One of THOSE topics

[Lisabob]

How about: because the Constitution & bill of rights (in particular) are intended to protect us from governmental abuse of power. The notion here is that governments are in a position of tremendous power and authority over individuals, and therefore must be constrained. Limits on gov't power are not necessarily limits on private entities' powers for that very reason.

 

 

[moosetracker]

Government interceds all the time. Car industry has had mandated laws to include seatbelts, put a 3rd eye break light in, reduce emissions, increase miles per gallon by year. Environmental acts that forced other buisnesses to clean up their air, or stop pumping their waste into the water. Employee rights amendments that my Employeers have to post on almost every surface of the universe.

 

JMHawkins says : Or, if you're worried about employment, the worst the Catholic Church can do to a doctor who doesn't want to follow their rules is say he can't work for them.

 

Don't know if it is buried in Employees Rights or some other laws, but you can't fire people on superficial grounds unrelated to their work performance. And even with work performance it is very difficult to gather enough evidence of poor work, in order to protect you from a lawsuit. An Employeer cannot fired you because you were taking contraceptives, or had an abortion.. It doesn't effect your work performance, is of personal concern, not related to the buisness. Sort of like a buisness firing people when they get too old, too fat, have a sex change operation etc..

 

...Squirrel... Now there's and interesting topic. What would the Catholic Church do if one of their employees had a sex-change operation? Oh, I wish I was a fly on the wall for that one.

[moosetracker]

LOL.. Speak of the ... well..

 

My husband & his brother (both Catholics *gasp* (how could I marry a Catholic)).. Went to some one year after memorial service for someone they knew from their youths in boyscout.. To which I guess instead of the priest doing a memorial service about the guy who the service was about. Spent the sermon part talking about exactly this issue of the Insurance that includes *gasp* contraceptive and other ghastly things.. So the bishop is calling a boycott of the government..

 

Now my husband had not been clued into my discussing this very topic on this forum.. Guess what both he and his brothers reaction to the service was?.. Basically, you have got to be kidding?.. So it's offered, just don't use it if you don't want to.. You should teach Catholics right and wrong by the Church's interpretation. But you can not force or rule over them with an iron fist.. And if you employ people who are not of the Catholic faith, then you can not govern what their beliefs are.. "Oh yeah, also they thought they was robbed of a good memorial service for this twitt and twattle!!!"

 

Hmmmmm.. I guess my husband & his brother must be Catholic bigots..

[JoeBob]

Moose, I think our basic disagreement is imbedded in our different interpretations of the Catholic church providing insurance to its employees.

 

The Catholics do not want to pay for abortions or contraception.

 

You see it as the church interferring in its employees personal lives. Giving employees insurance that doesn't cover abortion or cantraception is not prohibiting individuals from using those services. They just have to pay for their own contraception.

 

However, forcing Catholic churchs to pay for abortions and contraception IS interfering with church doctrine.

[moosetracker]

No, I just think it is a big stink being raised during an election year. And it is not a hill worth dying on. Frankly I think the campaign of We dont want four more years of Obama will take you further.

 

Many states already required that the health plans in their state required contraception (in a huge package of other things their health plans were to cover) California, New York, North Carolina , Wisconsin, Colorado and Georgia to name a few.. They have for quite awhile, yet there was no battle cry when these states incorporated it.

 

Does the Catholic Church purchase any supplies from Walmart, Target, any drug stores or most grocery stores? How can they buy from those places that sell contraceptives? Dont they know it will look like they are supporting these houses of sin?

 

At least that is comparably equivalent to the amount of support that would be seen from having a health insurance with contraception options being a teeny-tiny little line item as an option on pages & pages of benefits offered. Especially with the Church very vocally making their opinion heard. Actually make that the insurance thing is less support, then the shopping. Since I doubt Catholic Nuns run up & down the aisles while grocery shopping yelling Sinner! Sinner! and bopping everyone else who is shopping at the grocery store over the head..

 

Boycott the government? So how is that to work? Are you going to refuse to pay your taxes? Or refuse government assistance after a huge natural disaster destroys your home? Is the church now going to refuse government funding for their hospitals?

 

Much easier to boycott the stores. (though you may get a little hungry and run out of toilet paper.)

 

It is pure and simple.. Teach you church members your beliefs, then trust in them..

 

[Tampa Turtle]

My family and I attended Catholic mass this weekend and heard the insurance-Obama sermon, (ironically because my wife was avoiding the gay-tolerance sermon at our Protestant church). While I am no longer catholic it was interesting to observe the differences.

 

Catholics are withing their rights to protest for accommodation on the issues of abortion and birth control. The irony is that (and I have a priest-friend who is on the Bishops staff who told me this) is that the Church is steamed over the increased cost of providing mandated insurance. Just like a lot of other cheap employers. Not the main reason -- but high morals mixed up with the church of man.

[moosetracker]

Good-Grief !! So these humanitarians, that are all about helping the sick and needy, are either not giving their employees health insurance, or very sub-par health insurance? Their beef is over the cost to insure their employees?

