Archduke Russell John wrote:Nah, I just got tired of the same argument. Obama caved once more and that was enough for me.

He didn't really 'cave' though, did he? When it comes down to it, the compromise means that employees of 'religious institutions' can get the coverage they want (as can the other people covered by the policy such as spouses and children), the employers are essentially still paying the same whatever happens, and insurance companies have a bit of work to do to ask people to take up the (lower cost for them) cover.

As I predicted, the Bishops are not happy, but as compromises go, it was pretty smart as it clearly has you bought for very little.

One of his better moves as President.

danivon wrote:As I predicted, the Bishops are not happy, but as compromises go, it was pretty smart as it clearly has you bought for very little.

One of his better moves as President.

Oh, I agree as compromises go it sucks for the Catholic Church, but then I was never a big fan of the Catholic Church.

To me it is just one more example of Obama caving and if played right the focus can be taken off the actual compromies and be put on the fact that he lacks a back bone to stand up and fight for what he wants. It is about getting people who would have voted for him to not. And I know of at least 10 people in my personal circle of acquatinance that were solid Obama voters before this who know have stated they will not vote for him, either because he proposed the plan to begin with, or because he backed down once again.

It is ironic that the US Catholic bishops are complaining about mandated health insurance, when the Pope is a proponent of Universal health access.... (I know its not entirely on point...but still...ironic)

The pope lamented the great inequalities in health care around the globe. While people in many parts of the world aren’t able to receive essential medications or even the most basic care, in industrialized countries there is a risk of “pharmacological, medical and surgical consumerism” that leads to “a cult of the body,” the pope said.

“The care of man, his transcendent dignity and his inalienable rights” are issues that should concern Christians, the pope said.
Because an individual’s health is a “precious asset” to society as well as to himself, governments and other agencies should seek to protect it by “dedicating the equipment, resources and energy so that the greatest number of people can have access.”

In a separate statement, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said, “Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,” adding that minimal levels of medical care are “a fundamental human right.” “Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care,” the cardinal explained, saying that, “The governments of richer nations with good health care available should practice more solidarity with their own disadvantaged citizens.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/ ... ealthcare/

I see Russell. Less about the actual issue, and more about the partisan politics for electioneering.

*shrug*

danivon wrote:I see Russell. Less about the actual issue, and more about the partisan politics for electioneering.

*shrug*

Like I said, I am tired of having the argument about whether gov't should be providing healthcare or not. If I had allowed it to go down that route it would have been the 5th time, by my count, we would have had it. It is pointless to go there again.

Besides which, if the SCOTUS rules the ACA unconstitutional, which I believe is a better then average possibility, then this regulation is moot.

archduke

Besides which, if the SCOTUS rules the ACA unconstitutional, which I believe is a better then average possibility, then this regulation is moot

If Soctus does this, would it also imperil the mandate for participation in social security payments?
Alternatively, isn't the mandatory social security payments a precedent for mandated health insurance?

rickyp wrote:If Soctus does this, would it also imperil the mandate for participation in social security payments?
Alternatively, isn't the mandatory social security payments a precedent for mandated health insurance?

No because social security is a tax on income which is Constitutional by amendment. An insurance mandate is not a tax. Even the administration, in it Brief to the Supreme Court, admits the insurance mandate is not a tax.

No because social security is a tax on income which is Constitutional by amendment. An insurance mandate is not a tax. Even the administration, in it Brief to the Supreme Court, admits the insurance mandate is not a tax.

So, constitutionally it would be easier to justify a universal health care system, i.e. medicare for everyone, and a tax associated with the plan .... then the current mandate of individuals?
Just wondering.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:I see Russell. Less about the actual issue, and more about the partisan politics for electioneering.

*shrug*

Like I said, I am tired of having the argument about whether gov't should be providing healthcare or not. If I had allowed it to go down that route it would have been the 5th time, by my count, we would have had it. It is pointless to go there again.

But that wasn't the actual argument. The thread is about whether employers should have insure at the same level of coverage as each other if they choose to include it in an employee's remuneration package and, in particular, whether a religious organisation that runs services to the public and with open employment practices should be entitled to an op-out.

