Holy S**t! Pope resigns

LarryC wrote:

I'm not saying anyone should not obey the law but escape prosecution. Pretty sure I said otherwise.

You stated that if the organization purchased medical insurance they disagreed with they were hypocrites. My main point is that following the law does not make you a hypocrite in most cases. If organization A says "Law 1 is bad, and organization B should break it!" while not breaking it, then they are hypocrites. But if organization A just says "Law 1 is bad, and I wish it wasn't the law, but it is so I am going to follow it" then they are not hypocrites.

Similarly, a libertarian can take receive Social Security without being a hypocrite. He did believe that he should have been forced to pay into it, but he was. Getting his money back after being forced to part with it is completely rational.

LarryC wrote:

I'm still not seeing numbers here. How much would an employee have to pay for additional coverage?

How is that relevant exactly?

Yonder:

Disagree there. On some level, if you just mildly object, following can be tolerable. On others, less so. At some point, it becomes better to disobey and accept the legal consequences, especially if you think the law grossly immoral and inhuman.

The cost is relevant. We're not talking about the Church making a law to force people. We're talking about compensation packages.

The cost is relevant.

Why?

Malor wrote:
The cost is relevant.

Why?

Let's say that additional insurance for contraception services only costs $1. If that were the case, we shouldn't even be having this discussion. It's practically free for everyone at that point. The entire point you're drawing that this is functionally unavailable hinges on cost. So quote me some numbers.

Coverage for contraception only, to my best knowledge, is not available to individual buyers.

LarryC wrote:

Disagree there. On some level, if you just mildly object, following can be tolerable. On others, less so. At some point, it becomes better to disobey and accept the legal consequences, especially if you think the law grossly immoral and inhuman.

The cost is relevant. We're not talking about the Church making a law to force people. We're talking about compensation packages.

The law requires that any employer (Catholic or not) who provides health insurance must offer their employees an insurance plan that offer contraceptives without an copay.

This is because the ACA is trying to eliminate copayments for a wide variety of tests in order to improve the general health and wellbeing of the population. This is because even having a copay of $20 might prevent someone from getting a cholesterol or diabetes screening and it would be much better to have that health issue identified and treated than not.

Contraceptives fall under the umbrella of preventative services for women that all insurance plans now have to offer.

It's a bit of hyperbole to claim that the above is a "grossly immoral and inhuman" law.

The Obama administration took the extra step and carved out an exception for church employees. But that exception rightly doesn't apply to Catholic run schools, hospitals, or other organizations where the Church can't essentially guarantee that only Catholics would be hired.

It is also key that you understand that the Church doesn't actually buy contraceptives. The law doesn't require a bishop or cardinal to go down to the drug store and personally buy the contraceptives a Church employee might want and pay for it with a Church check.

The Church simply contributes a set amount of money per employee and that money is then used to purchase a health insurance policy that has to offer no copay contraceptives by law.

The money the Church contributes is considered part of an employee's compensation package. That means the Church literally has no say as to how it's used because it's not their money at that point.

If the Church was really so concerned about its money not being used to buy contraceptives, then it would require all of its employees to sign a document verifying that they would never use any part of their Church-paid salary to buy contraceptives. But they don't do that because it's completely ludicrous and completely illegal.

That makes the Church's hissy fit over what services their employees might access through their healthcare insurance even more ludicrous. That's because it's not the Church's healthcare insurance policy. It's the employees' policies. And it is frankly none of the Church's (or any employers') goddamned business which medical services its employees get with their healthcare insurance.

Malor:

Seems like that's a marketplace issue. What about ala carte coverage? How much would that take out of the monthly paycheck, on average?

It's not available, Larry. Either you get coverage through your employer, or you basically don't get it.

The few plans that are out there for individuals are insanely expensive, or cover almost nothing.

There are no "give me coverage, but only for contraception" options. Or there are, but it's called "paying for contraception".

Planned Parenthood says $15-$50 per month for oral contraceptives, and exams may cost $35-$250 before getting a prescription. The lower ends there are probably subsidized programs for low income people. And, of course, PP is getting defunded and chased out of more conservative places because many right-wing conservatives consider them to be nothing but an abortion provider.

Wiki answers has prices in similar ranges.

IUDs can be cheaper over time, but cost far more up front.

Thanks, Hypatian. That's the information I was looking for. $25 a month seems fairly reachable for individuals likely to be employed by a Catholic employer. How is it denial to ask employees who want these products to pay for them?

Larry, regarding the cost. I think it's not being pointed enough here that the health insurance coverage, being customarily provided here through your employer, is not a gift and not an act of benevolence on your employer's behalf. It's a part of your negotiated compensation. Same as salary and vacation days. It's a the employer's part of the deal. Now, for the employer to say that "I am going to provide you with 60% of the premiums, as long as it does NOT cover the anesthesia for your dental work because it cuts against my Scientologist religious beliefs" -- or anything similar to that effect -- is one short stone throw away from outright defrauding the employee.

