Obamacare vs. the Catholic Church

[il Padrino Ute]

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.

Shouldn't any organization have an issue with the government forcing them to do anything?

[Moliere]

Shouldn't any organization have an issue with the government forcing them to do anything?

Well, no, as long as that organization has a say in who runs the government.

But a church that has NFP charities that is being asked to do something against its doctrine seems like a pretty gray issue. It would be like the government forcing JWs to fund birthday parties for Mormon children.

[Moliere]

I have no idea who Doug Kmiec is, but he's not happy about this whole thing.

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/06/when-youve-potentially-lost-do

[Pelado]

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.

The original article that Robin linked indicated that the "mandate" is more of a back door mandate. Rather than an outright mandate to provide health insurance or face penalties, the mandates only applies if there is one or more employee making less than $88,200. In theory, Robin is right that the organizations just have to pay their employees well enough to secure their own individual policies to avoid the mandate or penalties. There will be few organizations - especially among the Catholic not-for-profit groups - for whom this distinction makes any difference since they will be unable to afford paying all their employees more than $88,200 per year. In effect, this is an outright mandate.

[Moliere]

The original article that Robin linked indicated that the "mandate" is more of a back door mandate. Rather than an outright mandate to provide health insurance or face penalties, the mandates only applies if there is one or more employee making less than $88,200. In theory, Robin is right that the organizations just have to pay their employees well enough to secure their own individual policies to avoid the mandate or penalties. There will be few organizations - especially among the Catholic not-for-profit groups - for whom this distinction makes any difference since they will be unable to afford paying all their employees more than $88,200 per year. In effect, this is an outright mandate.

The ACA requires employers (with over 50 employees) to offer health insurance to employees beginning January 1, 2014. It also requires that ALL health insurance policies (beginning August 1, 2011) cover female contraceptives and contraceptive counseling. So if a Catholic NFP has over 50 employees they have to offer health insurance plans to their employees that cover things that are against the Catholic churches doctrine.

I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying that these charities can get around this law by paying everyone at least $88,200 and hope that all the employees just refuse to enroll with the insurance being offered? That way they won't be taxed fined and they also won't be funding contraceptives through insurance premiums? That would leave their entire workforce without health insurance.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

It will be interesting to watch the Obama administration argue this. If they don't back down they'll argue that it's constitutional because it's a generally applicable law to all employers. I'm sure that will play well given that the generally applicable law is both politically unpopular and this specific mandate appeals to a prized democratic constituency. It's potentially even more politically poisonous than the more general argument regarding Obamacare's constitutionality based on the commerce clause.

Aside from the process used to pass the law and the fact it is viewed as federal intrusion into health care decisions, it may now be viewed as a method to dictate towards religion.

[il Padrino Ute]

It will be interesting to watch the Obama administration argue this. If they don't back down they'll argue that it's constitutional because it's a generally applicable law to all employers. I'm sure that will play well given that the generally applicable law is both politically unpopular and this specific mandate appeals to a prized democratic constituency. It's potentially even more politically poisonous than the more general argument regarding Obamacare's constitutionality based on the commerce clause.

Aside from the process used to pass the law and the fact it is viewed as federal intrusion into health care decisions, it may now be viewed as a method to dictate towards religion.

He'll defend it like this:

[YOUTUBE]RsbNN-Pu8zA[/YOUTUBE]

[RobinFinderson]

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.

I am just getting back to this thread and responding to you before I have read the rest of the responses, so my answer might be covered somewhere else. Apologies if I am repeating information.

My points are a summary of the facts presented at the link. The link does not list my points the way I have done. It presents the concept of the employee mandate.