Which is a different debate (notwithstanding ricky's latest attempt to crowbar it in, using the gap you left open with the Constitutionality of a tax v a mandate).

Besides which, if the SCOTUS rules the ACA unconstitutional, which I believe is a better then average possibility, then this regulation is moot.

Even after the December 2000 EEOC ruling? Because that applies whether or not there's a mandate for insurance.

rickyp wrote:So, constitutionally it would be easier to justify a universal health care system, i.e. medicare for everyone, and a tax associated with the plan .... then the current mandate of individuals?
Just wondering.

I have long said that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional but an expansion of medicare would probably be. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, I said back in 2009 I didn't understand why the Democrats didn't take the easist course of just changing the medicare law to remove the words "over 65" so that everybody was covered.

Other then the fact that they understood it was an extremely unpopular idea and lacked the political will to stand on their principles.

You are assuming that the Democrats have principles?

Or, more seriously, that single-payer was what the majority of Congessional Democrats wanted in the first place? As I recall, there was quite a debate within the Senate Caucus on how far to go with this bill, and only a small number were pushing for what you are suggesting is what 'Democrats' believe in.

They aren't as left wing as many right wingers would have us think.

Archduke I now recall you stating the position on medicare now. As for the prediction that SCOYUS will find the current health care rule unconstitutional, I noted that earlier this week I saw Jefffry Toobin on CNN predict with some confidence (and he usually hedges) that it would be ruled constitutional based on previous interpretations of the Commerce clause... I guess we'll see, if you or Toobin are prescient.
archduke:

Other then the fact that they understood it was an extremely unpopular idea and lacked the political will to stand on their principles.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/ ... 8517.shtml


If you go back and look at polls (of hundreds one is linked as a sample) on the issue of public health, one payer systems, I beleive you'll find that the majority of americans supported the concept. However, the idea was very unpopular with certain stake holders. Corporate interests mostly.
If the idea that these committed corporate interests were capable of coalescing behind a campaign to sway congress on a wider version of medicare.... and defeating it through targeted campaigning against adherents in Congress, I think thats probably right. I don't think it speaks well of the systems ability to respond to the democratic wishes of the ordinary electorate. Nevermind the "political will" required.
Which would mean an incremental change is about all that could be accomplished.
That and the problem of; how do you get from here to there.... Sometimes the end product can be visualized but the route to accomplish that without significant dislocation is impossible...

danivon wrote:You are assuming that the Democrats have principles?

hehe.

danivon wrote:Or, more seriously, that single-payer was what the majority of Congessional Democrats wanted in the first place? As I recall, there was quite a debate within the Senate Caucus on how far to go with this bill, and only a small number were pushing for what you are suggesting is what 'Democrats' believe in.

Oh but wait, this goes against the Left's narrative of the whole fight. It was only because the Republicans where opposed as a group from the outset that forced the Adminstration to make deals that turned out such a truly crappy bill.

danivon wrote:They aren't as left wing as many right wingers would have us think.

I agree with that. Which is why I don't buy the whole our politics are so divided today meme.

rickyp wrote:I noted that earlier this week I saw Jefffry Toobin on CNN predict with some confidence (and he usually hedges) that it would be ruled constitutional based on previous interpretations of the Commerce clause... I guess we'll see, if you or Toobin are prescient.

Well, I have been following the discussion and I am noticing a lot of other avenues of attack that are starting up in the amici briefs. While most of the argument is focused on the Commerce Clause argument, which I think is a winner (can you provide a link to Toobin's reasoning), another one is the argument that it doesn't meet the proper part of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

danivon wrote:[

Besides which, if the SCOTUS rules the ACA unconstitutional, which I believe is a better then average possibility, then this regulation is moot.

Even after the December 2000 EEOC ruling? Because that applies whether or not there's a mandate for insurance.

Yes, because the ACA requires ER's to offer health benefits which include a prescription benefit plan. Therefore, under the ACA, an ER has no way of avoiding the EEOC's ruling. Repeal the ACA and an ER can avoid the EEOC's ruling by not offering a PBP.

Whether or not that will actually happen is a different subject.