On the subject of recent papal "benevolence" towards gays...

http://www.skynews.com.au/national/a...

LarryC wrote:

How is it denial to ask employees who want these products to pay for them?

Because the US government said so, Larry. That's why I said pages ago that this is a "render unto Caesar" thing.

We passed a law that said insurance companies can't require additional payments for a boatload of preventative health tests, screenings, and treatments. They have to be included in the insurance policy.

Contraceptives are included in that list of preventative health services for women because there are a host of valid medical reasons some women need to take the pill that doesn't involve frustrating god's plan to be fruitful and multiply.

Gorilla.800.lbs:

Thank you for clarifying. I thought that I was already getting a good grasp of that. I don't think it's fraud if the employer if upfront about what is and isn't covered by the salary that they're offering. The main issue I see with that is that the compensation package may fall short of minimum wage if additional ala carte health costs are tallied into the overall package.

I think it isn't being emphasize enough here that jobs are not a right and whatever compensation package you offer is a legal contract between employee and employer. An employer who offers a health package that includes contraception is offering contraception services as payment for work, even if you don't avail of it. If that's against his religion, I can't see why he ought to be forced to provide payment that way.

Contraception is just not f*cking pills, Larry.

Well, for one thing that's a cost that male employees do not generally bear. For another, I'm pretty sure that janitorial staff at Catholic organizations don't get paid better than those working anywhere else--and at low incomes, $25 a month is nothing to sneeze at. It means people will choose to do without and use other less reliable methods to try to avoid pregnancy, so as to be able to feed and clothe the kid they do have. For another another, this includes situations when the contraception isn't even being provided for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

And has been noted before, this isn't a case of "we don't want to pay for it". The insurance costs no less without contraception, this is just an extra constraint that the Catholic organization places upon the insurer's plan. The money the org pays into the insurance plan? It goes into a big pool that, surprise, pays for other peoples' contraception.

Finally: if the employer is not allowed by law to require their employees to belong to a certain religion, what gives them a right to interfere on religious grounds with the otherwise professionally privileged and private relationship their employees and their employees' doctors? If there were cost savings for not covering some things, that *might* be excusable. But for the employer to specify this constraint on something that not only they would never notice but would never ordinarily be allowed to even ask about?

That just doesn't make any sense.

And of course, it's a symptom of the way we handle health care through employers (making it taxed less than ordinary pay) that there's even this sense that the employer has any rights to determine medical coverage at all.

Malor wrote:

Contraception is just not f*cking pills, Larry.

giggle *snort*

Malor wrote:

Contraception is just not f*cking pills, Larry.

If so, tally up the additional costs with the mathematical probability of occurrence. Also, I don't see the need to swear at me. I'm not swearing at you.

Ego Man wrote:
Malor wrote:

Contraception is just not f*cking pills, Larry.

giggle *snort*

Heh. That's more Viagra, huh?

Hypatian:

One of the issues I see here, is that there is a whole lot of rhetoric about how the Church is evil and how the actions of its members ought to be suppressed and demonized. I see this as the main thrust of many of the objections here about the health plan issue. It seems as if the entire point isn't to benefit the employee but to take every opportunity to attack the Church and its people.

I can think of a proposal that gives both the employee and the employer what they want, and it seems stupidly simple.

LarryC wrote:

I think it isn't being emphasize enough here that jobs are not a right and whatever compensation package you offer is a legal contract between employee and employer. An employer who offers a health package that includes contraception is offering contraception services as payment for work, even if you don't avail of it. If that's against his religion, I can't see why he ought to be forced to provide payment that way.

What part of "the US has made it illegal for insurance policies to require additional payments for things like contraceptives" don't you understand, Larry?

LarryC wrote:

It seems as if the entire point isn't to benefit the employee but to take every opportunity to attack the Church and it's people.

Why don't you take the Pope's recent advice and stop obsessing about birth control?

OG_Slinger:

What part of "the US has made it illegal for insurance policies to require additional payments for things like contraceptives" don't you understand, Larry?

Nothing that I can tell, and it seems like nothing that you can tell, either. This is a form of phrasing that I increasingly perceive is meant purely to insult. Is that your intention? If so, clarify and we can drop it.

LarryC wrote:

Hypatian:

One of the issues I see here, is that there is a whole lot of rhetoric about how the Church is evil and how the actions of its members ought to be suppressed and demonized. I see this as the main thrust of many of the objections here about the health plan issue. It seems as if the entire point isn't to benefit the employee but to take every opportunity to attack the Church and its people.

I can think of a proposal that gives both the employee and the employer what they want, and it seems stupidly simple.