 

Also very interesting that the "boycott the goverment over contracteptions in the health care package".. Is a canned serman that has been rolled out across the country as a "must" present.. I am sure it was a devine topic sent to them on the wings of angels from God himself.

[Beavah]

Good-Grief !! So these humanitarians, that are all about helping the sick and needy, are either not giving their employees health insurance, or very sub-par health insurance?

 

Yah, moosetracker, I have to say that your bias toward one religious group is really uncomfortable, and, IMHO, inappropriate. Tampa Turtle said that they were concerned about the high cost of insurance. What employer isn't? He didn't say they were providing very sub-par health insurance. Around these parts the coverage provided is very sound. Not as gold-plated as the public employee unions get, but well better than "par."

 

The reason why as a charitable employer that yeh worry about this stuff is the same reason government should worry about it - every dollar yeh spend on employee costs is a dollar that yeh aren't spending on service to those in the broader public you're trying to reach. If you're about service, that matters, eh? Of course if you're not about service and you're more about yourself and your staff, then it doesn't matter as much.

 

Many states already required that the health plans in their state required contraception

 

Yah, but if yeh read the news in detail, what yeh learn is that in each states there were very functional work-arounds or exceptions that religious institutions could use.

 

Does the Catholic Church purchase any supplies from Walmart, Target, any drug stores or most grocery stores?

 

That's irrelevant. There's a difference between buying a banana from a store that sells contraceptives and actually buying contraceptives yourself. A vegetarian can go to a grocer and buy produce without objection, but if they were forced to purchase meat that would be a different story. Remember, the Catholic health care institutions often run their own insurance pool, so they actually are the insurer that's purchasing the services.

 

No, I just think it is a big stink being raised during an election year

 

Huh? It's a big stink because now is when the regulation came out. The timing was determined by the administration.

 

I will say that the timing baffles me, and shows the inexperience of da Obama administration. They're going' into Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of the health care mandate this spring, where they need to appear reasonable and win the swing vote(s). Why in the world would yeh come out with this right now? Yeh do realize that 2/3 of the Supreme Court are Catholics, and all da likely swing justices are?

 

If yeh were to design a strategy to sabotage your own Affordable Care Act just to keep a few votes that you'd get anyways, yeh couldn't come up with a better one. I was giving Obamacare high likelihood of passing Supreme Court muster. Now, I'd say they're down to 50-50. It's about as boneheaded a political move as I've ever seen.

[moosetracker]

Many states already required that the health plans in their state required contraception

 

Yah, but if yeh read the news in detail, what yeh learn is that in each states there were very functional work-arounds or exceptions that religious institutions could use.

 

 

No actually half the states mentioned have the same religious consideration that the new health plan has (a break for the actual Church, but not for the buisnesses the church run.) While the other states do not even allow that break.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/02/02/the-truth-about-contraception-obamacare-and-the-church/

 

 

TT wrote :

 

Catholics are withing their rights to protest for accommodation on the issues of abortion and birth control. The irony is that (and I have a priest-friend who is on the Bishops staff who told me this) is that the Church is steamed over the increased cost of providing mandated insurance. Just like a lot of other cheap employers.

 

 

I do not read what you do Beavah. Most companies who are upset about rising costs of healthcare state this is their reason of concern. And they started their protests way before now.. If they have great health benefits now, then the mandated insurance would not cost them anything extra, they should even see a decrease, as health care would not be as high to offset the cost of those in the system without any healthcare..

 

I also don't read into TT calling them "Cheap employers.", as he feels they are just employers concerned over the money not being distributed to help the poor & needy.

 

My employers self-insure. We pay percentage of the insurance ourselves and a co-pay. Therefore what I pay out of pocket in a years time, could be considered paying for my own contraceptives plus, plus, plus, plus.. So all they need do is not foot the bill for the health insurance entirely, and look at it as not their money, but the employees self paid portion of the insurance paying for what they do not approve of.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[CalicoPenn]

So how do we determine what is a religious institution and what isn't? I mean beyond actual churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples which is pretty obvious.

 

What makes one hospital a religious institution and another hospital not a religious institution? Does adding the word Catholic, or Methodist, or Baptist make a hospital a religious institution?

 

Theological seminaries operated by the church are probably religious institutions, but are Notre Dame or Wheaton College or Brigham Young University religious institutions because they have a grounding in particular religious belief?

 

What about something like Catholic Charities or Lutheran Charities? Like the BSA, there are different ways that Catholic Charities runs. Some are run specifically as Arch-diocese or diocese programs. Others aren't controlled by the diocese but operate with the support of the diocese. The ones run as direct diocesan programs are likely religious institutions but are the others just because they have the word Catholic in their name?

 

At what point is the line drawn? Is the BSA a religious institution but the Girl Scouts aren't?

 

Where does it end? Would a business named Amalgamated Mining and Minerals get an exemption by changing it's name to Amalgamated Lutheran Mining and Minerals and claiming it's a religious institution?

