The title refers to those Catholics who thought they could "work with Obama" to craft a health care bill that would not force them to pay for abortions, morning-after pills and contraceptives. Well, the spider has just eaten the fly!
Bart Stupak, who lead this group of lambs to the slaughter, should be embarrassed that he caved into pressure from the House leadership to ensure the bill would pass. What a colossal mistake he and others have foisted onto the US. Not only do we have a unbelievably complex bill, the final effects of which we do not know, but it enables the Administration to make up the rules as we go without any "adult supervision." Who knows what the next round of regulations will say. It is anyone's guess. We only know the insurance we get through ObamaCare will not be your "fathers insurance."
We do not know which title fits former Congressman Stupak best, however, one can assume that he is comfortable on his publicly funded retirement and generous medical plan for which we all pay. Life is tough for these paragons of dishonor! If we only could be as lucky.
Conservative Tom
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/08/liberal-catholics-who-supported-obamacare-now-upset-over-contraceptives/#ixzz1ltxaxsvH
Bart Stupak, who lead this group of lambs to the slaughter, should be embarrassed that he caved into pressure from the House leadership to ensure the bill would pass. What a colossal mistake he and others have foisted onto the US. Not only do we have a unbelievably complex bill, the final effects of which we do not know, but it enables the Administration to make up the rules as we go without any "adult supervision." Who knows what the next round of regulations will say. It is anyone's guess. We only know the insurance we get through ObamaCare will not be your "fathers insurance."
We do not know which title fits former Congressman Stupak best, however, one can assume that he is comfortable on his publicly funded retirement and generous medical plan for which we all pay. Life is tough for these paragons of dishonor! If we only could be as lucky.
Conservative Tom
Follow Alex Pappas
Get Alex Pappas Feed
Former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) June 17, 2010 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Without former Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, President Barack Obama wouldn’t have gotten his health care overhaul in 2010 passed through Congress.
But Stupak, a pro-life Catholic who voted for the health care reform after being promised that federal dollars wouldn’t fund abortions, now isn’t happy with Obama.
Appearing Wednesday night on Fox News, Stupak made clear he opposes the Obama administration’s insistence that religious-affiliated organizations are not exempted from the law’s requirement that health insurance plans cover contraceptives.
“I’m disappointed that the administration would put forth such a rule,” Stupak told host Greta Van Susteren.
The law does allow churches that oppose contraception for religious reasons to be exempt from the law.
Stupak said he hopes the Obama administration changes course on the rule. “I hope we can get the matter resolved short of further action by Congress,” he said. (RELATED: Full coverage of the Affordable Care Act)
House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday accused Obama from the floor of the House of attacking religious freedom by not exempting religious-affiliated organizations.
Another liberal Catholic who isn’t happy with the new rule is columnist E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post.
In his column, Dionne recently wrote that Obama “utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health-care law.”
“His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice,” he wrote. “In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health-care law.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/08/liberal-catholics-who-supported-obamacare-now-upset-over-contraceptives/#ixzz1ltxaxsvH
"The title refers to those Catholics who thought they could "work with Obama" to craft a health care bill that would not force them to pay for abortions, morning-after pills and contraceptives."
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should have waited another day to write this, Tom. They just worked with Obama so that Catholics will get contraceptives with no co-pays at no expense to the Catholic bishops. Maybe the bishops can shut up and get to work on preventing their pedofile priests from molesting boys and stop trying to control the fertility of Catholic women -- 98% of them use contraceptives. So far, the bishops haven't been very successful at either.
Amonymous, you miss the entire point. Once government says to a religion that they MUST do something that breaks their moral code, it a challenge to ALL religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThis is not only a right/conservative issue. E. J. Dionne, a prominent Washington insider and liberal wrote a scathing article against the rule. Additionally, the Vice President had argued against the rule as well as other prominent Dems. The rule was absolutely wrong headed.
Regarding the "compromise", it papers over the real issue. It requires the insurance companies who provide the insurance for the organizations to provide contraceptives "at no cost" to those employees who take the insurance. Huh, who pays the insurance premium? Do you really think that the insurance company will not increase the premium to these organizations to cover these expenses? Naive at worst, devious at best. Anyone who buys this is ignoring the facts.
If the Catholic leaders accept this non-compromise, religious organizations now can be told what to believe. The government now is a religion and anyone who breaks that religion is fined or worse.
This is a bad day in America or should I say AmeriKa.
"An Obama administration official said the new policy would not allow health insurers to increase their premiums, charge co-payments or deductibles to make up for the cost of contraceptives."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/11/us-usa-contraceptives-aetna-idUSTRE8191ON20120211
This will just be one more area where the ACA will reduce health care costs by imposing price controls on private health insurance companies. The bishops won't have to pay a dime for birth control.
I saw some data that 98% of Catholic women have used contraceptives and 57% approve of this plan. The bishops are still living in the 13th century, and nearly all young Catholic women are living in a 21st century world.
Those who do not wish to use contraceptives are not forced to use them, and the bishops will not be paying for them for all the Catholic and non-catholic women they employ. This is a bogus issue. Better to have the bishops fuming than all these women dealing with pregnancies, health risks, and abortions because they can't get contraceptives. This actually saves money not only for the women but also for the insurance companies.
Meanwhile, nobody is talking about the sweet deal Obama just did for the Wall Street banks. For just $25 billion (sounds like a lot of money, but only a tiny fraction of the mortgage fraud they did), they are now safe from litigation on a big category of the criminal acts. Do you think Obama's "Mortgage fraud task force" will put any of the Wall Street big-shots behind bars? This is just a front to make it appear they are doing something.
