Will Obama Destroy Franciscan University of Steubenville?

[JReducation]

Offering no insurance seems the logical choice. Let each employee know the approximate amoung of salary that would have been taken for insurance, and then tell them to secure their own.

Would this be legal?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Holly3278]

Knowing Obama, he will do just that. Or at least he will try to do that. Obama sickens me. He is the enemy of all Christians and especially of Catholic Christians. Obama supports such evil things as abortion and “gay marriage”. I hope and pray that he is voted out in the next elections before he can do much more damage.

 

[irishpatrick]

Would this be legal?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think it would legal right now because the provisions do not kick-in until 2014. I also think even in 2014 it would be legal, but the University would have to pay a per employee fine for not providing insurance.

 

[Corki]

I think it would legal right now because the provisions do not kick-in until 2014. I also think even in 2014 it would be legal, but the University would have to pay a per employee fine for not providing insurance.

That is my understanding. The question I would ask is what is the consequense of providing insurance that does not meet the “minimum standards” which include contraception and sterilization. Is that a fine too? Which is a bigger fine - the one for insurance strucuted according to Church teaching or the fine for no insurance at all?

Will Catholic institutions just have to “bite the bullet” and accept the fine as a cost of staying open?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Would this be legal?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

There’s a few issues from what I’ve searched (and things could have changed since this article was written):

Employers are not, technically, required to provide health insurance to their workers under the bill that passed. But if employers with 50 or more employees do not provide health insurance, they will be required to pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance.

So, it would appear that if instead of providing health insurance you provided enough of a “health insurance stipend” that prevented any employee from needing to get a federal health subsidy then you’d be in the clear…

 

[JReducation]

There’s a few issues from what I’ve searched (and things could have changed since this article was written):

Employers are not, technically, required to provide health insurance to their workers under the bill that passed. But if employers with 50 or more employees do not provide health insurance, they will be required to pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance.

So, it would appear that if instead of providing health insurance you provided enough of a “health insurance stipend” that prevented any employee from needing to get a federal health subsidy then you’d be in the clear…

Thanks for the link, Father. I would like to see how this plays out. It raises an interesting question for the employee, that being, “If you receive and ‘insurance stipend’ instead of insurance benefits, would that be taxable income?”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Corki]

Thanks for the link, Father. I would like to see how this plays out. It raises an interesting question for the employee, that being, “If you receive and ‘insurance stipend’ instead of insurance benefits, would that be taxable income?”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I guess that’s one of those details we won’t know the answer to until the tax code is updated to reflect all of the elements of the Obama health care plan. However, even under the current tax code, there are some employee benefits that are taxable. But if the extra money is wrapped into salary, it would be taxed as salary.

 

[Wolseley]

The bottom line is, so what?

They buy an insurance policy package for their employees which pays for birth control and such.

It’s up to the employees who use the insurance whether they go against Catholic teaching on these issues or not.

If it offends you, don’t use that part of the coverage.

Fact is, most of American including the majority of Catholics, use some form of birth control. Also, some forms of birth control are used to treat women for medical issues outside of preventing pregnancy. Should the insurance company not pay for this?

Jim

This is sort of like opening up an abortion clinic for your employees and then shurgging your shoulders by saying they don’t have to use it.