This is one of the most jumbled threads ever, I swear you all are doing it on purpose. SDAs don't prohibit blood transfusions, that's Jehovah's Witness. Adventists have the next largest religious hospital system next to Catholics. They don't have abortions, but readily use birth control. If you make a baby, you raise it, that's that. If you want a vasectomy you go to the SDA doctors, they'll fix you up good.

I could hardly imagine SDAs caring about insurance providing for abortions, no different than it covering AIDS treatments. If you'd never need either, who cares?

Doctor Fate wrote:So the interest of the government supersedes the interest of the religion or individual? That is a very slippery slope you are on. I wish you well upon it.

Actually, what's at stake is that the individuals (employees) would have more freedom because the government is setting a health insurance standard that has a set of options. The 'religion' wants to restrict that option for their employees.

So It's that the interests of religion should not trump those of individuals, and if no-one else can ensure it, government can.

Good Catholics of course would not take up the coverage offered, so what's the problem? That the Church knows damn well that the vast majority of American Catholics have used contraception (and the proportion is as high or higher among Protestants, even 'Evangelicals').

Blimey, people fought and died for a Reformation so they wouldn't have to be dictated to by the Papacy...

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:[And as long as the employees don't lose out financially (say if the employers give them a comensurate raise, and they are able to form a group plan), that would be an acceptable compromise all around, right?

Oh there will be not other compensations such as commensurate raise. It will be a hit to the take home pay of all employees.

Why? Are they really such crappy employers? Do they want to force people to leave?

Oh, sure, they probably would, to 'prove a point'. Sheesh.

Neal Anderth wrote:This is one of the most jumbled threads ever, I swear you all are doing it on purpose. SDAs don't prohibit blood transfusions, that's Jehovah's Witness. Adventists have the next largest religious hospital system next to Catholics. They don't have abortions, but readily use birth control. If you make a baby, you raise it, that's that. If you want a vasectomy you go to the SDA doctors, they'll fix you up good.

I could hardly imagine SDAs caring about insurance providing for abortions, no different than it covering AIDS treatments. If you'd never need either, who cares?

Indeed. Some people can't grok the difference between 'insurance' and 'provision'. Ho hum.

I am beginning to agree with DF more than I usually do.

I have said it before. If you don't like the job, leave it. Not all jobs have health care. Some people have to (shock!) pay for health care themselves.

Didn't like my list of items that are not equal? (Houses, jobs, car, etc...) Get over it.

The world is not fair. You do the best you can to get through it.

bbauska wrote:I have said it before. If you don't like the job, leave it. Not all jobs have health care. Some people have to (shock!) pay for health care themselves.

And therein lies the problem of US healthcare - when people who need it can't afford it, they either go broke or they cause an issue to the people around them.

Didn't like my list of items that are not equal? (Houses, jobs, car, etc...) Get over it.

I am fine with it. Do you get the difference between insurance and provision?

The world is not fair. You do the best you can to get through it.

And the devil take the hindmost, right?

ZZZZZZ

danivon wrote:Why? Are they really such crappy employers? Do they want to force people to leave?

Because no employer will offer salary increases when they decide to drop health insurance as a benefit. At least nothing beyond what would be negotiated in the CBA.

danivon wrote:Actually, what's at stake is that the individuals (employees) would have more freedom because the government is setting a health insurance standard that has a set of options. The 'religion' wants to restrict that option for their employees.

So It's that the interests of religion should not trump those of individuals, and if no-one else can ensure it, government can.

And see here we have the same problem. Don't like the choiced offered by the employer/church, don't participate/work for some one else. That is not an option when the government is forcing because you can't defund/ stop participating in the government.

All very reasonable if you forget that there is often a power imbalance in the employee-employer relationship, and that there are currently about 4 people unemployed for every open job vacancy. As people work for their livelihoods, in the main, they have more to lose.

Fred Clarke at Slacktivist has posted on this before, but this is (before the descent into quite why the Catholic Church might feel a bit beaten up somes in) a pretty interesting take on how the Church is dissembling:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivis ... men-contd/

It seems that in polling not only do most Americans believe that the government should mandate coverage of contraception or birth control... Most American Catholics do too (and in a slightly larger proportion).

It also seems that the bishops are trying to peddle the lie that contraception is the same as abortion, that Plan B is the same as abortion

Furthermore, it seems that most US States already have the mandate but it wasn't an issue before. Now, I can understand if it were being framed as a Federa v State issue, but until now that's not been it - it's been 'government' v religion, as in the thread title.