--David
If you really believe that the cost of contraceptives will not be included in the price somewhere, somehow, you are smoking funny cigarettes. How is NO way to prove that assumption. David, you are smarter than that!
ReplyDeleteIt still says that an organization that does not approve of contraceptives, for example, will have their insurance provide contraceptives to its employees. this is a difference without a difference!
I agree that the deal is nothing.But what about the legislators that created the Community Investment Act and those government officials and bureaucrats who oversaw the implementation of the law. Why are they not being brought to the bar?
I have no expertise in this field, but I don't see how this would be so impossible to do. If I were designing it, I would not allow the insurance company to bundle multiple benefits into one price. Everything would be separately itemized. Then all you would need to do is compare a Catholic hospital's premium costs for non-contraceptive benefits to the same premium costs the same insurance company charges to a similar public hospital. There shouldn't be any significant differences in premium costs for non-contraceptive benefits. If there are, then that would be an indicator that the insurance company is charging the Catholic hospital more for the same benefits in order to make their premium as high as the public hospital. To check this, I would take a random sample of their policies for analysis, and if there were major discrepancies that they could not satisfactorily explain, I would take the CEO to court on charges of insurance fraud -- just like I would the Wall Street bankers for their mortgage securities fraud. The first insurance company I would monitor is United HealthCare (based on a lot of personal experience with them.)
ReplyDeleteThere is no need for the bishops to get involved at all in the woman's access to the contraceptives. It is not the Catholic church that is requesting the insurance company to provide the service. The woman is alone requesting the service, and the insurance company is simply complying with federal law. The bishops are not involved. The only further thing I could see the government doing here is to require the insurance company to notify the women that they are eligible to receive contraceptives without any co-pay, but at this rate, every woman in America will know all about this by election day!
-----
I think we have discussed CRA before. Most of the toxic sub-prime loans were done by lenders not subject to CRA regulations and the default rate of loans under CRA were substantially lower than the default rates of mortgages done by outfits like Countrywide. Having said that, I would certainly prosecute all cases of mortgage fraud whether done under CRA or by other lenders. The more salient point is that the mortgages are far less than the derivative scams done on top of the mortgages by the largest Wall Street banks. They are the people who deliberately caused trillions, trillions, etc. of securities fraud that collapsed the entire global financial markets. Keep your eye on the ball, man.
--David
To think that an insurance company would pay for abortions,morning after pills, and contraceptives at no cost is ridiculous. Someone has to pay for them. The insurance company is not a charity!
ReplyDeleteit ignores the economic realities!
The economic reality is that birth control pills will cost the insurance company a whole lot less than a pregnancy costs them, or, for that matter, abortions by pro-choice women working at Catholic-related hospitals, schools, etc. who can't afford the pills. The health insurance companies can pay for it easily out of their exorbitant profits without becoming a charity! Because we are the only industrialized country without single-payer, our per capita health care costs are double Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. So, I am not a bit worried that UnitedHealthCare can't afford it.
ReplyDelete--David
David, you are missing the entire point of argument, it much more than insurance company profits. My point is that government should not impose rules that violate anyones freedom of religion. When you force someone to buy something they do not want, that is not freedom. When you force someone to buy something that is against your morals, that is not freedom.
ReplyDeleteInsurance companies are NOT charitable companies, they are in the business of making money, regardless of how bad you think that is. Don't think that the Catholic hospitals will not pay their share of contraceptives and abortions! It would be naive to think that way--but that is the Obama way!
BTW, there are NO guarantees regarding Obama's concession. It was all smoke and mirrors!
The bishops' freedom of religion is not violated, because they are not paying. As I explained, if the insurance company is required to itemize their premium components, then it would not be difficult to compare their premium to Catholic hospitals for non-contraceptive coverage to those of a similar public hospital to determine whether the insurance company it trying to recoup the costs of providing contraceptives. This will become one of the things monitored under the ACA (along with controls over their escalating premiums more than 10% annually). You simply assume that the regulation will not/cannot be enforced. We have no evidence of that, since it hasn't yet begun.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is bad for insurance companies to make a profit. But we both know that they have oligopolistic pricing power, and so have increased their premiums for many years at multiple times the inflation rate. That is why our per capita health care costs are double the other rich countries of the world. They will still be outrageously profitable under this regulation. Besides, as I said, contraceptives cost the insurance companies a lot less than they would be paying for pregnancies and abortions without them. They understand this.
--David
David, in all your comments, I see a naivete. Whether it is about the sinister attempt to force Catholic organizations to provide abortion services, contraceptives or the Obama Administration making "adjustments" in their calculations to fit their master's re-election needs. You need to go back and examine your constructs. This is not the time to think that all is rosy and that everyone will always do things that are right.
ReplyDeleteAs far as insurance companies providing "free" contraceptives to employees of Catholic organizations. That is hooey. Someone is going to pay it and the Hospitals or other organizations will pay their share. That still is against their moral code.
What about organizations that self-insure their health plans? If the organization is a Catholic organization or is owned by a Catholic or someone else who does not believe in contraception, why should they be forced to break their moral code? They are their own insurance company when they self-insure.
This is just a glimpse into the way a second Obama term and Obama Care will be run. Damn the Constitution, damn the rule of law, damn the precedents that have been in place, King Obama wants this, so it is!