Will the HHS mandate pass?

Forums: Us Politics, Usian Politics, Stupid Is As Stupid Does, U S Politics, American Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have a Catholic friend who said that the Catholic hospitals, and schools will be shut down, if the HHS mandate is passed.

The HHS mandate requires all employer health plans to provide free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs.
That "free" part of the clause is bogus.

It seems, that Government is getting into the business of religion.

Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

Furthermore, I am equally annoyed that this mandate requires a business to provide a product or service for “free”?

Does Obama have a wish to be not elected this election?

Contraceptives are already widely available.
“Access” to contraception is all right, but it does not mean having it paid for by someone else (for religious entity, especially against their moral convictions.)

What's next, handing out free condoms?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 2,545 • Replies: 11

@Val Killmore,

Quote:

Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

The church began to increasingly rely upon the state for funding, as the 'church' now runs a lot of businesses that aren't exactly churches.

Quote:

That "free" part of the clause is bogus.

It's 'free' to the end-user, which in this case means: no getting around this by charging usurious co-pays.

Quote:

What's next, handing out free condoms?

This is regularly done. And why not? Condoms are exceedingly cheap. Kids who are born by parents who can't take care of them properly are exceedingly expensive.

Re: the church thing,

The fact of the matter is that churches ARE exempt. So are schools that teach only religion (like Theological seminaries). But, we have a bunch of other businesses that are 'church-affiliated,' but don't actually teach religious principles - they simply provide a service. They SHOULD be treated like everyone else, which is to say, to provide modern women's health coverage.

If religious institutions don't like it they should get out of those businesses - period. Someone else will be happy to buy them off of them, and if their absence creates a need, the market will fill it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I am even more confused. I thought the problem was that religious institutions will not be exempt.

Get back to me after you read this article: http://www.becketfund.org/fact-checking-the-white-house-false-claims-about-the-hhs-mandate/

Read False White House Claim #2

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

Quote:

False White House Claim #2: “Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.”

Truth: This is at most true only of churches that (1) primarily employ people of their own faith; (2) primarily serve people of their own faith; (3) qualify under Section 6033 of the Internal Revenue Code as a “church”; and (4) have as their “purpose” the inculcation of religious belief.

Um, yes - those 4 points describe churches to a T.

Quote:

Even then, these churches only “may” be exempted. Thus churches that view their “purpose” as doing unto others as they would have done unto them won’t qualify.

Yes, because you don't get exempted from laws simply because you made up some bullshit and called it a religion. There are a series of tests that are used by the gov't to determine who has a legitimate exemption and who doesn't, and those are the 4 rules outlined above.

Quote:

And of course this claim avoids the elephant in the room: religious organizations that aren’t houses of worship — like thousands of hospitals, colleges, universities, religious schools, soup kitchens, charities, and others — get absolutely no protection under the White House’s rule.

This is absolutely true, and SHOULD be the case, for exactly the reasons I laid out in the post before. You don't get exempted from the law just b/c you are 'affiliated' with a church.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

There is still something fishy going on.

Who pays for it?

The business itself?

The tax payers?

From the employees pay check?

There’s no such thing as a free service.

2 Replies

@Val Killmore,

Val Killmore wrote:

There is still something fishy going on.

Who pays for it?

The business itself?

The tax payers?

From the employees pay check?

There’s no such thing as a free service.

The insurance companies pay for it. They are happy to do so, because pregnancies and kids are very expensive, and birth control is very cheap. It saves them money in the long run.

None of these things we are talking about here are very expensive, and the only reason you might want to deny them is based on a personal moral decision that shouldn't extend to your employees and their behavior. Fringe benefits (such as insurance) are compensation, no more and no less; your employer shouldn't be allowed to tell you what drugs you can purchase with your health insurance, any more than they should be allowed to tell you what you can purchase with your paycheck.

The church is screaming about this mostly due to the fact that they have failed spectacularly in selling their own parishioners on the idea that these rules should be followed. The vast majority of their own flocks have already chosen to use birth control. The modern catholic church is having a pretty tough times coming to grips with the reality of the world they find themselves in, and such spasms as this are the inevitable result of their attempt to hold on to whatever relevance they can.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

Not to worry. When insurance companies are required to carry children up to a certain age, and are required to accept preexisting conditions, and so forth, the rates eventually reflect the increased costs. The employers frequently share the increased rates with the employees.

You mention separation of church and state, but the First Amendment makes no mention of that. It says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", or words to that effect. Now, if congress exempts a church from a law, is that not a law respecting an establishment of religion?

Now personally, I think of health insurance as a contract between an insurance company and an individual or employer. With that thought, I don't think the government has a bit of business interfering with the contract. We should be able to adjust our coverage to match both our needs and our ability to pay. In other words, you see a "church and state" issue, while I see an interference with contract problem.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

pregnancies and kids are very expensive, and birth control is very cheap. It saves them money in the long run.

Kind of reminds me of Charles Dickens, A Christmas carol. When Scrooge is told that most of the people and children would rather die than go to the work houses, he says that they should do so as to reduce the surplus population!

Surely they know that fewer people in the longer also means less revenue. Less revenue means fewer profits which means insurance companies going out of business.

Maybe that's the Government's end game. Run insurance companies out of business so the government can take over that industry too.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

When insurance companies are required to carry children up to a certain age, and are required to accept preexisting conditions, and so forth, the rates eventually reflect the increased costs. The employers frequently share the increased rates with the employees.

how do you explain the lower costs of insurance premiums as well as medical treatment in countries like Canada?

our premiums (combining public and private coverages) are lower than U.S. private plans - and everybody (except for tourists) is covered

something is seriously whack with U.S. medical and insurance costs

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

Val Killmore wrote:

Quote:
pregnancies and kids are very expensive, and birth control is very cheap. It saves them money in the long run.

Kind of reminds me of Charles Dickens, A Christmas carol. When Scrooge is told that most of the people and children would rather die than go to the work houses, he says that they should do so as to reduce the surplus population!

Surely they know that fewer people in the longer also means less revenue. Less revenue means fewer profits which means insurance companies going out of business.

Maybe that's the Government's end game. Run insurance companies out of business so the government can take over that industry too.

Yeah, I don't think they are too worried about underpopulation hurting their revenue. The flip-side of the increased coverage requirement for insurers was the mandate - that pretty much means they'll be making money for a long, long time.

The government SHOULD run the insurance companies out of business. Health care would cost half of what it currently does if we simply moved to a single-payer model. Just take a look at, yeah, any other industrialized and modern country in the world, if you want to see an example of that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Then tell me, why do a lot of religious institution suggesting that Obama is in violation of the 1st amendment?

It's just not the Catholic Church.

Here we see, Pelosi at her best:

In 1988, Ignatius Press published a well documented book by Jacqueline Kasun, Professor of Economics, titled "The War Against Population". This is an invaluable book for purposes of reference and an understanding of the increasing attacks against the family that we are witnessing today.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

how do you explain the lower costs of insurance premiums as well as medical treatment in countries like Canada?

I can't.

ehBeth wrote:

something is seriously whack with U.S. medical and insurance costs

You are right. I'm sure other examples come to mind, too
[/quote]

0 Replies

Will the HHS mandate pass?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know