Who gave the friggin' Catholics sway over government policy? Obama should have ignored them, just as vast numbers of ex-catholics like myself have been doing for years.
This is not about the Catholics per se. It's an assault on basic freedoms which happens to affect the Catholics among others, and the Catholics are the most organized group to complain about it.
Who gave the friggin' government sway over Catholic policy?
For that matter, who gave the friggin; government sway over what PRIVATE insurance policies must or must not cover? Or over what ANY private entity must sell or provide?
If you're down with HHS mandating that Catholics pay for things they find abhorrent, then you're also down with the government mandating that…
…PETA sell fur coats.
…halal and kosher markets sell pork.
…sporting-goods stores sell cupcakes.
…bakeries must cupcakes.
…gas stations give out slushees for free.
…Greenpeace subsidize baby-seal clubbing.
…Planned Parenthood provide massages, manicures, and pedicures.
If they can do it to the Catholics, they can do it to anyone, including YOU. Boy, talk about hating America.
Of course, this "accommodation" changes nothing; Catholic schools and hospitals will still have to provide that which violates their conscience, and to pay for it themselves.
Obama claims that the coverage will be paid for by the insurance company, not the employer. But where will the insurance company get the money to pay for this coverage? From their profits. What is the source of their profits? The employer who purchases their services. Who is that employer? The one whose conscience is violated by paying for the coverage.
So under the plan, instead of buying coverage that violates their conscience, employers will buy insurance from a company that uses the profits from the sale of those policies to pay for the cost of coverage that violates the conscience of the employer.
I don't know if he thinks this is really different, or if he thinks he is the only one smart enough to notice it isn't really different. Either way, both he and his health care law have to go.
Who cares what Ratzinger thinks? His opinion has no bearing on US law whatsoever.
... and that's not even mentioning the fact that the man and organization he represents have zero moral authority to tell anyone to do anything at all, considering their long record of actively shielding and protecting child rapists.
I'm glad your comment got published! All of mine saying that the church should try to control the sexual behavior of its priests before it tries to control the behavior of all the employees of Catholic Hospitals didn't make it through moderation. I guess that's an idea that NRO doesn't really want floated out there.
This whole thing is about control. The Catholic Church's desire to control the behavior of their employees. It's all very feudal and disturbing. People should make their health care decisions, not their employers.
I have a Muslim boss. What if he decides that no one I work with (or their families) can have coverage for transplants, which are against Muslim law? Is this the kind of system we want to have?
Suddenly, I bet we'll have a lot of business owners who suddenly find treating leukemia morally objectionable--since that skyrockets your premium costs so much.
I may be the minority but I think your boss SHOULD be able to decide that if he is paying for it.
Of course, my view is also that he shouldn't be paying for it( and doesn't really) and that you should be able to shop your own policy and get the same tax treatment your boss would have.
Why every two earner family in the country isn't hot for exchanging an employer based tax credit for a employee based one is beyond me.
"Why every two earner family in the country isn't hot for exchanging an employer based tax credit for a employee based one is beyond me."
I'm in a one-earner family and after the whole export-job-to-India, high-priced-COBRA-while-unemployed, and new-employer's-weird-insurance fiasco, I agree with you.
"It matters because the first amendment trumps a law that violates it."
That's not applicable to this case, because this has nothing to do with the first amendment at all. While it may make you feel nice to say so, it isn't true.
"OH, and I've yet to see you saying we should abolish public schools, because of all the teachers molesting students. "
There is no wide-spread problem in America with this; and certainly no evidence that there is a wide-spread conspiracy to cover up and protect those who are caught doing it. Your analogy fails.
The links you provided earlier on the school issue were not indicative of a wide-spread problem. I am starting to wonder if you need to be explained the definition of those words; you keep coming back with this lame rejoinder, and it keeps failing.
Re: the 1st amendment thing, your explanations as to how this is an issue covered by the 1st amendment are rather pathetic. The 1st amendment doesn't mean whatever you think it does, and it can't be expanded to cover any situation you wish for it to cover. No amount of assertion on your part changes that.
Who gave the friggin' Catholics sway over government policy? Obama should have ignored them, just as vast numbers of ex-catholics like myself have been doing for years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's see, they swayed the government to change policy. I'm not a rocket surgeon, but I believe the answer is the government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is not about the Catholics per se. It's an assault on basic freedoms which happens to affect the Catholics among others, and the Catholics are the most organized group to complain about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho gave the friggin' government sway over Catholic policy?
For that matter, who gave the friggin; government sway over what PRIVATE insurance policies must or must not cover? Or over what ANY private entity must sell or provide?
If you're down with HHS mandating that Catholics pay for things they find abhorrent, then you're also down with the government mandating that…
…PETA sell fur coats.
…halal and kosher markets sell pork.
…sporting-goods stores sell cupcakes.
…bakeries must cupcakes.
