Obamacare vs. the Catholic Church

[Moliere]

Looks like Obamacare requires that all health insurance plans, except those offered by churches, cover the cost of birth control. Catholics (well, staunch Catholics) aren't too happy about the whole requirement thing as they would rather not fund something that is against their religious beliefs. Looks like even though church were scoped out of the bill, any other religious institution does not have a similar exemption, so basically Catholic run charities, hospitals, and other nonprofits will be funding birth control. The White House is drawing the distinction between forcing someone to pay for something and forcing them to use the services. That's an interesting line to draw and I wonder if it will work.

In any case, this could be the issue that unites the religious right behind Romney, if/when he gets the nomination.

[byu71]

Looks like Obamacare requires that all health insurance plans, except those offered by churches, cover the cost of birth control. Catholics (well, staunch Catholics) aren't too happy about the whole requirement thing as they would rather not fund something that is against their religious beliefs. Looks like even though church were scoped out of the bill, any other religious institution does not have a similar exemption, so basically Catholic run charities, hospitals, and other nonprofits will be funding birth control. The White House is drawing the distinction between forcing someone to pay for something and forcing them to use the services. That's an interesting line to draw and I wonder if it will work.

In any case, this could be the issue that unites the religious right behind Romney, if/when he gets the nomination.

One could argue the government under the Obama method is replacing charities. The government is going to tell charities how they are to operate and who they are allowed to provide services for.

I would also argue that the tax policies proposed for the rich will have an impact on charities. I know several people who are going to leave a chunk of money to charities when they die. If they pay a lot more in taxes, there will be less left to the charities.

I would love to see a proposal that billionaires can only leave so much to charities and the rest has to go to the government. Just so I could hear how Warren Buffet felt about it.

Does anyone know how much money given by the Gates foundation goes to help here in the US and how much goes to help outside the US?

[beefytee]

Catholic chaplains were ordered not to read a Catholic letter at army services this weekend.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ryn-jean-lopez

[Moliere]

Catholic chaplains were ordered not to read a Catholic letter at army services this weekend.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ryn-jean-lopez

Yikes! Seems like a clear violation of free speech. At least the Army agreed as much, but the damage may have been already done. Nothing like a violation of free speech and a suppression of the freedom of religion to make a rallying cry for the religious right.

[RobinFinderson]

Through the discussion of this healthcare issue in a different thread, I have become a bit more knowledgeable about what this means to Catholic employers. The law does NOT require Catholic employers to provide health insurance that includes the controversial services. Here are all of the possible outcomes for the Catholic employer with more than 50 employees on the payroll:

• Catholic Employer provides 'health insurance' as defined by the US Government, and violates Catholic tradition.
• Catholic Employer does not provide 'health insurance' as defined by the US Government. In this case, if all employees make a sufficiently large salary to disqualify them from purchasing discounted government health insurance, then the Catholic Employer is not penalized at all, and no Catholic tradition has been violated.
• If, however, even one employee's salary is low enough to qualify the employee for the government discounted 'health insurance,' then the Catholic Employer will be fined. I don't know what the fine structure looks like.

So the Catholic Employer has two real options that do not violate Catholic tradition. They can either pay their employees well enough to avoid paying a fine, or they can pay the fine. I guess a third option, though I don't think it would be realistic, is for the Catholic Employer to start hiring Catholics exclusively, and serving Catholics exclusively. But that probably isn't a viable choice for a hospital. A fourth option is to get out of these NFP businesses.

[TripletDaddy]

Yikes! Seems like a clear violation of free speech. At least the Army agreed as much, but the damage may have been already done. Nothing like a violation of free speech and a suppression of the freedom of religion to make a rallying cry for the religious right.

Please walk us through your understanding of free speech, paying specific attention to the government speech exception. I know the answer, of course, but await your analysis.

[Moliere]

Please walk us through your understanding of free speech, paying specific attention to the government speech exception. I know the answer, of course, but await your analysis.

Yeah, sorry for taking the hard line on that one. I should have figured that the hardliner of hardlines would come down on it. I probably should have said that it looks enough like a violation of free speech against a church to incite enough revolt within the religious right.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if it really was a restriction of free speech or not. What matters is the perception, and having a government employee tell the pastor of a church what he can/cannot say looks really bad to a group of religious people.

[Moliere]

Through the discussion of this healthcare issue in a different thread, I have become a bit more knowledgeable about what this means to Catholic employers. The law does NOT require Catholic employers to provide health insurance that includes the controversial services. Here are all of the possible outcomes for the Catholic employer with more than 50 employees on the payroll:

• Catholic Employer provides 'health insurance' as defined by the US Government, and violates Catholic tradition.
• Catholic Employer does not provide 'health insurance' as defined by the US Government. In this case, if all employees make a sufficiently large salary to disqualify them from purchasing discounted government health insurance, then the Catholic Employer is not penalized at all, and no Catholic tradition has been violated.
• If, however, even one employee's salary is low enough to qualify the employee for the government discounted 'health insurance,' then the Catholic Employer will be fined. I don't know what the fine structure looks like.

