New Obamacare Regulations Outrage Catholic Groups

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
This has been mentioned in several threads but since it touches on a few OT hot topics it seemed threadworthy.

New regulations issued by the Dept. of Health and Human Services require employers who offer health-care coverage to their employees to include coverage for contraception. While there is a religious exemption, such that a church, mosque, or synagogue would not be required to offer contraception coverage, the exemption is not broad enough to cover some church-affiliated employers such as Catholic Charities.

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department adopted the rule to improve health care for women. Last year, an advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government, recommended including birth control on the list of covered services, partly because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies. The regulation includes a religious exemption if an organization qualifies. Under that provision, an employer generally will be considered religious if its main purpose is spreading religious beliefs, and if it largely employs and serves people of the same faith. That means a Catholic parish likely would qualify for a religious exemption; a large church-run soup kitchen probably would not.

Employers that fail to provide health insurance coverage under the federal law could be fined $2,000 per employee per year. The bishops' domestic anti-poverty agency, Catholic Charities, says it employs 70,000 people nationwide. The fine for the University of Notre Dame, the most prominent Catholic school in the country, could be in the millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

This has caused considerable consternation from Catholic groups:

Bishops in more than 140 dioceses issued statements that were read at Mass last weekend. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., called the requirement "a radical incursion on the part of our government into freedom of conscience." Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote that "the Obama administration was essentially saying 'to hell with you,' particularly to the Catholic community by dismissing our beliefs, our religious freedom and our freedom of conscience."
Click to expand...

In his speech after his Florida primary spanking Newt Gingrich accused Obama of waging a "war against religion."

More here.

To what extent, if any, should religiously-affiliated institutions be exempt from laws that apply to everyone else? (It'd be nice if this thread could focus on the topic at hand and not the standard "sky fairy lol"/"atheists have no morals" back-and-forth.)

Update:

Looks like Obama is caving (thanks to Bulbo Urethral Baggins):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/story/2012-02-10/obama-birth-control/53036006/1

Senior administration officials tell The Associated Press that President Obama on Friday will announce that religious employers will not have to cover birth control for their employees after all. He will demand instead that insurance companies will be the ones ultimately responsible for providing free contraception.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what it means that the employer won't be required to cover it but the insurance plans will. The employer is still ultimately the one providing the plan.
 
Dude Abides said:
To what extent, if any, should religiously-affiliated institutions be exempt from laws that apply to everyone else? (It'd be nice if this thread could focus on the topic at hand and not the standard "sky fairy lol"/"atheists have no morals" back-and-forth.)
Click to expand...

No exemption.

Don't like it? Then get out of the health-care business.
 
I don't understand their problem. It means they have to cover it... but shouldn't they not have to worry about any of their members actually applying for coverage on contraceptives?
 
You know, some women need to be on contraceptives to regulate their periods and hormonal balance.

It's not like anyone is forced to take them, either. I hate this shit.
 
Being anti-contraceptive is basically being anti-women's rights. Congrats Catholic church.
 
Ferrio said:
I don't understand their problem. It means they have to cover it... but shouldn't they not have to worry about any of their members actually applying for coverage on contraceptives?
Click to expand...

The secretary in the office at a branch of Catholic Charities might not be Catholic and might want it.
 
It was also relayed from the President in a NPR story that something like 90-95% of Catholic women use contraceptives in their lifetime. Still playing the denial game, which is nothing new.
 
"obamacare" Come on, man.

I think it's a perfectly defensible rule. There was a story in the Times about a graduate student at Georgetown who needed birth control pills to deal with her polycystic ovaries, but couldn't get them through Georgetown because of their religious affiliation, and couldn't afford them herself at $100 a month. The cyst ruptured and she had to have an ovary removed and now she'll require fertility treatment if she ever wants to have kids. That's unconscionable. An organization that's providing services to a broad group of people who may not share that organizations beliefs should have to comply with the law. If churches want to deny necessary services to their members, then whatever. Universities and hospitals--absolutely not.

I misstated the story slightly, here's the link.
 
The leaders of the Catholic Church are so irrelevant. They love getting upset about shit most of their followers use/do to begin with.
 
If only the Catholic Church ever got outraged about their priests abusing little kids.

I think it's a perfectly defensible reason. There was a story in the Times about a graduate student at Georgetown who needed birth control pills to deal with her polycystic ovaries, but couldn't get them through Georgetown because of their religious affiliation, and couldn't afford them herself at $100 a month. The cyst ruptured and she had to have an ovary removed and now she'll require fertility treatment if she ever wants to have kids. That's unconscionable. An organization that's providing services to a broad group of people who may not share that organizations beliefs should have to comply with the law. If churches want to deny necessary services to their members, then whatever. Universities and hospitals--absolutely not.
Click to expand...