…gas stations give out slushees for free.
…Greenpeace subsidize baby-seal clubbing.
…Planned Parenthood provide massages, manicures, and pedicures.
If they can do it to the Catholics, they can do it to anyone, including YOU. Boy, talk about hating America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, this "accommodation" changes nothing; Catholic schools and hospitals will still have to provide that which violates their conscience, and to pay for it themselves.
Obama claims that the coverage will be paid for by the insurance company, not the employer. But where will the insurance company get the money to pay for this coverage? From their profits. What is the source of their profits? The employer who purchases their services. Who is that employer? The one whose conscience is violated by paying for the coverage.
So under the plan, instead of buying coverage that violates their conscience, employers will buy insurance from a company that uses the profits from the sale of those policies to pay for the cost of coverage that violates the conscience of the employer.
I don't know if he thinks this is really different, or if he thinks he is the only one smart enough to notice it isn't really different. Either way, both he and his health care law have to go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>1. The administration thinks Americans are idiots.
>2. The administration is confident it will be assisted in its chicanery by the mainstream media.
Sounds like a safe bet to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse3) Holy Mother Church will go along with the whole thing because they like "community organizers" and especially "social justice".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot sure the Pope will go along with that. The man is not a pushover.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho cares what Ratzinger thinks? His opinion has no bearing on US law whatsoever.
... and that's not even mentioning the fact that the man and organization he represents have zero moral authority to tell anyone to do anything at all, considering their long record of actively shielding and protecting child rapists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm glad your comment got published! All of mine saying that the church should try to control the sexual behavior of its priests before it tries to control the behavior of all the employees of Catholic Hospitals didn't make it through moderation. I guess that's an idea that NRO doesn't really want floated out there.
This whole thing is about control. The Catholic Church's desire to control the behavior of their employees. It's all very feudal and disturbing. People should make their health care decisions, not their employers.
I have a Muslim boss. What if he decides that no one I work with (or their families) can have coverage for transplants, which are against Muslim law? Is this the kind of system we want to have?
Suddenly, I bet we'll have a lot of business owners who suddenly find treating leukemia morally objectionable--since that skyrockets your premium costs so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI may be the minority but I think your boss SHOULD be able to decide that if he is paying for it.
Of course, my view is also that he shouldn't be paying for it( and doesn't really) and that you should be able to shop your own policy and get the same tax treatment your boss would have.
Why every two earner family in the country isn't hot for exchanging an employer based tax credit for a employee based one is beyond me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Why every two earner family in the country isn't hot for exchanging an employer based tax credit for a employee based one is beyond me."
I'm in a one-earner family and after the whole export-job-to-India, high-priced-COBRA-while-unemployed, and new-employer's-weird-insurance fiasco, I agree with you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis whole thing is about control.
And who has the power of law, fines, and imprisonment behind them? The Catholic Church or the government?
The Catholic Church's desire to control the behavior of their employees. It's all very feudal and disturbing.
Are you asserting that unless your employer provides insurance that covers contraception IN FULL, you cannot Cannot CANNOT use birth control?
You cannot be serious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt matters because the first amendment trumps a law that violates it.
OH, and I've yet to see you saying we should abolish public schools, because of all the teachers molesting students.
You got schooled already by Ed Whelan in another thread, do you enjoy being made the fool?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It matters because the first amendment trumps a law that violates it."
That's not applicable to this case, because this has nothing to do with the first amendment at all. While it may make you feel nice to say so, it isn't true.
"OH, and I've yet to see you saying we should abolish public schools, because of all the teachers molesting students. "
There is no wide-spread problem in America with this; and certainly no evidence that there is a wide-spread conspiracy to cover up and protect those who are caught doing it. Your analogy fails.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI shouldn't be surprised you don't bother to check links you were provided that don't confirm your worldview.
And of course it has been explained over and over again how it is a first amendment issue. Your inability to understand that fact doesn't change this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe links you provided earlier on the school issue were not indicative of a wide-spread problem. I am starting to wonder if you need to be explained the definition of those words; you keep coming back with this lame rejoinder, and it keeps failing.
Re: the 1st amendment thing, your explanations as to how this is an issue covered by the 1st amendment are rather pathetic. The 1st amendment doesn't mean whatever you think it does, and it can't be expanded to cover any situation you wish for it to cover. No amount of assertion on your part changes that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, because cases across the country of the problem are not examples of it being widespead.
Oh, and since I didn't provide the links, another poster did, you've just made it clear that you don't even bother to look up facts.
I guess Mr. Whelen doesn't need to show you the fool. You do it yourself.
Here are some links. Since you've already admitted you don't remember who posts links, much less read them, I'm sure you'll not let facts continue to get in the way of your religious bashing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't forget the Catholic Healthcare Association and Sister Carol Keehan...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with you but at least one "Catholic Health" organization "welcomes" the "accommodation".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse