White House Fails to Call Catholic Bishops for Mandate Talks

[Joe_5859]

Did some digging…

Marquette University provides contraception with a co-pay…

Whats up with that?

Apparently, Wisconsin is one of the states with a mandate that is in some ways similar to the HHS one.

 

[Tbrightson]

Apparently, Wisconsin is one of the states with a mandate that is in some ways similar to the HHS one.

It is my understanding that a WI Catholic hospital does NOT provide it. Which means there must be some kind of loophole.

So begs two questions:

1.why didnt Marquette take advantage of the loophole

1. why didnt the Bishop overseeing Marquette stand up to this

Lastly this situation provides ammo to the other side…“your doing it in other states, havent raised a stink, and havent taken advantage of the loophole”

 

[JimG]

Doesn’t Dan Maguire teach at Marquette? Maybe it was his idea.
Maybe this guy knows.

 

[Joe_5859]

It is my understanding that a WI Catholic hospital does NOT provide it. Which means there must be some kind of loophole.

So begs two questions:

1.why didnt Marquette take advantage of the loophole

1. why didnt the Bishop overseeing Marquette stand up to this

Lastly this situation provides ammo to the other side…“your doing it in other states, havent raised a stink, and havent taken advantage of the loophole”

I have no knowledge of whatever their state policies are or what the local Church has done to address them, so I really can’t answer your questions. To me, whatever significance the issue may have had is now dwarfed by the impending federal HHS mandate. It only strengthens my conviction that we really need to win this battle so that things like that don’t happen again.

 

[manualman]

There is a reasonable compromise that the bishops can offer. The Catholic Church can never, under any circumstances, pay for these things. But insurance doesn’t just pay for services. A large part of the benefit of being insured is that the big insurance providers negotiate massive discounts with providers compared to what cash customers would pay.

The bishops COULD offer to comply with a requirement where the negotiated cost structures are offered to employees on these things, but the actual insurance cash contribution would be ZERO in paying for it. Those who desire these things can claim satisfaction that their interests were pursued (their costs go way down, as do the profits of the providers of these ugly things) and the catholic church in no way ends up paying for objectionable medical costs and drugs. It’s not a finished idea, but it came to mind. What do y’all think?

 

[JimG]

I think that the administration should waive the mandate with respect to Catholic institutions.
In fact, I think it should drop the mandate entirely. Why should any Catholic employer, even a small company or sole proprietorship, have to pay for coverage that violates his conscience?

It is government overreach and a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[irishpatrick]

This is all too sadly very true. And might I add, they will NOT hear from the pulpit that contracepting is against Church doctrine. A heartbreaking situation all and all.

***But…this is not only about contracepting or reproductive “rights”…this is as much about freedom of religion as it is about anything! ***

Remember the words of Cardinal to be Dolan***…If they win on this issue I shudder to think “what’s next?” (not verbatim of course)***

---

---

p.s. Love the signature line…

Thanks for the signatur line compliment. I just changed it today.

 

[sedonaman]

… Why should any Catholic employer, even a small company or sole proprietorship, have to pay for coverage that violates his conscience?..

As I pointed out in another thread, big government means fewer rights:

Birth control pills and abortion are not the real issues. In order for liberalism to work, it has to take away peoples’ rights. The modern liberal state cannot have an island of freedom [read: Christianity] right in its midst. …

 

[Joe_5859]

There is a reasonable compromise that the bishops can offer. The Catholic Church can never, under any circumstances, pay for these things. But insurance doesn’t just pay for services. A large part of the benefit of being insured is that the big insurance providers negotiate massive discounts with providers compared to what cash customers would pay.

The bishops COULD offer to comply with a requirement where the negotiated cost structures are offered to employees on these things, but the actual insurance cash contribution would be ZERO in paying for it. Those who desire these things can claim satisfaction that their interests were pursued (their costs go way down, as do the profits of the providers of these ugly things) and the catholic church in no way ends up paying for objectionable medical costs and drugs. It’s not a finished idea, but it came to mind. What do y’all think?

I guess I’m not sure I understand enough about how insurance works to say for sure o), but it sounds like this could be a morally acceptable solution.

That said, I think it would be a mistake for the bishops to offer such a suggestion. It is the Church and all those of us with religious convictions whose rights are being trampled on with this mandate. It’s not up to us to figure out a solution for the Obama administration. If we try to meet them half way, they’re going to take every inch they can get and then some.

