Obama Health Care Bill would force Catholic Institutions to Violate their Beliefs

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1333379730' post='1114623']

Actually, they provided an exception to mollify the conservative block of the Catholic Church that doesn't in any way, shape or form change the delivery of services, it just takes the moves the payment source.
[/quote]


Which is the argument I am making here. If the individual chooses that its one thing, when the payment source is the church its quite another.

[|kennethmw|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1333380196' post='1114626']


Which is the argument I am making here. If the individual chooses that its one thing, when the payment source is the church its quite another.
[/quote]

However, the payment source NEVER was the church. The Church is not required to have it in the plan that covers any church, any priests or any Nuns. It was ONLY for Church related institutions that provide services to, and employ people that are not church members, most if not all of whom, receive federal funding.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1333380666' post='1114633']

However, the payment source NEVER was the church. The Church is not required to have it in the plan that covers any church, any priests or any Nuns. It was ONLY for Church related institutions that provide services to, and employ people that are not church members, most if not all of whom, receive federal funding.
[/quote]


Now your just splitting hairs.

[|kennethmw|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1333380783' post='1114635']


Now your just splitting hairs.
[/quote]

No, I'm just telling you it's not black or white, it's the gray in the middle. I will also say, that it wouldn't even be an argument, if a republican president had said it. The original precedent for this was developed in 2000, and over the 8 years of the Bush administration was never contested. It's only a problem because of "OBAMACARE". I am never amazed by the willingness of the right to villify words.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1333381583' post='1114643']

No, I'm just telling you it's not black or white, it's the gray in the middle. I will also say, that it wouldn't even be an argument, if a republican president had said it. The original precedent for this was developed in 2000, and over the 8 years of the Bush administration was never contested. It's only a problem because of "OBAMACARE". I am never amazed by the willingness of the right to villify words.
[/quote]


Either way Obamacare is likely to die pretty soon in the supreme court, then maybe we can get back to the drawing board and get a public option, as opposed to what is essentially fascism written by the right wing heritage foundation and adopted by what are republicocrats these days.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1333381862' post='1114648']


[b]Either way Obamacare is likely to die pretty soon in the supreme court, then maybe we can get back to the drawing board and get a public option[/b], as opposed to what is essentially fascism written by the right wing heritage foundation and adopted by what are republicocrats these days.
[/quote]

I think you're crazy if you believe a defeat of the ACA will lead to a public option at any point in the near future. I suppose if it loses and the Dems gain majority back in the House and keep it in the Senate they might muster enough testicular fortitude (fueled by the dismantling of their only real piece of legislature) to go back at the public option with some conviction...but that seems unlikely with these pussies.

I see a defeat of the ACA leading more towards a 24/7 right wing circle jerk about how they successfully prevented Obama from destroying our country and the final step is to come out in droves and defeat all the Dems in November...which just means more of the same in the next 4 years i.e. split near the middle with either side refusing to work with the other side except when it comes to legislation regarding millitary and intelligence and banks.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1333479170' post='1115117']

I think you're crazy if you believe a defeat of the ACA will lead to a public option at any point in the near future. I suppose if it loses and the Dems gain majority back in the House and keep it in the Senate they might muster enough testicular fortitude (fueled by the dismantling of their only real piece of legislature) to go back at the public option with some conviction...but that seems unlikely with these pussies.

I see a defeat of the ACA leading more towards a 24/7 right wing circle jerk about how they successfully prevented Obama from destroying our country and the final step is to come out in droves and defeat all the Dems in November...which just means more of the same in the next 4 years i.e. split near the middle with either side refusing to work with the other side except when it comes to legislation regarding millitary and intelligence and banks.
[/quote]


In the short term I dont think its possible. However I also dont think their solution will reduce the costs of healthcare at all and in the long term that demand that they do drop will drive the public option back onto the table.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1333479864' post='1115128']


In the short term I dont think its possible. However I also dont think their solution will reduce the costs of healthcare at all and in the long term that demand that they do drop will drive the public option back onto the table.
[/quote]

I think I agree with you...the only thing is I'd like to see the ACA stand so that the limited "good" ideas it has (extended years for children to remain on plan, no refusal based on pre-existing conditions) can remain in place while the "demand" for a public option is being fostered through education and closer realization that the system is unsustainable.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1333481553' post='1115142']

I think I agree with you...the only thing is I'd like to see the ACA stand so that the limited "good" ideas it has (extended years for children to remain on plan, no refusal based on pre-existing conditions) can remain in place while the "demand" for a public option is being fostered through education and closer realization that the system is unsustainable.
[/quote]


I think the mandate part of it is too problematic for it to stand.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1333481947' post='1115147']


I think the mandate part of it is too problematic for it to stand [color=#ff0000]with as many Supreme Court Justices on the Koch payroll as there currently are.[/color]
[/quote]

I'm half kidding. I don't like the mandate from a matter of principle but from the analyses (is that the plural of analysis...why am I asking you?) I've read I don't think the mandate has over stepped the bounds of the 10th amendment. I'm not a constitutional scholar so I can be persuaded but I don't have much issue with it.

[Jamie_B]

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/notre-dame-obama-administration-birth-control-mandate_n_1533147.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cnetscape%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D162879"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/notre-dame-obama-administration-birth-control-mandate_n_1533147.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cnetscape%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D162879[/url]
[quote]
[b] Notre Dame, Catholic Groups Suing Obama Administration Over Birth Control Mandate[/b]



[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4][left]NEW YORK — Roman Catholic leaders opened a new front against the Obama administration mandate that employers provide workers birth control coverage, filing federal lawsuits Monday on behalf of dioceses, schools and health care agencies that argued the requirement violates religious freedom.[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4][left]Among the plaintiffs is the University of Notre Dame, which in February had praised President Barack Obama for pledging to accommodate religious groups and find a way to soften the rule. Notre Dame president, the Rev. John Jenkins, said the school had since decided to sue because "progress has not been encouraging" in talks with administration officials.[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4][left]The lawsuits have been filed in eight states and the District of Columbia by the Archdioceses of Washington and New York, the Michigan Catholic Conference, Catholic Charities in Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri and Indiana, health care agencies in New York and two dioceses in Texas.[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4][left]"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress, and we'll keep at it, but there's still no fix," said New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now."[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4][left]Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Department, said Monday the agency does not comment on pending litigation. The liberal advocacy group Catholics United accused the bishops of serving a "right-wing political agenda."[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4][left]Health and Human Services adopted the mandate to improve health care for women. Last year, an advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government, recommended including birth control on the list of covered services, partly because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies.[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4][left]However, many leaders across faith traditions and political ideology argued that the mandate's exception for religious groups was too narrow. The original rule generally allowed churches and other houses of worship to opt out, but kept the requirement in place for religiously affiliated nonprofits, including hospitals, colleges and charities.[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4][left]The political furor caught the administration by surprise. In response, Obama offered to soften the rule so that insurers would pay for birth control instead of religious groups. However, the bishops and others have said that the accommodation, which is still under discussion, doesn't go far enough to protect religious freedom. An Obama administration official said the rule was still under discussion with religious leaders.[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4][left]The lawsuits are the latest in the intensifying standoff between Roman Catholic bishops and the Obama administration during this election year.[/left][/size][/font][/color]

The bishops plan a national campaign for religious freedom in the two weeks leading up to the July Fourth holiday. Last week, Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl lambasted Georgetown University, a Jesuit school, for inviting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to make a graduation speech. Sebelius, who defended religious freedom in her talk, was named as a defendant in the lawsuits Monday, along with her agency and others.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm, had previously filed four other federal lawsuits challenging the mandate on behalf of religious schools and others. Still, observers had been closely watching for Notre Dame's next step.
The university, dubbed the Catholic Harvard, in the past indicated willingness to work with Obama, despite his support for abortion rights. Notre Dame came under unprecedented criticism from U.S. bishops and others in 2009 for inviting Obama as commencement speaker and presenting him with an honorary law degree.
In February, when Obama responded to the complaints of religious leaders about the mandate, Jenkins said in a statement that, "we applaud the willingness of the administration to work with religious organizations to find a solution acceptable to all parties."
On Monday, Jenkins said, "although I do not question the good intentions and sincerity of all involved in these discussions, progress has not been encouraging."
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is not a plaintiff in the lawsuits. Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, whose diocese is among those suing the government, said the law firm Jones Day was handling the lawsuits pro bono nationally.


[/quote]

[fredtoast]

The mandate is one of those 50/50 issues that is so hard to pin down that the ruling will depend on the political make up of the court. It will be struck down with the court voting along strict party lines.

It is still dumbfounding to me that when Obama took office a majority of the public favored a public option and Democrats controlled both the house and the senate, yet it never happened. Perfect example of how money from insurance companies can buy legislation that favors them.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='fredtoast' timestamp='1339789143' post='1135523']
The mandate is one of those 50/50 issues that is so hard to pin down that the ruling will depend on the political make up of the court. It will be struck down with the court voting along strict party lines.

It is still dumbfounding to me that when Obama took office a majority of the public favored a public option and Democrats controlled both the house and the senate, yet it never happened.[color=#ff0000] Perfect example of how money from insurance companies can buy legislation that favors them.[/color]
[/quote]

This.

All detailed [url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/"]here[/url]

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1339792456' post='1135538']
This.

All detailed [url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/"]here[/url]
[/quote]

Anybody who legitimately thinks that the majority of Repubs or Dems that are presently representing you in Washington are looking after your best interests are just kidding themselves... Repubs bow to special interest, Dems bow to special interest... just disgusting. That write up looks pretty succinct... essentially, doesn't matter who is president and who has control of what houses, the only way anything is getting done is pouring money to lobbyists...

Great government.

[MichaelWeston]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1340118432' post='1135881']
Anybody who legitimately thinks that the majority of Repubs or Dems that are presently representing you in Washington are looking after your best interests are just kidding themselves... Repubs bow to special interest, Dems bow to special interest... just disgusting. That write up looks pretty succinct... essentially, doesn't matter who is president and who has control of what houses, the only way anything is getting done is pouring money to lobbyists...

Great government.
[/quote]

I was an idealist when Obama ran and did beleive this. Can't say that I still do, atleast to the extent that I did. I thought then how could I possibly choose this one group that clearly is only looking to make money for themselves by catering to powerful interests. I was right then, I just did not realize both groups would be playing the same game.