up arms and start killing people. Very moral stance.
- Status