I think the best (and perhaps only) stance the bishops can take is to stay firm that this mandate is an assault on religious freedom and must go. If the administration wants to come up with compromises, they can try and we can weigh them as they are presented. But frankly, I don’t see them clamoring to do such a thing. Th bishops have been talking with the administration for months prior to the announcement. If they weren’t interested in compromising back then, it’s difficult to imagine them doing so now. For Obama, the damage is already done. If he back pedals, he just risks alienating his base and it probably wouldn’t convince anyone to come over to his side.

 

[sedonaman]

There is a reasonable compromise that the bishops can offer. The Catholic Church can never, under any circumstances, pay for these things. But insurance doesn’t just pay for services. A large part of the benefit of being insured is that the big insurance providers negotiate massive discounts with providers compared to what cash customers would pay.

The bishops COULD offer to comply with a requirement where the negotiated cost structures are offered to employees on these things, but the actual insurance cash contribution would be ZERO in paying for it. Those who desire these things can claim satisfaction that their interests were pursued (their costs go way down, as do the profits of the providers of these ugly things) and the catholic church in no way ends up paying for objectionable medical costs and drugs. It’s not a finished idea, but it came to mind. What do y’all think?

There are only three plans I am aware of:

1. The employer pays for all the premium cost; and,
2. The employer and employee each pay a portion.

In the case of Catholic employers and employees, the only question is what is covered. Any policy that covers morally objectionable “benefits” is unacceptable no matter who pays or how you juggle the numbers.

The third option is,

1. No health insurance coverage.

 

[manualman]

Sedonaman,

You’re missing half the benefit of being insured. If you walk in off the street to a doctor and pay cash for, say, strep throat treatment you will be out around $180 in office visits and probably another $80 in lab costs to verify the strep culture.

But the insurance company cuts deals with doctors so that the office visit only costs $75 and the lab $45. The doctor and lab make less working for insurance companies than they do working for cash clients.

So there’s the compromise: Require the insurance plan to negotiate pricing on these things the same way they do other services, but require the patient to pay 100% of the negotiated payment. Thus the insurance pool isn’t paying ANYTHING for those services, but the patient still gets a lower cost than being a cash customer.

Joe’s probably right though. It’s not OUR job to placate Obama’s leftist voters. Let him offer the compromise.

 

[sedonaman]

… Require the insurance plan to negotiate pricing on these things the same way they do other services, but require the patient to pay 100% of the negotiated payment. Thus the insurance pool isn’t paying ANYTHING for those services, but the patient still gets a lower cost than being a cash customer.

I didn’t forget, it’s just that it requires us to “trust” øbama. How many times does Lucy have to pull the ball away from Charlie Brown before he learns? Besides, how much are we talking about here? I looked up birth control pills on an on-line pharmacy. They are about $3 a day, and that’s if the woman wants to pay for them. She can probably get them at Planned Parenthood for free.

Joe’s probably right though. It’s not OUR job to placate Obama’s leftist voters. Let him offer the compromise.

Not only that but what someone else said: why should we pay for someone else’s sex? IOW, TNSTAAFL.

 

[manualman]

Not only that but what someone else said: why should we pay for someone else’s sex?

We shouldn’t, and I’ve never said we should. Where’d you get that idea? I’m 100% against the government forcing anybody (much less religious employers) to pay for abortion, sterilization and contraception.

I think part of the problem is that too many Americans don’t comprehend insurance. Insurance isn’t a magic way of not having to pay for things. Insurance is an agreement among a group to split the cost of things, to share the pain of highly variable costs among many instead of wiping out one or a few. It’s a basic injustice to include in insurance coverage things that many of those paying for it object to. Where there is major disagreement, there should be separate accounting.

 

[sedonaman]

We shouldn’t, and I’ve never said we should. Where’d you get that idea? …

I didn’t mean that you did. Someone else posted it, perhaps on another thread.

I think part of the problem is that too many Americans don’t comprehend insurance. Insurance isn’t a magic way of not having to pay for things. Insurance is an agreement among a group to split the cost of things, to share the pain of highly variable costs among many instead of wiping out one or a few.

I understand that, but øbama wants the insurance companies to offer these services for free. Like I said, There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The insurance companies get their money from policy holders to pay for covered services. I once read about how the royal treasurer paid for Columbus’ voyage. It involved a lot of financial juggling and sleight of hand. In the end, policyholders pay for everything the insurance companies cover.

It’s a basic injustice to include in insurance coverage things that many of those paying for it object to. Where there is major disagreement, there should be separate accounting.

Money is fungible. Your dollar and my dollar might go into an account that doesn’t pay for someone else’s sex, but the company can shuffle the rest around so that it gets to where it needs to be. In the end, we pay. Another reason we pay is because those who will audit the trail are the same who have the agenda we don’t want. Just look at the way money was shuffled around ACORN.