Yes, if a Catholic employer offers insurance, it needs to cover basic reproductive services (contraception) in order to meet the government's definition of 'health insurance.' The ONLY way around that is to simply not offer health insurance, in which case the employer will be liable for a fine IF any of the employees ends up qualifying for government subsidized insurance. The assumption appears to be that if a person is working full-time, they should either receive their health insurance as a benefit, or their salary should be increased to a level where they can afford it on their own. If the nation is going achieve universal health coverage, there is going to have to be some kind of mandate like this. There just isn't any way around it, other than single-payer, for which there just isn't the political will (yet).

[RobinFinderson]

The ACA requires employers (with over 50 employees) to offer health insurance to employees beginning January 1, 2014. It also requires that ALL health insurance policies (beginning August 1, 2011) cover female contraceptives and contraceptive counseling. So if a Catholic NFP has over 50 employees they have to offer health insurance plans to their employees that cover things that are against the Catholic churches doctrine.

I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying that these charities can get around this law by paying everyone at least $88,200 and hope that all the employees just refuse to enroll with the insurance being offered? That way they won't be taxed fined and they also won't be funding contraceptives through insurance premiums? That would leave their entire workforce without health insurance.

Moliere, I'm pretty sure that the employee mandate only kicks in under two conditions: There are fifty or more employees, and at least one of them qualifies for government subsidized health insurance. I'm kind of curious what the fee schedule would be for those employers who opted not to provide coverage. Without a sense of the schedule, it is hard to judge whether or not Catholic employers are making a big stink over nothing.

Anyhow, I can really understand the problem of the individual and employer mandates, but they really seem like the only option that gets us to universal coverage without switching to a single-payer program. Why are people not upset with the mandate that requires hospitals to treat the poor in emergency rooms regardless of their ability to pay? The individual/employer mandate seem to solve the problems that arise from the poor using the nation's ER's as their primary care provider.

[Pelado]

The ACA requires employers (with over 50 employees) to offer health insurance to employees beginning January 1, 2014. It also requires that ALL health insurance policies (beginning August 1, 2011) cover female contraceptives and contraceptive counseling. So if a Catholic NFP has over 50 employees they have to offer health insurance plans to their employees that cover things that are against the Catholic churches doctrine.

I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying that these charities can get around this law by paying everyone at least $88,200 and hope that all the employees just refuse to enroll with the insurance being offered? That way they won't be taxed fined and they also won't be funding contraceptives through insurance premiums? That would leave their entire workforce without health insurance.

I think that's pretty much what the link was saying. As I mentioned, it's an untenable solution because the charitable organizations at issue do not have the resources to pay all their employees that much.

Moliere, I'm pretty sure that the employee mandate only kicks in under two conditions: There are fifty or more employees, and at least one of them qualifies for government subsidized health insurance. I'm kind of curious what the fee schedule would be for those employers who opted not to provide coverage. Without a sense of the schedule, it is hard to judge whether or not Catholic employers are making a big stink over nothing.

Anyhow, I can really understand the problem of the individual and employer mandates, but they really seem like the only option that gets us to universal coverage without switching to a single-payer program. Why are people not upset with the mandate that requires hospitals to treat the poor in emergency rooms regardless of their ability to pay? The individual/employer mandate seem to solve the problems that arise from the poor using the nation's ER's as their primary care provider.

Please see the following link, which describes the law's requirements and shows a few sample scenarios with the resultant fees:

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/Al...0Provision.pdf

The final sample scenario indicates that a company with 32 employees (mostly part-time) could still be subject to a penalty. I'm not sure if that's accurate.

[Moliere]

Moliere, I'm pretty sure that the employee mandate only kicks in under two conditions: There are fifty or more employees, and at least one of them qualifies for government subsidized health insurance. I'm kind of curious what the fee schedule would be for those employers who opted not to provide coverage. Without a sense of the schedule, it is hard to judge whether or not Catholic employers are making a big stink over nothing.

Anyhow, I can really understand the problem of the individual and employer mandates, but they really seem like the only option that gets us to universal coverage without switching to a single-payer program. Why are people not upset with the mandate that requires hospitals to treat the poor in emergency rooms regardless of their ability to pay? The individual/employer mandate seem to solve the problems that arise from the poor using the nation's ER's as their primary care provider.