Exactly, this has nothing to do with promoting sex. It is a simple case of let's cover birth control under insurance so that it helps improve female health and avoid unwanted pregnancies. The Church should actually be supporting this.
 
They shouldn't be required to offer birth control. No company should actually, but one that goes contrary to the religious belief (Regardless of how whacky we may think it is) should not be required.

Hopefully, they can explain that the only reason they are doing this is because Obama is making them and get in a religious rant about it.
 
JGS said:
They shouldn't be required to offer birth control. No company should actually, but one that goes contrary to the religious belief (Regardless of how whacky we may think it is) should not be required.

Hopefully, they can explain that the only reason they are doing this is because Obama is making them and get in a religious rant about it.
Click to expand...
Even if someone working for them under their plan requires contraceptives and does not share their beliefs about said treatment?
 
Reminds me of this:

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/catholics_need_to_preach_what_we_practice/singleton/

"Let’s make a couple of things clear here. Obviously, the law won’t force Catholics to use contraception. And 98 percent of Catholics already practice birth control (and not the “natural family planning” kind), according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. It’s not as though Catholics are an endangered minority of true believers being forced to transgress a fervently held and widely practiced church rule. This battle is over a Catholic Church teaching that even Catholics ignore almost unanimously."
 
Honestly, my problem isn't that they're trying to be exempted, my problem is they're trying to be exempted while being a tax exempt organization. Thats my problem when any organization wants exemption from a particular regulation based on a religious reason.
 
I deal with implementing this kind of coverage on a daily basis and I'll offer up a few points:

1) The law exempts religious organizations, so churches would not have to implement this coverage.
2) It does not just force companies to cover contraceptives, but to do so at no cost to the employee (i.e. $0 copay)
3) The government is downright impossible to get a straight answer from for very simple questions - the result of passing laws without understanding the implications, for instance:

-Are all contraceptives $0?
-Does it include coverage for over-the-counter items, such as condoms as long as the physician writes a prescription for them?
-What if a generic is available and the member wants the brand, which is 4-5X more expensive than the generic?
-What if a group covers contraceptives already, but doesn't cover some of them? Do they now have to cover those as well?

These are all very simple questions, but HHS refuses to give a straight answer on.
 
Alucrid said:
Even if someone working for them under their plan requires contraceptives and does not share their beliefs about said treatment?
Click to expand...
Sure, this is about what the company wants to do. If an employee wants to work somewhere that offers free cheap BC pills, let them go find that place. Family planning is not even remotely a responsibility of employers, it's a perk offered to retain employees. At least it used to be.
 
Kosmo said:
I deal with implementing this kind of coverage on a daily basis and I'll offer up a few points:

1) The law exempts religious organizations, so churches would not have to implement this coverage.
2) It does not just force companies to cover contraceptives, but to do so at no cost to the employee (i.e. $0 copay)
3) The government is downright impossible to get a straight answer from for very simple questions - the result of passing laws without understanding the implications, for instance:

-Are all contraceptives $0?
-Does it include coverage for over-the-counter items, such as condoms as long as the physician writes a prescription for them?
-What if a generic is available and the member wants the brand, which is 4-5X more expensive than the generic?
-What if a group covers contraceptives already, but doesn't cover some of them? Do they now have to cover those as well?

These are all very simple questions, but HHS refuses to give a straight answer on.
Click to expand...

With that being said the RCC's beef is with covering contraceptives in general, from what I understand.
 
Doesn't the healthcare act allow for states to opt out of this if they choose. Thought I read that Washington state is working on this right now and as of last September, 12 states had already done this. I don't see an issue with this at all since it basically says a state doesn't have to partake in this if their legislature decides to pass the exception. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

Edit:

I also thought the pool of money that went towards these treatments also came out of a separate pool of money from the insurance that is only filled by either the employer or the employee. Was thinking this additional pool is what companies are supposed to setup if their state decides to require them per the health care act.
 
Dude Abides said:
I'm not going to put "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" or an acronym that nobody will understand in a thread title.

For better or worse, that's its popular name. Deal with it whiners.
Click to expand...
Heaven forbid people should have to learn what the legislation is called. Do you think raising taxes is "class warfare," too? I don't think you should just concede to Republican branding.