Okay. Please explain how any of that is relevant to what I said? I'm pretty sure I didn't demonize anybody.

And please suggest your proposal, since I haven't heard anything like that yet.

I wasn't including you there, Hypatian. It just seems to me that a lot of objectors here have an axe to grind against Catholics and take every opportunity to do so, even if happens to be beside the point. That doesn't sound like a very "freedom of religion" sort of behavior.

As for the solution, it's this. Since the law is what it is, the Church is seeking amendments to make it so employers will not have to endorse nor offer coverage they do not agree with. Why not just say yes to that? You can amend it on the back end by stipulating that insurers have to provide the necessary coverage anyway, as a public interest, even if it's not part of the coverage any employers might purchase.

Freedom of religion also includes everyone else's freedom from your religion. Something the Christian Right in the US seems to have forgotten... all the while complaining about how they are a repressed (majority) group in the US everytime a vote doesn't go the way they want it to for reasons of pesky things like civil rights.

I would say, minus the occasional dig at Catholicism for things like the news story above from Mike and discussions of how they are one of the largest offending organizations of trying to codify religious belief into law... more often than not, we are talking about ghe Christian activist right... at least when discussing the US.

LarryC wrote:

Nothing that I can tell, and it seems like nothing that you can tell, either. This is a form of phrasing that I increasingly perceive is meant purely to insult. Is that your intention? If so, clarify and we can drop it.

If you actually understood that the US has made it illegal for insurance companies not to cover things like contraceptives then you wouldn't have spent the past half dozen posts trying to postulate an alternative, theoretical healthcare system that let Catholics (or any other religious group) deny medical treatments or coverage to their employees based solely on their beliefs.

The US government didn't do this to "attack the Church and its people." It did this because it wants Americans to be healthier and get the medical treatments and services they need. That's why the law included a whole raft of preventative medical services that insurance companies cannot charge extra for or require a copayment.

The law also specifically addresses some gobstoppingly stupid things that have crept into our healthcare system, like insurance companies fully paying for a man's little blue wang pill, but requiring women to pay for their breast and cervical cancer screenings and contraceptives. In other words, the ACA is trying to inject a little more equality into our healthcare system.

I hoped that you would understand the health policy intent of this law being a doctor and all. But apparently you can't see beyond contraceptives, which is a shame.

My phrasing reflects my level of frustration at your unwillingness to understand this, your insistence that this somehow irretrievably harms Catholics (90% of which use contraceptives against the Church's express wishes anyway), and, recently, the cloak of persecution complex you've wrapped around your argument. Any "attacks" you see against the Church and its believers are only in your mind.

So the goal of this entire program is to provide a comprehensive health care standard to increase the total level of health and fitness of the United States of America, a country who's health lags behind that of most other developed countries, by helping to bring access to the most basic procedures and care more in line with those other developed countries.

A particular organization has a problem with some things in that health care standard, deciding that they have a better idea of what medical procedures are important to include than the determination of dozens of different countries which have set up wildly successful health care systems.

One choice is to tell that organization that they should just follow the rules like everyone else.

The other choice is to say "man, those guys have a good point. Why should, like, Doctors get to tell us what medical procedures are important. We should all get to choose what medicine our employees get! Why have a national medical standard when we could have a McDonald's standard, and a Pepsi standard, and a Coke standard, and Boeing gets to write an insurance coverage claim, and Microsoft, and Chick Filla, and the Lower East Side School District, and the Catholic Church, and the Firefighter Department 726, and Dell, and Barnes and Noble.

"The entire point of this law was too help equalize and standardize health care available to all US citizens regardless of job and income level, and obviously the best way to do that is to let every single employer rewrite his employees insurance claims for any reason!"

It just seems to me that a lot of objectors here have an axe to grind against Catholics and take every opportunity to do so,

As far as I can see, most of us don't give a hoot about Catholics or Catholicism. We just don't think that 'religious freedom' includes denying medical coverage to your employees.

The employees are supposed to be the ones with freedoms, not abstract organizations. They should be free to abstain from contraceptives if they choose, but they should equally be free to use them, as with any other medical procedure.

edit: and note that I was really thinking about Hobby Lobby, not the Catholic Church.

Malor wrote:
It just seems to me that a lot of objectors here have an axe to grind against Catholics and take every opportunity to do so,

As far as I can see, most of us don't give a hoot about Catholics or Catholicism. We just don't think that 'religious freedom' includes denying medical coverage to your employees.

The employees are supposed to be the ones with freedoms, not abstract organizations. They should be free to abstain from contraceptives if they choose, but they should equally be free to use them, as with any other medical procedure.

The Church here appears to be fighting for the right of employers to offer the compensations they feel reflect their values. This is a rehash of a point I already made along these lines. It appears as if the stuff I post is kind of incidental to the bashing. I'll let myself out if I'm unnecessary.