ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

Just curious, are we still supposed to be looking at how Europe does things and trying model our social programs after them???

[PLAYER57832]

Just curious, are we still supposed to be looking at how Europe does things and trying model our social programs after them???

We always have. Most of our structures came here from Europe. including large parts of our constitution.

However, the real issue here is that OUR medical payment system is plain failing.

[Night Strike]

However, the real issue here is that OUR medical payment system is plain failing.

The answer isn't to turn over that administration to the government. Why aren't medical prices posted? Why do they charge different amounts and prescribe different medicines based on whether or not a person has insurance (and which insurance they have)? Why are people allowed to sue if not every single test is run? Why can't people pick the best plans for themselves or their company if that plan is sold in a different states? Why do single people have to pay for sex-specific coverage that they will never use? There are plenty of answers to the medical payment system that do not involve the government administering the system.

[Night Strike]

By the way, religious organizations have filed suit over the contraceptive mandate.

Some of the most influential Catholic institutions in the country filed suit against the Obama administration Monday over the so-called contraception mandate, in one of the biggest coordinated legal challenges to the rule to date.

Claiming their "fundamental rights hang in the balance," a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the requirement. Among the organizations filing were the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and The Catholic University of America.

The groups are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months ago softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

A statement from the University of Notre Dame said the requirement would still call on religious-affiliated groups to "facilitate" coverage "for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church."

"The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching," the statement said.

Rev. John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, said in a message to the campus that the filing "is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives."

The contraception rule does include an exemption for religious organizations -- but that exemption does not cover many religious-affiliated organizations like schools and charities. Complaints about the narrowly tailored exemption prompted a stand-off between the Obama administration and religious groups earlier this year. As a compromise, the administration said insurers -- and not the religious-affiliated organizations themselves -- could be required to offer contraceptive coverage directly.

But many organizations were not satisfied with the plan. John Garvey, president of Catholic University, said in a statement Monday that "such a revision would not solve our moral dilemma." He argued that the cost of contraceptive coverage would still be "rolled into the cost" of a university insurance policy.

"In the end the university, its employees and its students will be forced to pay for the prescriptions and services we find objectionable," he said.

University of Notre Dame Law Prof. Richard Garnett said in a statement that the mandate could affect a range of religious institutions, including "schools, health care providers and social welfare agencies."

On a separate track, officials at a Florida Catholic university decided Monday to drop student health care coverage, becoming the second school this month to make that call. The decision at Ave Maria University was based in part on objections to the contraception rule, but also on projected increased premium costs tied to new rules in the federal health care overhaul.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/21/catholic-organizations-across-country-file-suit-against-contraception-mandate/#ixzz1vXDEwTn9

[Phatscotty]

Just curious, are we still supposed to be looking at how Europe does things and trying model our social programs after them???

We always have. Most of our structures came here from Europe. including large parts of our constitution.

However, the real issue here is that OUR medical payment system is plain failing.

Is there anyway our system is failing because the system you say we try to model our system after is also failing?

[thegreekdog]

By the way, religious organizations have filed suit over the contraceptive mandate.

Some of the most influential Catholic institutions in the country filed suit against the Obama administration Monday over the so-called contraception mandate, in one of the biggest coordinated legal challenges to the rule to date.

Claiming their "fundamental rights hang in the balance," a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the requirement. Among the organizations filing were the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and The Catholic University of America.

The groups are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months ago softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

A statement from the University of Notre Dame said the requirement would still call on religious-affiliated groups to "facilitate" coverage "for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church."

"The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching," the statement said.

Rev. John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, said in a message to the campus that the filing "is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives."

The contraception rule does include an exemption for religious organizations -- but that exemption does not cover many religious-affiliated organizations like schools and charities. Complaints about the narrowly tailored exemption prompted a stand-off between the Obama administration and religious groups earlier this year. As a compromise, the administration said insurers -- and not the religious-affiliated organizations themselves -- could be required to offer contraceptive coverage directly.

But many organizations were not satisfied with the plan. John Garvey, president of Catholic University, said in a statement Monday that "such a revision would not solve our moral dilemma." He argued that the cost of contraceptive coverage would still be "rolled into the cost" of a university insurance policy.

