obama caves again

[Ravi]

From the first link:


That's baloney. Besides the simple fact that nothing is free and the costs will be passed on to employers, many Catholic institutions are self-insured. So religious organizations will still be paying for contraceptive coverage.

That's their choice. Insurance is not in the bible, and is not a religious tenet.

I don't understand your point. My point is that when Obama forces the insurance providers to pay for contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients, he's still forcing Catholic institutions to pay for things which they believe to be contrary to the will of God.

The shift from employer to insurer does not solve the first amendment problem when the insurer is the Catholic church.

Companies that are self-insured have been exempt all along from health care mandates.

 

[Sarah G]

That's fine, but I would like to be able to have sex with my husband for fun and not just to have kids. Not only would MY health suffer if I got pregnant every time, but so would the health of my kids.

But hey, I've never been a perfect Catholic.

And I'm kind of mystified at your old fashioned attitude.

I'll get over it, though.

Respect for the First Amendment is an 'old fashioned attitude'?

I don't care how many times you repeat it, this is not a first amendment issue.

Doesn't stop them from repeating it over and over tho.

 

[Article 15]

obama caves again

Nazi!

 

[JoeB131]

Not really. Now he's just DEMANDING that the ins companies offer it for FREE.


He demands complete compliance and utter control.

Except, again, the INsurance companies ALREADY do this in 28 states.

For the insurance companies, this is actually a winner. Paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for live births, especially ones with complications because they had them too close together.

So what Obama did was give the Bishops a peg to hang their silly hats on, while preserving the policy.

I wouldn't have given them that much.

 

[saveliberty]

Insurance companies just OVER charge the rest of us to pay for it, it certainly isn't "FREE".

 

[saveliberty]

Respect for the First Amendment is an 'old fashioned attitude'?

I don't care how many times you repeat it, this is not a first amendment issue.

Doesn't stop them from repeating it over and over tho.

You understand that separation of church and state works BOTH ways right? The state is over stepping their boundaries.

 

[JoeB131]

Insurance companies just OVER charge the rest of us to pay for it, it certainly isn't "FREE".

Except they won't "overcharge" anyone.

Family planning is cheaper than live births. So if you take in X in premiums, and family planning for 300 people is cheaper than a live birth for one person, it makes more sense to pay for the family planning.

This is why while the insurance companies have a lot of problems with ObamaCare (as they should), this isn't one of them. This is a rule they are happy to go along with.

 

[California Girl]

Respect for the First Amendment is an 'old fashioned attitude'?

I don't care how many times you repeat it, this is not a first amendment issue.

Doesn't stop them from repeating it over and over tho.

That might be because the churches (lots of them) consider it a First Amendment issue. The left, on the other hand, can't seem to get their tiny minds around such a complex issue and prefer to whine about Catholics and birth control.

Not one lefty on this board has explained, rationally, how the First Amendment does not apply. I have outlined why it does. And it has been ignored... y'all are too cowardly to admit that the government does not have the authority to define 'free exercise thereof'

 

[JoeB131]

I don't care how many times you repeat it, this is not a first amendment issue.

Doesn't stop them from repeating it over and over tho.

That might be because the churches (lots of them) consider it a First Amendment issue. The left, on the other hand, can't seem to get their tiny minds around such a complex issue and prefer to whine about Catholics and birth control.

Not one lefty on this board has explained, rationally, how the First Amendment does not apply. I have outlined why it does. And it has been ignored... y'all are too cowardly to admit that the government does not have the authority to define 'free exercise thereof'

It isn't a first Amendment issue. Nothing in this ruling restricts their ability to practice their base and silly superstitions.

They just can't impose them on other people. Which is how it should be.

The Catholic Church doesn't run schools or hospitals as a matter of faith, they do it to make money.

And once it becomes about the money, the faith isn't an issue anymore. Then it simply becomes a matter of commerce.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - someone said that once.

 

[California Girl]

Doesn't stop them from repeating it over and over tho.

That might be because the churches (lots of them) consider it a First Amendment issue. The left, on the other hand, can't seem to get their tiny minds around such a complex issue and prefer to whine about Catholics and birth control.

Not one lefty on this board has explained, rationally, how the First Amendment does not apply. I have outlined why it does. And it has been ignored... y'all are too cowardly to admit that the government does not have the authority to define 'free exercise thereof'

It isn't a first Amendment issue. Nothing in this ruling restricts their ability to practice their base and silly superstitions.

They just can't impose them on other people. Which is how it should be.

The Catholic Church doesn't run schools or hospitals as a matter of faith, they do it to make money.

And once it becomes about the money, the faith isn't an issue anymore. Then it simply becomes a matter of commerce.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - someone said that once.

If that is true.... that we 'run schools and hospitals to make money', would you care to explain why the Church contributes $5.7 billion per annum to run its hospitals? Where, exactly, is the 'profit'?

Fact is, this is a first amendment issue.... in that the government does not have the authority to define what constitutes the 'free exercise thereof'. Many churches - not just the Catholic Church - run charities, schools, hospitals, etc as a core part of their Christian Duty. That is protected by the First Amendment..... which is why your messiah is backtracking on his clusterfuck of a healthcare bill.

