Obama Admin Renews Attempt to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Obey HHS Mandate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
a reply to: xuenchen

This President is the worst. I can't wait for him to be gone.

Why? It's not like anything will be different when the next guy enters the oval office.

Things do change, I'm sick of this generic response.

a reply to: OptimusCrime

Yes, small things. But president to president, overarching policies stay the same. Why else do you think that Obama largely continued to carry out (and even expand) the same policies that bush implemented (who continued to carry out and expand policies that Clinton implemented and so on and so forth)? It's not like someone who isn't a Democrat or Republican will be the next president, so you can pretty much count on the same bulls# with the next guy, with maybe a different wrapper. It's not a generic response; it's just truth.

But hey. Maybe America will wake up to this stupid game and actually vote someone from a different party into the oval office (like Libertarian or Green) and we'll actually get some REAL changes. But I doubt it. Nah. We'll probably vote a Republican into office (since we just had 8 years of a Democrat and we tend to switch sides every 8 years) and then proceed to complain about all the same things that this guy does. MARK. MY. WORDS.

Second, the so-called “accommodation” still forces the Little Sisters to find an insurer who will cover sterilization, contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and will provide related counseling and education to promote those things. The Sisters would also be required to sign a form that triggers the start of that coverage. In good conscience, they can’t do that. So the “accommodation” still violates their religious beliefs.
-
-
-
Instead of truly exempting non-profit religious organizations, the final rule merely offers them an “accommodation.” Under this, an objecting organization will notify its insurer or plan administrator, which will make payments to employees for the mandated contraceptive services. The rule insists these payments are not “benefits” and are separate from the organization’s health plan. Nonetheless, the accommodation means that employees are guaranteed payments for objectionable services, specifically because they are covered under the organization’s plan. Furthermore, the accommodation requires a self-insured organization to “designate” its plan administrator as an agent who will make or arrange for payments for the mandated services. This “accommodation” fails to solve the moral problem created by the mandate for many religious organizations.
www.becketfund.org...

They aren't griping about having to insure birth control..
they are griping that they have to sign a form that will accomodate so that the employees will still get these services.
www.cms.gov...


I keep going back to my question:
Why is there need for companies and organizations to have protections that the people don't seem to have? I mean I would still have to buy coverage for my minor children that would include it!
These businesses and organizations keep point to gov't programs that provide birth control as the alternative their insurance covering it but doesn't this just shift the burden onto the taxpayers who by the way are real people who do have their religious freedoms supposedly protected by the constitution?

originally posted by: dawnstar

Second, the so-called “accommodation” still forces the Little Sisters to find an insurer who will cover sterilization, contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and will provide related counseling and education to promote those things. The Sisters would also be required to sign a form that triggers the start of that coverage. In good conscience, they can’t do that. So the “accommodation” still violates their religious beliefs.
-
-
-
Instead of truly exempting non-profit religious organizations, the final rule merely offers them an “accommodation.” Under this, an objecting organization will notify its insurer or plan administrator, which will make payments to employees for the mandated contraceptive services. The rule insists these payments are not “benefits” and are separate from the organization’s health plan. Nonetheless, the accommodation means that employees are guaranteed payments for objectionable services, specifically because they are covered under the organization’s plan. Furthermore, the accommodation requires a self-insured organization to “designate” its plan administrator as an agent who will make or arrange for payments for the mandated services. This “accommodation” fails to solve the moral problem created by the mandate for many religious organizations.
www.becketfund.org...

They aren't griping about having to insure birth control..
they are griping that they have to sign a form that will accomodate so that the employees will still get these services.
www.cms.gov...


I keep going back to my question:
Why is there need for companies and organizations to have protections that the people don't seem to have? I mean I would still have to buy coverage for my minor children that would include it!
These businesses and organizations keep point to gov't programs that provide birth control as the alternative their insurance covering it but doesn't this just shift the burden onto the taxpayers who by the way are real people who do have their religious freedoms supposedly protected by the constitution?

Your right, citizens deserve the right to pick and choose all the details of their insurance, up to and including birth control. If I don't want colostomy bag coverage then it should be so. I have no problem extending that right to non publicly traded companies. The problem is only the companies have the money to fast track to the supreme court. Once they set the precedent then citizens can make their move.

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
a reply to: xuenchen

This President is the worst. I can't wait for him to be gone.

Why? It's not like anything will be different when the next guy enters the oval office.

Things do change, I'm sick of this generic response.

Hes right though unless you break from the republican/demcrat dynamics nothing will. You will just end up with bush III or Clinton II next.

a reply to: XTexan
Is there any other instance where we or employers for that matter could pick and chose what particular healthcare items were in their coverage? It seems like over the past several decades the choices have been taken away. I worked for one company for 7 years. At first I had a choice between several different plans by the time I left the company the boss was arguing with the representative about their policy of not covering services from providers that weren't on their preferred provider list. We had lost one of our employees recently and her chance of survival would have been much higher if she had had the choice of where she wanted treatment.

a reply to: crazyewok
If you think the republican will do much to obamacare try to remember
it was Romney's baby first!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: crazyewok
If you think the republican will do much to obamacare try to remember
it was Romney's baby first!

you are right.
They didn't vote for it and they tried to scrap it when they knew full well that they didn't have the votes....
But they won't scrap it if they end up with a Senate majority after the next election. I would guarantee it.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: XTexan
Is there any other instance where we or employers for that matter could pick and chose what particular healthcare items were in their coverage? It seems like over the past several decades the choices have been taken away. I worked for one company for 7 years. At first I had a choice between several different plans by the time I left the company the boss was arguing with the representative about their policy of not covering services from providers that weren't on their preferred provider list. We had lost one of our employees recently and her chance of survival would have been much higher if she had had the choice of where she wanted treatment.