"In the end the university, its employees and its students will be forced to pay for the prescriptions and services we find objectionable," he said.

University of Notre Dame Law Prof. Richard Garnett said in a statement that the mandate could affect a range of religious institutions, including "schools, health care providers and social welfare agencies."

On a separate track, officials at a Florida Catholic university decided Monday to drop student health care coverage, becoming the second school this month to make that call. The decision at Ave Maria University was based in part on objections to the contraception rule, but also on projected increased premium costs tied to new rules in the federal health care overhaul.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/21/catholic-organizations-across-country-file-suit-against-contraception-mandate/#ixzz1vXDEwTn9

Hmm... I didn't think about that (the rolling of the costs). Unfortunately, that's not a winning argument. The government is not forcing the Catholic institutions to pay for health insurance + contraceptives. Because a private company (the insurance company) rolls the cost into the insurance fee, that's a non-government action. At least, that's my take.

[Phatscotty]

Obama is stickin it to religious freedom, Christians, and Catholics, every chance he gets. But I'm sure it's his "strong sense of faith" that compels him to do it

[thegreekdog]

Obama is stickin it to religious freedom, Christians, and Catholics, every chance he gets. But I'm sure it's his "strong sense of faith" that compels him to do it

I don't think he is (or wants to). As I indicated previously (with data!), a lot of his voters were Catholic. I think the Church is right in that they will indirectly have to pay for the insurance coverage when the insurance company passes on costs to the Church. But I don't think that's enough to win a constitutional argument.

[Phatscotty]

Obama is stickin it to religious freedom, Christians, and Catholics, every chance he gets. But I'm sure it's his "strong sense of faith" that compels him to do it

I don't think he is (or wants to). As I indicated previously (with data!), a lot of his voters were Catholic. I think the Church is right in that they will indirectly have to pay for the insurance coverage when the insurance company passes on costs to the Church. But I don't think that's enough to win a constitutional argument.

As you know, a lot of his voters were fooled.

After all that has happened, do you think more Catholics will vote for him, less, or about the same amount? Things to factor in, OBAMACARE, abortion, contraception, gay marriage, lying about his faith, using his faith to lie, never going to church, comments like "clinging to their bibles"

I think Obama will get less Catholic votes. A lot less

[thegreekdog]

Obama is stickin it to religious freedom, Christians, and Catholics, every chance he gets. But I'm sure it's his "strong sense of faith" that compels him to do it

I don't think he is (or wants to). As I indicated previously (with data!), a lot of his voters were Catholic. I think the Church is right in that they will indirectly have to pay for the insurance coverage when the insurance company passes on costs to the Church. But I don't think that's enough to win a constitutional argument.

As you know, a lot of his voters were fooled.

After all that has happened, do you think more Catholics will vote for him, less, or about the same amount? Things to factor in, OBAMACARE, abortion, contraception, gay marriage, lying about his faith, using his faith to lie, never going to church, comments like "clinging to their bibles"

I think Obama will get less Catholic votes. A lot less

I think he gets less votes from Catholics. I think a small percentage will be on this issue. A larger percentage will be based on economic factors (not social ones). I don't think there are a whole lot of people who vote on social issues when their pocketbooks are hurting.

[Phatscotty]

I didn't deny any of that was happening. You're right in saying that. You're wrong in assuming that this is all because of excessive spending. That system that the countries I mentioned also use isn't what brought Greece here.The Greek government would be running a surplus if it weren't for cronyism in the ND government before the collapse.

And your Tea Party case would be comparable if say, the Tea Party politicians voted for government takeover of healthcare. A newly-elected democratic socialist party voted for austerity. They have a right to riot.

But, really, keep going. It's getting rather comical now.

And....how about now? (over a year later) Still comical?

A lot has happened since, like, the Nazi's are back. Real f'n Nazis? Is that why we are supposed to look to Europe as an example? It's not a surprise when a large portion of the youth over there does not even know who Hitler was.

This video suggests Tea Party principles are the only thing that can save Europe. Reduce spending, slash taxes. Businesses will grow. People are going to have to accept that they were wrong all along and get over it. The experiment was fun while it lasted I'm sure, but there is no going back. Those days are gone and over. It's time to get serious, and its time to pray that America STOPS looking to Europe for advice.

[Phatscotty]

The University of Notre Dame and the Catholic University of America were among 43 Catholic institutions to file coordinated lawsuits in federal courts across the country against the Department of Health and Human Services Tuesday, claiming the Obama administration’s new birth control mandate violates the First Amendment protections to the free exercise of religion, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Legal experts say that the RFRA, a 1993 law championed by then-Rep. Charles Schumer and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy to protect religious exercise (Native Americans using peyote) from laws that might unintentionally restrict it, is the strongest legal challenge to the birth-control mandate yet. The Hill reports:

RFRA sailed through Congress with broad bipartisan support in response to an unpopular decision by the Supreme Court that was seen as curbing Native Americans’ religious freedom to use peyote, a traditional hallucinogen.

Now it will force the government to prove that federal regulators did not have another way to expand women’s access to birth control that would be less burdensome on religion — an argument experts say conservatives can win.

“I think the odds are pretty good for the plaintiffs here,” Marc DeGirolami, an assistant law professor at St. John’s University, told The Hill.

Outspoken on the issue of the infringement of Catholics’ religious freedom has been Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there’s still no fix. Time is running out,” said Dolan in a statement supporting the litigation.

“Our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now.”

Appearing on CBS news Tuesday morning, Dolan said that the alleged Obama compromise falls short, and dictates further imposition from the State to the Church that goes against religious teaching.

“They tell us if you’re really going to be considered a church, if you’re going to be exempt from the demands of the government, you have to propagate your Catholic faith in everything you do,”said Dolan. “You can serve only Catholics and employ only Catholics. We’re like, wait a minute, when did the government get in the business of defining for us the extent of our ministry?”

On “Real News” Tuesday the panel discussed the litigation and possible political implications the Obama administration’s actions could have on the Catholic vote and socially liberal Democratic base.

“I think Catholics were sacrificed at the alter of riling up your base” said Will Cain, speculating that the HHS mandate was a calculated to decision to rally enthusiasm from women and gay marriage supporters back to the president. On the other hand, S.E. Cupp argued her belief that the HHS moved forward with this legislation completely unaware of the predictable reaction from Catholics because the administration operates from an extremely secular mindset. Watch a clip from the segment below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/real-ne ... istration/

[Phatscotty]

For about the 248th time in this thread, health care reform during the Obama administration has been almost totally about revising regulations for private health insurers, effectively requiring private insurers to offer health insurance to everybody at a non-exorbitant price and for everybody to have some form of insurance. That's pretty much it, although that is a lot. People seeing echoes of the Canadian, British, or Soviet health care system are reading tea leaves.

Right... crony capitalism.

And that "a lot" is unconstitutional. And it's not so much of "reading tea leaves" as it is listening to the progressives in the government say this legislation gets them closer to their end-goal of socialized healthcare.

Socialized healthcare won't happen anytime soon. The Affordable Care Act Congress and the current president were the best chance of that, and here we are arguing over a much ballywhooed law that is merely crony capitalism at it's worst. If they were going to do the socialized healthcare, they would have done it.

Now, maybe in 20 years someone will say "Hey, this Affordable Care Act is too expensive. Companies stopped providing health insurance so now the government pays health insurance and it's just a boondoggle to insurance companies We need healthcare controlled by the government!" And of course, then we'll get socialized healthcare.

Either the affordable care act leans more towards socialism, or it leans more towards free markets.

[Woodruff]

So in all seriousness, does this mean that if a church were to open up an auto mechanic shop, that auto mechanic shop should be tax-free?

If not...why not? Why the difference between that and a hospital? Both are legitimately businesses.

[PLAYER57832]

So in all seriousness, does this mean that if a church were to open up an auto mechanic shop, that auto mechanic shop should be tax-free?

If not...why not? Why the difference between that and a hospital? Both are legitimately businesses.

In this case, hospital workers are being denied the ability to have insurance coverage for procedures and medical issues that apply ONLY to women.

The real problem is employer-based health care coverage. Ironically, the Healthcare reform act is supposed to change that, but the "free market" idea is only good when its Republicans putting it forward.

[Woodruff]

So in all seriousness, does this mean that if a church were to open up an auto mechanic shop, that auto mechanic shop should be tax-free?

If not...why not? Why the difference between that and a hospital? Both are legitimately businesses.

In this case, hospital workers are being denied the ability to have insurance coverage for procedures and medical issues that apply ONLY to women.
The real problem is employer-based health care coverage. Ironically, the Healthcare reform act is supposed to change that, but the "free market" idea is only good when its Republicans putting it forward.

You don't seem to be understanding the point I'm trying to make, which is that church-run hospitals are simply businesses being run by churches and should in no way fall under any sort of "protection because they're a religious organization".

[PLAYER57832]

So in all seriousness, does this mean that if a church were to open up an auto mechanic shop, that auto mechanic shop should be tax-free?

If not...why not? Why the difference between that and a hospital? Both are legitimately businesses.

In this case, hospital workers are being denied the ability to have insurance coverage for procedures and medical issues that apply ONLY to women.
The real problem is employer-based health care coverage. Ironically, the Healthcare reform act is supposed to change that, but the "free market" idea is only good when its Republicans putting it forward.

You don't seem to be understanding the point I'm trying to make, which is that church-run hospitals are simply businesses being run by churches and should in no way fall under any sort of "protection because they're a religious organization".

Yes, I sort of made that argument earlier, except its not entirely true as you phrased it.

In fact, they ARE different. A car mechanic is not required to fix anyone's car. A hospital has to provide services to all patients, by law. A person is, for the most part, not going to have their life at risk because a car repair shop won't fix their car. A woman who goes into an emergency room and is not even told about the abortion option or who is denied birth control because it does not meet the medical practitioner's church's morality... can very well.

Its wrong from the outset, because of course an employer is not supposed to be able to dictate someon else's legal religious practices. But, the fac that these are hospitals and other types of medical institutions that provide the very care they are claiming is against their religion to even provide insurance coverage for... makes this very different than a car mechanic, indeed.

[thegreekdog]

So in all seriousness, does this mean that if a church were to open up an auto mechanic shop, that auto mechanic shop should be tax-free?

If not...why not? Why the difference between that and a hospital? Both are legitimately businesses.

A non-profit hospital provides charitable care. If an auto mechanic provided charitable oil changes, I suppose it would also be tax-free.

[2dimes]

You don't seem to be understanding the point I'm trying to make, which is that church-run hospitals are simply businesses being run by churches and should in no way fall under any sort of "protection because they're a religious organization".

The theory and I fear it may not be possible, is...

The reason a church runs a hospital is to sustainably provide the best care to people in need at or even below cost. Ideally they have a much better support from volunteers and any extra revenue is used to improve the organization instead of rewarding share holders.

If you go to many poor places where there is no profit running a hospital there will probably not be one unless a church organization builds one. Sometimes that organization is supported by a church run hospital in a large city.

The problem is, there will nearly always be someone that finds the profitability of the business of running a hospital. Non profit tends to be a bit over used, sometimes a select few people make a very nice profit where they should not.

I don't agree with cutting off the organization's tax free status due to the corruption of certain people that should be in prison. However I understand why it makes perfect logical sense to do so.

[PLAYER57832]

So in all seriousness, does this mean that if a church were to open up an auto mechanic shop, that auto mechanic shop should be tax-free?

If not...why not? Why the difference between that and a hospital? Both are legitimately businesses.

A non-profit hospital provides charitable care. If an auto mechanic provided charitable oil changes, I suppose it would also be tax-free.

No, the situation would only be similar if, say, the mechanic were supplying required smog services or some such AND providing insurance that prohibited use for smog checks on religious grounds.

[PLAYER57832]

You don't seem to be understanding the point I'm trying to make, which is that church-run hospitals are simply businesses being run by churches and should in no way fall under any sort of "protection because they're a religious organization".

The theory and I fear it may not be possible, is...

The reason a church runs a hospital is to sustainably provide the best care to people in need at or even below cost. Ideally they have a much better support from volunteers and any extra revenue is used to improve the organization instead of rewarding share holders.

If you go to many poor places where there is no profit running a hospital there will probably not be one unless a church organization builds one. Sometimes that organization is supported by a church run hospital in a large city.

The problem is, there will nearly always be someone that finds the profitability of the business of running a hospital. Non profit tends to be a bit over used, sometimes a select few people make a very nice profit where they should not.

I don't agree with cutting off the organization's tax free status due to the corruption of certain people that should be in prison. However I understand why it makes perfect logical sense to do so.

Taxation, not for profit status, etc have little to do with this. It is about whether a church, a church lead solely by men, has the right to dictate what MEDICAL care a WOMAN gets, whether those women are church members or not.

[Night Strike]

Taxation, not for profit status, etc have little to do with this. It is about whether a church, a church lead solely by men, has the right to dictate what MEDICAL care a WOMAN gets, whether those women are church members or not.

The government does not have the authority to tell any private employer, especially a religious institution, what health insurance they must provide. If the church does not believe in the contraception, the government does not has the authority to force them to provide it. And no entity can be forced to provide it for free. If people want contraception, they can pay for it themselves. A prescription is $9 at Walmart without insurance.

[Symmetry]

Taxation, not for profit status, etc have little to do with this. It is about whether a church, a church lead solely by men, has the right to dictate what MEDICAL care a WOMAN gets, whether those women are church members or not.

The government does not have the authority to tell any private employer, especially a religious institution, what health insurance they must provide. If the church does not believe in the contraception, the government does not has the authority to force them to provide it. And no entity can be forced to provide it for free. If people want contraception, they can pay for it themselves. A prescription is $9 at Walmart without insurance.

If a religious institution wants to provide health coverage, they should listen to healthcare professionals. They should subcontract. If they want to subcontract to quack doctors, they shouldn't pretend that it's professional healthcare. They should openly say that they won't fund professional medical advice, and that any doctor who does provide impartial advice will not be paid. They should openly acknowledge that they will pressure doctors into giving treatments and advice that are not medical, but in line with what a group of non-medical professionals deem acceptable.

I think that should be up front- "We don't offer healthcare unless our clergy deem it ok, doctors be damned."

[Night Strike]

Taxation, not for profit status, etc have little to do with this. It is about whether a church, a church lead solely by men, has the right to dictate what MEDICAL care a WOMAN gets, whether those women are church members or not.

The government does not have the authority to tell any private employer, especially a religious institution, what health insurance they must provide. If the church does not believe in the contraception, the government does not has the authority to force them to provide it. And no entity can be forced to provide it for free. If people want contraception, they can pay for it themselves. A prescription is $9 at Walmart without insurance.

If a religious institution wants to provide health coverage, they should listen to healthcare professionals. They should subcontract. If they want to subcontract to quack doctors, they shouldn't pretend that it's professional healthcare. They should openly say that they won't fund professional medical advice, and that any doctor who does provide impartial advice will not be paid. They should openly acknowledge that they will pressure doctors into giving treatments and advice that are not medical, but in line with what a group of non-medical professionals deem acceptable.

I think that should be up front- "We don't offer healthcare unless our clergy deem it ok, doctors be damned."

Contraceptives for actual health reasons are already allowed under virtually all church-provided plans. It's only the providing it for free for the prevention of pregnancy that the churches refuse to pay for.

[Symmetry]

Taxation, not for profit status, etc have little to do with this. It is about whether a church, a church lead solely by men, has the right to dictate what MEDICAL care a WOMAN gets, whether those women are church members or not.

The government does not have the authority to tell any private employer, especially a religious institution, what health insurance they must provide. If the church does not believe in the contraception, the government does not has the authority to force them to provide it. And no entity can be forced to provide it for free. If people want contraception, they can pay for it themselves. A prescription is $9 at Walmart without insurance.

If a religious institution wants to provide health coverage, they should listen to healthcare professionals. They should subcontract. If they want to subcontract to quack doctors, they shouldn't pretend that it's professional healthcare. They should openly say that they won't fund professional medical advice, and that any doctor who does provide impartial advice will not be paid. They should openly acknowledge that they will pressure doctors into giving treatments and advice that are not medical, but in line with what a group of non-medical professionals deem acceptable.

I think that should be up front- "We don't offer healthcare unless our clergy deem it ok, doctors be damned."

Contraceptives for actual health reasons are already allowed under virtually all church-provided plans. It's only the providing it for free for the prevention of pregnancy that the churches refuse to pay for.

Pregnancy is kind of a health reason, no? Should only doctors and nurses approved by "the church" (I'm guessing whichever denomination is in vogue with the institution in charge) give advice and perform procedures?