 

[Seawytch]

And no...NOT ONE SINGLE STATE had a mandated that FORCED them to do it. The FREE MARKET did it's job.

Not true...(Mind you, this is BEFORE the President's compromise)

OBAMA: For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is an organization that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization.
(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(4)The organization is a nonprofit organization

– NEW YORK: For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is an entity for which each of the following is true:
(a) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(b) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(c) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(d) The entity is a nonprofit organization

– CALIFORNIA: For purposes of this section, a “religious employer” is an entity for which each of the following is true:
(A) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(B) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(C) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(D) The entity is a nonprofit organization

– MICHIGAN: For our purposes, a “religious employer” is an entity for which all the following are true:
(a) The entity is a nonprofit organization
(b) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(c) The entity primarily employs people who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(d) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.

– OREGON: A “religious employer” is an employer:
(a) Whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values;
(b) That primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the employer;
(c) That primarily serves persons who share the religious tenets of the employer; and
(d) That is a nonprofit organization

Twenty-eight states already require employers, including most religiously affiliated institutions, to cover contraception in their health plans. The only change is that now they must cover the full cost.​

Obama Reproductive Health Reg Mirrors State Conscience Protections

 

[JoeB131]

If that is true.... that we 'run schools and hospitals to make money', would you care to explain why the Church contributes $5.7 billion per annum to run its hospitals? Where, exactly, is the 'profit'?

Fact is, this is a first amendment issue.... in that the government does not have the authority to define what constitutes the 'free exercise thereof'. Many churches - not just the Catholic Church - run charities, schools, hospitals, etc as a core part of their Christian Duty. That is protected by the First Amendment..... which is why your messiah is backtracking on his clusterfuck of a healthcare bill.

I kind of doubt that figure. Health care is big business, has been for a long time.

Sorry, it's about the money...

A Catholic Hospital's Fall From Grace | MichaelMoore.com

Ascension also says it is "committed to health and well-being for our communities." But it cut 44 licensed nurses who provided direct patient care at Genesys, and wants to demote 40 more. Patient care has already suffered, and these cuts will make it worse.

Ascension is the country's third largest - and the largest Catholic non-profit - hospital chain. Last year it had revenues of $14 billion and declared a "surplus" of $371 million since it isn't allowed to call it a profit.

Oh, and a person who didn't support McCain when I did really doesn't have any business calling Obama my "messiah". I voted against him for the only credible alternative. You didn't.

Now, personally, I'd go a lot further than Obama. I'd get rid of all their tax exemptions and easements and all the other state sponsored goodies they claim. Treat Churches like any other business, then see how they fare.

 

[Trajan]

Immaculate Contraception
An 'accommodation' that makes the birth-control mandate worse.

Here's a conundrum: The White House wants to impose its birth-control ideology on all Americans, including those for whom sponsoring or subsidizing such services violates their moral conscience. The White House also wants to avoid a political backlash from this blow to religious freedom. These goals are irreconcilable.

So you almost have to admire the absurdity of the new plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now write a rule that says the best things in life are "free," including contraception. Thus a political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one—in other words, behold the soul of ObamaCare.

Under the original Health and Human Services regulation, all religious institutions except for houses of worship would be required to cover birth control, including hospitals, schools and charities. Under the new rule, which the White House stresses is "an accommodation" and not a compromise, nonprofit religious organizations won't have to directly cover birth control and can opt out. But the insurers they hire to cover their employees can't opt out. If that sounds like a distinction without a difference, odds are you're a rational person.

Say Notre Dame decides that its health plan won't cover birth control on moral grounds. A faculty member wants such coverage, so Notre Dame's insurer will then be required to offer the benefit as an add-on rider anyway, at no out-of-pocket cost to her, or to any other worker or in higher premiums for the larger group.

But wait. Supposedly the original rule was necessary to ensure "access" to contraceptives, which can cost up to $600 a year as Democratic Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray wrote in these pages this week. The true number is far less, but where does that $600 or whatever come from, if not from Notre Dame and not the professor?

Insurance companies won't be making donations. Drug makers will still charge for the pill. Doctors will still bill for reproductive treatment. The reality, as with all mandated benefits, is that these costs will be borne eventually via higher premiums. The balloon may be squeezed differently over time, and insurers may amortize the cost differently over time, but eventually prices will find an equilibrium. Notre Dame will still pay for birth control, even if it is nominally carried by a third-party corporation.

more here-
Review & Outlook: Immaculate Contraception - WSJ.com

 

[California Girl]

If that is true.... that we 'run schools and hospitals to make money', would you care to explain why the Church contributes $5.7 billion per annum to run its hospitals? Where, exactly, is the 'profit'?

Fact is, this is a first amendment issue.... in that the government does not have the authority to define what constitutes the 'free exercise thereof'. Many churches - not just the Catholic Church - run charities, schools, hospitals, etc as a core part of their Christian Duty. That is protected by the First Amendment..... which is why your messiah is backtracking on his clusterfuck of a healthcare bill.

I kind of doubt that figure. Health care is big business, has been for a long time.

Sorry, it's about the money...

A Catholic Hospital's Fall From Grace | MichaelMoore.com

Ascension also says it is "committed to health and well-being for our communities." But it cut 44 licensed nurses who provided direct patient care at Genesys, and wants to demote 40 more. Patient care has already suffered, and these cuts will make it worse.

Ascension is the country's third largest - and the largest Catholic non-profit - hospital chain. Last year it had revenues of $14 billion and declared a "surplus" of $371 million since it isn't allowed to call it a profit.

Oh, and a person who didn't support McCain when I did really doesn't have any business calling Obama my "messiah". I voted against him for the only credible alternative. You didn't.

Now, personally, I'd go a lot further than Obama. I'd get rid of all their tax exemptions and easements and all the other state sponsored goodies they claim. Treat Churches like any other business, then see how they fare.

Doubt it all you want... does not make it less true.

In 2002, Catholic health care systems, overseeing 625 hospitals with a combined revenue of 30 billion dollars, comprised the nation's largest group of nonprofit systems.[19] In 2008, the cost of running these hospitals had risen to $84.6 billion, including the $5.7 billion they donate.[20] According to the Catholic Health Association of the United States, 60 health care systems, on average, admit one in six patients nationwide each year.[21]

Catholic Church in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, stop following me around the forum, freak.

 

[California Girl]

Immaculate Contraception
An 'accommodation' that makes the birth-control mandate worse.

Here's a conundrum: The White House wants to impose its birth-control ideology on all Americans, including those for whom sponsoring or subsidizing such services violates their moral conscience. The White House also wants to avoid a political backlash from this blow to religious freedom. These goals are irreconcilable.

So you almost have to admire the absurdity of the new plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now write a rule that says the best things in life are "free," including contraception. Thus a political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one—in other words, behold the soul of ObamaCare.

Under the original Health and Human Services regulation, all religious institutions except for houses of worship would be required to cover birth control, including hospitals, schools and charities. Under the new rule, which the White House stresses is "an accommodation" and not a compromise, nonprofit religious organizations won't have to directly cover birth control and can opt out. But the insurers they hire to cover their employees can't opt out. If that sounds like a distinction without a difference, odds are you're a rational person.

Say Notre Dame decides that its health plan won't cover birth control on moral grounds. A faculty member wants such coverage, so Notre Dame's insurer will then be required to offer the benefit as an add-on rider anyway, at no out-of-pocket cost to her, or to any other worker or in higher premiums for the larger group.

But wait. Supposedly the original rule was necessary to ensure "access" to contraceptives, which can cost up to $600 a year as Democratic Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray wrote in these pages this week. The true number is far less, but where does that $600 or whatever come from, if not from Notre Dame and not the professor?

Insurance companies won't be making donations. Drug makers will still charge for the pill. Doctors will still bill for reproductive treatment. The reality, as with all mandated benefits, is that these costs will be borne eventually via higher premiums. The balloon may be squeezed differently over time, and insurers may amortize the cost differently over time, but eventually prices will find an equilibrium. Notre Dame will still pay for birth control, even if it is nominally carried by a third-party corporation.

more here-
Review & Outlook: Immaculate Contraception - WSJ.com

Which is possibly why the Conference of Bishops hasn't 'happily' compromised - as has been claimed by the rabid left.

 

[mudwhistle]

I predicted this one. This is by design. He creates the problem and then swoops in pretending to be the 'voice of reason' to solve it. Just another Saul Alinsky 'Community Organizer' trick. It's all in his 'Rules for Radicals' if anyone's interested. This President has declared War on his fellow Citizens many times. This War was completely wrong and totally unnecessary. But it is by design. This guy aint no 'Uniter.' He's the exact opposite. It's a real shame.

I agree. Abortion was on the back-burner as an issue. Now it's at the forefront.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The libs are dead wrong on this. Yes, it is a 1st Amendment issue, and the issue outweights any rights concerning reproduction for women. Harsh, yes. But the mandate was wrong, period.

 

[Liability]

The libs are dead wrong on this. Yes, it is a 1st Amendment issue, and the issue outweights any rights concerning reproduction for women. Harsh, yes. But the mandate was wrong, period.

Jakey is gonna get railroaded out of his liberal Democrat Party for not toe-ing the line, now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability is a far right extremist who would not know a real conservative if he came up and shook his hand. I will let you have the follow up remark wiithout rebuttal and you will still look silly.

 

[California Girl]

Liability is a far right extremist who would not know a real conservative if he came up and shook his hand. I will let you have the follow up remark wiithout rebuttal and you will still look silly.

Actually, he has a valid point. You are not a conservative, Jokey. You are a RINO.

On the bright side, you are smart enough to see past the hyperbole to the issue on this and, for that, I respect your view.

It's just a pity that we seem to have absolutely no rational liberals on this board. Not one will address the First Amendment issue... just deny that it qualifies... which it clearly does... and which is why so many faiths have joined the Catholics.