I don't disagree with you, except that the mandate isn't the real issue by itself. The issue is the requirement that all insurance policies cover contraception. From what I understand, the only health care policies that will be available that don't provide contraception services are the ones offered under the church (because there is an exception for churches). But the NFPs don't have the exception. So even if a NFP employee goes out and gets health care from an exchange, they will have to buy a policy that covers contraception. Also, the NFP (if it employs at least 50 employees) will be required to offer health insurance policies and those policies will have to cover contraception. So at the end of the day, the church is paying for contraception services and there is no out for the church's NFPs.

[RobinFinderson]

I don't disagree with you, except that the mandate isn't the real issue by itself. The issue is the requirement that all insurance policies cover contraception. From what I understand, the only health care policies that will be available that don't provide contraception services are the ones offered under the church (because there is an exception for churches). But the NFPs don't have the exception. So even if a NFP employee goes out and gets health care from an exchange, they will have to buy a policy that covers contraception. Also, the NFP (if it employs at least 50 employees) will be required to offer health insurance policies and those policies will have to cover contraception. So at the end of the day, the church is paying for contraception services and there is no out for the church's NFPs.

Maybe the churches will take some comfort in the fact that they are not paying for contraception services, but rather, they are paying for insurance. The insurance pays for the contraception services, and that is only if the policy holder files a claim for a particular service. I realize this is not such a great distinction, but it might be all they have. The right to worship and believe as one chooses does not include the right to set up NFP's that violate the law of the land. If the Catholic church really wants to pack up its bags and abandon their charitable work in some areas over the fact that they might end up paying, second hand, for reproductive services, then they aren't going to get much sympathy from me. I feel even more strongly about this given that the vast majority of American Catholics are fine with most forms of contraception. The other viable option remains on the table -- the Catholic NFP's can simply pay workers well enough to buy their own insurance, and then the moral dilemma becomes the sole problem of the individual who, if they are Catholic, probably want a policy that includes contraceptive services.

[Pelado]

Maybe the churches will take some comfort in the fact that they are not paying for contraception services, but rather, they are paying for insurance. The insurance pays for the contraception services, and that is only if the policy holder files a claim for a particular service. I realize this is not such a great distinction, but it might be all they have. The right to worship and believe as one chooses does not include the right to set up NFP's that violate the law of the land. If the Catholic church really wants to pack up its bags and abandon their charitable work in some areas over the fact that they might end up paying, second hand, for reproductive services, then they aren't going to get much sympathy from me. I feel even more strongly about this given that the vast majority of American Catholics are fine with most forms of contraception. The other viable option remains on the table -- the Catholic NFP's can simply pay workers well enough to buy their own insurance, and then the moral dilemma becomes the sole problem of the individual who, if they are Catholic, probably want a policy that includes contraceptive services.

This is not a viable option.

[RobinFinderson]

Please see the following link, which describes the law's requirements and shows a few sample scenarios with the resultant fees:

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/Al...0Provision.pdf

The final sample scenario indicates that a company with 32 employees (mostly part-time) could still be subject to a penalty. I'm not sure if that's accurate.

Thanks for the find, Pelado. Those penalties don't really seem all that onerous. That obviously depends on the nature of the business, but if a company is operating on such tight margins that it can not afford to pay a single person's salary (the penalty) in order to offset the nation's investment into that business's healthy workforce, then they might be better off downsizing to get below the 50 person limit.

Yes, I noticed the part-time scenario, which is interesting. From the vantage of a taxpayer who is going to be invested in these people's healthcare, I'm glad to see that businesses can't get off the hook entirely by switching to a part-time labor strategy.

[RobinFinderson]

This is not a viable option.

You obviously can't say that categorically.

But looking at the penalties you shared, it seems like it would be way better, financially, to just pay the penalty and then wash one's hands of the whole thing.