JGS said:
Sure, this is about what the company wants to do. If an employee wants to work somewhere that offers free cheap BC pills, let them go find that place. Family planning is not even remotely a responsibility of employers, it's a perk offered to retain employees. At least it used to be.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that birth control is now required to be covered by any comprehensive health insurance plan.

razielim said:
Doesn't the healthcare act allow for states to opt out of this if they choose. Thought I read that Washington state is working on this right now and as of last September, 12 states had already done this. I don't see an issue with this at all since it basically says a state doesn't have to partake in this if their legislature decides to pass the exception. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.
Click to expand...
They can "opt out," but they have to meet minimum benchmarks for coverage and cost.
 
Officerrob said:
Whining over contraception in 2012? Eat a dick catholic church. Just make sure it's over 18 years old this time
Click to expand...

Game...Set...and Match
 
Contraception is a valid way to regulate public health. If an employer does not want to assist in regulating public health, they should lose their right to do business in the US. Religious beliefs should not hold back the protection and progress of our citizenship.
 
Pissed that various Christian groups have to keep embarrassing the rest of us by being anti-contraception. Anti-abortion, sure, but being anti-contraception is pretty much indefensible and makes you look really stupid.
 
Mumei said:
Reminds me of this:

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/catholics_need_to_preach_what_we_practice/singleton/

"Let’s make a couple of things clear here. Obviously, the law won’t force Catholics to use contraception. And 98 percent of Catholics already practice birth control (and not the “natural family planning” kind), according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. It’s not as though Catholics are an endangered minority of true believers being forced to transgress a fervently held and widely practiced church rule. This battle is over a Catholic Church teaching that even Catholics ignore almost unanimously."
Click to expand...

Ahahaha, this is hilarious and awesome. They need to fuck off with the anti-contraceptive bullshit.
 
Kosmo said:
Contraceptives are very cheap now with all the generics (most under $30) - so for most, it's not really an issue if you have coverage or not.
Click to expand...

Yes, most are under $30 but that doesn't matter, or at least it shouldn't.

Again, my problem is for an organization who receives tax exemption shouldn't be able to use their religious ideology to decide what to and what not to cover. I'd be ok with them being able to refuse it if they weren't receiving the tax exemption status.
 
If Obama would have taken it all the way and actually fought for a single payer public option this would likely be a non-issue.
 
JGS said:
Sure, this is about what the company wants to do. If an employee wants to work somewhere that offers free cheap BC pills, let them go find that place. Family planning is not even remotely a responsibility of employers, it's a perk offered to retain employees. At least it used to be.
Click to expand...

It a fairly important aspect of health care, particularly for women.

Invisible_Insane said:
Heaven forbid people should have to learn what the legislation is called. Do you think raising taxes is "class warfare," too? I don't think you should just concede to Republican branding.
Click to expand...

I had hoped our obsession with branding would have died in the mid-00s. If the bill winds up popular in the end the label will help us, not hurt us. Anyway, for purposes of thread titles, I felt it best to go with the most well-known and concise name. I don't think too much harm was done. I doubt Kosmo would have even participated had I not flashed the bat-signal.
 
http://www.getreligion.org/2012/01/the-times-the-white-house-catholic-colleges

Get Religion, the conservative version of Killing The Buddha, got the awful coverage right.

It's the schools that I find most sympathetic. I get the emotional counterargument when it comes to other employers, but Catholics have long since proved that they offer excellent education quality and have, in select places, created uniquely Catholic environments in a hostile world. I genuinely don't understand this except as an attempt to motivate voters.

Drakeon said:
Ahahaha, this is hilarious and awesome. They need to fuck off with the anti-contraceptive bullshit.
Click to expand...

While some are surely using this as a, "NOBAMA," moment, this is about the minority of authentic institutions that do exist.

Officerrob said:
Whining over contraception in 2012? Eat a dick catholic church. Just make sure it's over 18 years old this time
Click to expand...

homophobic insult + judgment over pedophilia = ?
 
Wthermans said:
I'm interested in hearing your ideas of how Obama could force Congress to pass a single-payer option.
Click to expand...

He can't. But that's not the point. He wasn't even willing to fight for it. At least the catholic church is willing to stand up for what they believe in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Heilhung - Scandi folklore group
2
76
jason10mm replied
New Brew
19
807
Days like these... replied
A new year, a new Netflix price hike
2
60
4K
EverydayBeast replied
Studios are now assembling fan focus groups to avoid social media backlash and increase sales
2 3
100
5K
Angry_Megalodon replied
28 YEARS LATER - New Trailer
16
490
Insane Metal replied
Top Bottom