28 States were already doing this and no-one has ruled them unconstitutional. The Church heirarchy haven't issued texts for priests to read out across the land to condemn it. And, I expect, Catholic organisations in those states have been abiding by the law.

And yes, let's read the whole thing and remember that when it comes to morality and the law, the Catholic Church's handling of abusive preists has been to cover up crimes, expose more people to danger and to have to be dragged into admissions or errors (and still they seem to want to blame everyone else for it). Oh, and sometimes they'll recant their apologies:

In a interview with Connecticut magazine published on the magazine’s Web site last week ["Cardinal Egan: Ten Years After," by Tom Connor], a surprisingly frank Cardinal Egan said of the apology, “I never should have said that,” and added, “I don’t think we did anything wrong.”

He said many more things in the interview, some of them seemingly at odds with the facts. He repeatedly denied that any sex abuse had occurred on his watch in Bridgeport. He said that even now, the church in Connecticut had no obligation to report sexual abuse accusations to the authorities. (A law on the books since the 1970s says otherwise.) And he described the Bridgeport diocese’s handling of sex-abuse cases as “incredibly good.

Catholics have been let down by their Church on legal and moral issues for decades, and now are being used by the same Church leadership for political ends.

Fred Clarke makes the point that Cialis and other EDS medications are generally covered in the medical insurance plans. I wonder what the Churches position is on that?

danivon wrote:All very reasonable if you forget that there is often a power imbalance in the employee-employer relationship, and that there are currently about 4 people unemployed for every open job vacancy. As people work for their livelihoods, in the main, they have more to lose.

But you still haven't explained why my liberty to run my company as I see fit in regards to healthcare is less important then an employee's liberty to have access to certain types of healthcare?

Besides it might all be a moot point. It looks like Obama is going to back down. There is supposedly going to be an announcement later today (friday) that the administratio will modify the requirements to a more expansive definition.

His compromise won't go far enough, apparently. It includes referral in case of non-provision, which the Catholic heirarchs are saying is just as immoral.

Again, I will point out that employer funded benefits to the employee belong to the employee, as part of their remuneration package. The do not belong to the employer. The employer can determine how they run the workplace (subject, of course to the Law pertaining). Once the employee is out of the door and off in the world, the employee is freer to do what they want.

That is, of course, if you don't want to recreate the days of company towns, indentured servitude etc.

A good analogy I saw is this. A Jewish deli can stop employees from eating non-kosher food in store. But it can't stop them going to MacDonalds or Red Lobster for lunch or after work. Even if they give employees Dinner Vouchers. They may wish to try and get the voucher scheme changed to exclude non-kosher food, but I suspect they'd have a tough time insisting upon only supplying kosher-only vouchers to employees who weren't observant Jews, or treating some staff differently because of their religion. If they stopped vouchers, fine, but if they didn't make up the difference, again employees would call that a pay cut.

Interestingly, over 11 years ago, way back in December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that any employer of over 15 people who provided prentative healthcare cover had to include birth control/contraception. They used Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, highlighting sexual discrimination.

The largest Catholic university in the USA, DePaul in Illinois, already provides contraception coverage to employees. As do many other 'Catholic Institutions' like hospitals and colleges. In Wisconsin, Medicaid money used for birth control is going via Catholic hospitals and clinics.
Hat tip to Fred Clark again: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivis ... -old-news/

So, again, how come (co-incidentally at a time when a Mormon was leading the GOP race against two Catholics) is this suddenly an issue?

And when it comes to who is an employee of the Church, there's another issue - aren't some dioceses trying to claim that priests in some orders are not employees, so those dioceses can't be sued over sexual assualt claims?

If PRIESTS aren't employees, who is? If the church is not accountable for the sex lives of it's priests abusing the flock, how come they seek to take responsibility for the sex lives of people working at their other institutions who may not even be Catholics, let alone clergy.

You and Brad can worry about hypotheticals and the 'freedoms' of employers who have moral qualms. I'll look at what's actually happening and how consistent the argument really is.

when Obama's compromise is rebuffed, what do you propose happen next. He should compromise more? What about the RCC?

arch

But you still haven't explained why my liberty to run my company as I see fit in regards to healthcare is less important then an employee's liberty to have access to certain types of healthcare?

How is minimum standards for health benefits different than other employment laws like minimum pay, maximum hours, working conditions etc.?
They all limit an employers ability to do whatever the hell they want.