 

And why can't federal funding play a role in the decision making process? Catholic Charities, USA for example (and please don't accuse me of bashing Catholics or Catholic Charities - I like them - both - this just happens to be what I researched) - more than half of their funding in 2010 came from the federal government - not from the church, not from donations - from taxpayer dollars. I'm sure they put that money to good use, because they are a good organization - so why can't the federal government tell them that if they provide health care insurance to their employees, it must include coverage for women's health issues, or for mental health issues, etc. etc. Personally, I'd be far more sympathetic to the religious institution argument in that case if the bulk of their funding wasn't coming from the taxpayers.

 

Finally, and this is probably the 1,200 pound gorilla in the room, why are we so quick to forgive what we know is discrimination the moment someone says its their religious viewpoint?

[JoeBob]

1- Employers should not be 'giving' health insurance to workers in the first place. It's a practice that started during WWI when wages were frozen. Health insurance was a perk that fell outside wages that business could use to entice better workers.

The quagmire that heath care has become can be directly attributed to employees having little sensitivity to what things cost. Their company insurance pays, so they don't care.

We need to get back to employers paying only money to workers and letting employees band together in purchasing groups to get exactly what insurance they want to pay for. (I resent having to pay for pregnancy benefits...)

Interstate sales of health insurance online would get the market strongly back into the process, and restore sanity.

 

2- Now for the fed to mandate what the given healthcare package MUST contain, is just flat crazy. Isn't it conterproductive to provide Viagra and abortion?

[packsaddle]

Viagra actually may be helping endangered species:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051010/full/news051010-1.html

 

For this reason alone, I'd like to see generics flood the market. OK, it's off the subject, sort of, but JoeBob made me think about it.

[moosetracker]

Well I know some of the regulation happened some time back. When my son started college he had to have ?? 12 credits ?? per semester to be on my health care. One time he was 1 credit short, so he had to take some frivolus course to bump him up. Then due to government intervention he was fine regardless of credits taken. Government also mandated that health care was to provide for pre-existing conditions (Which I was happy for, as my son has a pre-existing condition that will be with him all his life.) And what labs were paid for and what was not changed drastically..

 

The Viagra & abortions are on patient per patient need.. Obviously the person taking Viagra, will never need an abortion. (His partner might though).

 

JoeBob you might be right about it being something added.. But then everything had a starting time, so it doesn't mean it should not be there. If we just did away with health care insurance all together (both individule & employer funded), (because insurance had a starting point). Then there would be alot more unpaid bills, those who did pay would be charged alot higher rates to pay for those that did not pay. Soon they couldn't afford it, and the Federal Government would need to step in to fund the whole thing.

 

If people were getting health insurance and it was just stated all individuals must pay for their own, well then the companies who use to pay for health insurance would have to pay higher salaries to make up for it. I know every year I get a statement telling me not only my salary but what it cost for the company to pay my benefits.. The company always states that is my true yearly (wages, cost, whatever.) If I had to suddenly pay my own insurance, that would be a wage drop, if the money the company spent on me for it did not come to me in a salary.

 

Calico - Where does it end?.. Everyone would have a different opinion on that. I think everyone knows mine. It would end at the churches door, not extend into buisnesses they ran, or the unrelated buisness of a Catholic man. I truely wonder if the government did remove contraceptions from the bill for Catholic owned buisnesses, or just removed it entirely for everyone, but still mandated employer paid Health insurance. Would that really settle the issue?.

 

And Calico's 1,200 pound gorilla 1,200 pound gorilla in the room, why are we so quick to forgive what we know is discrimination the moment someone says its their religious viewpoint?

 

Answer - Because most people are not foolish enough to disagree with someone on a religious rant.. Otherwise they get labeled a bigot!!

[Fehler]

If the Catholic Church can refuse to offer contraceptive health benefits, can they also refuse to offer pregnancy/maternal health care for an unmarried woman?

[Beavah]

Where does it end?

 

Imagine the political party that yeh like and trust the least takes control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, with a solid 60 seats in the Senate. Imagine the "worst" of that party's partisans are in leadership positions in all three, and they have it for a full 10+ years, enough to really drive their agenda.

 

It ends at the point where yeh feel there is enough respect for you, and enough checks in the system to protect your liberty and those of organizations and people that agree with you.

 

A federal grant is a payment by the federal government to a private organization to provide some service. If I am buying a garage door opener from ScoutFish I don't get to tell him how much he must pay his employees or what kind of insurance he should buy on his truck.

 

Da same should be true of a federal contract. The federal government is contracting with Catholic Charities to provide services to areas or groups that they would find it harder to reach. They should be evaluated on and receive money solely on the basis of how effectively they deliver those services. Just like me buying a garage door opener from ScoutFish.

 

Imagine what things would be like if, as a condition of purchase, I could demand that ScoutFish comply with my ethical views in his entire company. Now yeh say he could turn me down as a customer, but that would only be true if he had enough other customers to stay in business. I expect right now his margins like everybody's are pretty tight. How many of the poor are payin' for their own social services, do yeh suppose, that Catholic Charities could rely on other income?

 

And now, here's where it gets really creepy. If da federal government is the only one providing social services to the poor, with no other intermediaries/providers, how long do yeh suppose before funds start being "targeted" more toward those who agree with the party in power?

 

The real question is if yeh allow the federal government this much power, where does THAT end?

 

B