So the Catholic Employer has two real options that do not violate Catholic tradition. They can either pay their employees well enough to avoid paying a fine, or they can pay the fine. I guess a third option, though I don't think it would be realistic, is for the Catholic Employer to start hiring Catholics exclusively, and serving Catholics exclusively. But that probably isn't a viable choice for a hospital. A fourth option is to get out of these NFP businesses.

Do you have a link for the bolded item above? I've never seen that option presented and it's even not listed in the White House explanation. If it is true, that seems like a very unworkable solution, especially for a NFP entity.

[RobinFinderson]

Do you have a link for the bolded item above? I've never seen that option presented and it's even not listed in the White House explanation. If it is true, that seems like a very unworkable solution, especially for a NFP entity.

I chose to become better informed by reviewing THIS anti-Obamacare site which seemed to present some of the details of the employer mandate in better detail than I was reading here on CUF, or in other editorials.

[Moliere]

I chose to become better informed by reviewing THIS anti-Obamacare site which seemed to present some of the details of the employer mandate in better detail than I was reading here on CUF, or in other editorials.

So you don't have a link supporting what you said above?

From what I'm reading there is an acceptable level of required insurance, which includes coverage for contraception. If you don't meet the level of insurance required by the government (meaning you exclude contraception) then you will be fined. So the Catholic NFPs are then either required to fund contraception through insurance premiums (regardless of the salaries they pay employees) or pay the fine.

I'm not saying (nor have I said) that I agree with the Catholic church's stance. I just think it could have some repercussions on the image of Pres. Obama as many of the major religions are using this to further paint him as hostile towards religion.

[il Padrino Ute]

Obamacare: violating citizens rights because Obama demands it.

[Pelado]

So you don't have a link supporting what you said above?

From what I'm reading there is an acceptable level of required insurance, which includes coverage for contraception. If you don't meet the level of insurance required by the government (meaning you exclude contraception) then you will be fined. So the Catholic NFPs are then either required to fund contraception through insurance premiums (regardless of the salaries they pay employees) or pay the fine.

I'm not saying (nor have I said) that I agree with the Catholic church's stance. I just think it could have some repercussions on the image of Pres. Obama as many of the major religions are using this to further paint him as hostile towards religion.

According to his link, the mandate only applies to companies who have at least one employee who qualifies for subsidized insurance on the exchange.

As described at http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/Al...0Provision.pdf, an employee could qualify for subsidized assistance if the household income is less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, which would currently be $88,200. So as long as these not-for-profit entities pay all of their employees at least $88,200 per year, they would not be subject to any mandate penalties.

[Moliere]

According to his link, the mandate only applies to companies who have at least one employee who qualifies for subsidized insurance on the exchange.

As described at http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/Al...0Provision.pdf, an employee could qualify for subsidized assistance if the household income is less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, which would currently be $88,200. So as long as these not-for-profit entities pay all of their employees at least $88,200 per year, they would not be subject to any mandate penalties.

So if a company has over 50 employees and all the employees are paid at least $88,200 a year then the company can offer any type of insurance they want and not be penalized? Or are the certain requirements to what is offered under the plans the company gives to its employees? Could they offer a high deductible plan or a plan that doesn't cover contraception?

Also, how workable is this exception? How many companies pay their administrative staff at least $88,200 a year....well other than Berkshire Hathaway. This seems like an unworkable exception and one that could be challenged.

[Moliere]

This article seems to contradict what Robin and Pelado are saying:

The Obama Administration recently reaffirmed a rule under Obamacare that requires many religious employers to provide health care coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related education and counseling. On the grounds that certain FDA-approved contraceptive methods can sometimes “cause the demise of embryos both after and before uterine implantation,” many groups also believe that the rule forces them to cover abortion.

I guess I"m just tryign to figure out if the Catholic church really should have an issue with this or if they are politicking.

[Moliere]

This article seems to contradict what Robin and Pelado are saying:



I guess I"m just tryign to figure out if the Catholic church really should have an issue with this or if they are politicking.

Guess I should have gone to Wikipedia first and looks like church should have an issue with Obamacare:

The ACA mandates that new insurance plans beginning on or after August 1, 2011 include basic preventive care services without cost-sharing[153] . Woman-specific preventive services that will be covered without cost sharing include gestational diabetes screening, well-woman visits, female contraceptives and contraceptive counseling, and breastfeeding support and supplies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...nges_for_Women