The plans that your employer provided were his choice, the way it should be. You also had the choice to turn it down and obtain it yourself where you actually had some choice, not as much as i prefer though.

a reply to: XTexan
oh I am sure the super rich can probably still get their plans custom made
but neither my employer or his employees have that option
we have to consider costs in that equation.

besides I don't think having all of us designing our own health insurance plans would work that well would it?
at least as it it now if you go into a doctor's office and give them your insurance card that have a general idea of what might be an issue and what isn't.

of course if we did away with insurance (many doctors were heading in that direction before obamacare finding that they could reduce the fees for the patient enough because of the savings they got from not having to file the claims)
then we could really have the freedom to chose wouldn't we!

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
I'm so confused. Why do nuns need BC? And why do nuns need to pay for drugs they don't need?!

Yeah the whole 'immactulate' conception deal shows that exercise in futility except enriching big pharma corporations.

Gotta love state mandated corporate fascism!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: crazyewok
If you think the republican will do much to obamacare try to remember
it was Romney's baby first!

So the left plagerized the rights laws?

Is that about right ?

a reply to: neo96
or maybe just maybe
the only "left" and "right" is in the minds of some of the peons.
and both parties are working for the same goals

Are they American citizens? Oh nevermind, I guess I'm alone in still supporting separation of church and state.

a reply to: dawnstar

of course if we did away with insurance (many doctors were heading in that direction before obamacare finding that they could reduce the fees for the patient enough because of the savings they got from not having to file the claims) then we could really have the freedom to chose wouldn't we!

We headed that way under FDR and LBJ with their medicare, and medicaid.

And now the current guy.

Which makes the current largest healthcare provider in this country the US federal goverment with it's programs.

Progressives have destroyed the healthcare system in this country.

Funny thing there is Obama care aka the 'affordable' Care Act was a LIE.

Since medicaid was created SPECIFICALLY for the poor.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: neo96
or maybe just maybe
the only "left" and "right" is in the minds of some of the peons.
and both parties are working for the same goals

I agree. The oppositional parties stuff is just for show.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Are they American citizens? Oh nevermind, I guess I'm alone in still supporting separation of church and state.

You're not alone. However, I'm not sure how you're applying it to your position in this case. My position is that when religious groups function like businesses (in this case it means hiring employees), they should be subject to the same employment laws as other businesses. The other part of this is that the Supreme Court made a horrendous decision (almost certainly do to the religious persuasions of a majority of the Court) when they ruled closely held corporations could opt out of paying for some parts of health insurance coverage at will.

originally posted by: dawnstar

Second, the so-called “accommodation” still forces the Little Sisters to find an insurer who will cover sterilization, contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and will provide related counseling and education to promote those things. The Sisters would also be required to sign a form that triggers the start of that coverage. In good conscience, they can’t do that. So the “accommodation” still violates their religious beliefs.
-
-
-
Instead of truly exempting non-profit religious organizations, the final rule merely offers them an “accommodation.” Under this, an objecting organization will notify its insurer or plan administrator, which will make payments to employees for the mandated contraceptive services. The rule insists these payments are not “benefits” and are separate from the organization’s health plan. Nonetheless, the accommodation means that employees are guaranteed payments for objectionable services, specifically because they are covered under the organization’s plan. Furthermore, the accommodation requires a self-insured organization to “designate” its plan administrator as an agent who will make or arrange for payments for the mandated services. This “accommodation” fails to solve the moral problem created by the mandate for many religious organizations.
www.becketfund.org...

They aren't griping about having to insure birth control..
they are griping that they have to sign a form that will accomodate so that the employees will still get these services.
www.cms.gov...


I keep going back to my question:
Why is there need for companies and organizations to have protections that the people don't seem to have? I mean I would still have to buy coverage for my minor children that would include it!
These businesses and organizations keep point to gov't programs that provide birth control as the alternative their insurance covering it but doesn't this just shift the burden onto the taxpayers who by the way are real people who do have their religious freedoms supposedly protected by the constitution?

I understand your question. On the one hand, the Supreme Court ruled that there's such a thing as corporate personhood (one of the all time worst rulings) and now, as you point out, are giving corporations/non-profits separate rights from individual persons. You are not alone in seeing where this is heading.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Are they American citizens? Oh nevermind, I guess I'm alone in still supporting separation of church and state.

You're not alone. However, I'm not sure how you're applying it to your position in this case. My position is that when religious groups function like businesses (in this case it means hiring employees), they should be subject to the same employment laws as other businesses. The other part of this is that the Supreme Court made a horrendous decision (almost certainly do to the religious persuasions of a majority of the Court) when they ruled closely held corporations could opt out of paying for some parts of health insurance coverage at will.

There you go! Yes, yes and yes!

a reply to: ladyinwaiting
You realize, of course, that the Constitution does not actually provide for separation of Church and State. It merely provides for the inability of congress to create a state approved church.

Yes, I know all the arguments. Arguments that seemingly assume incorrectly that Jefferson was the sole framer and signer of the Constitution. Arguments that seem to ignore that each and ever congressional session since day one began with a prayer. I can go on and on...

The problem is this: they didn't do it right. They "interpreted" the constitution to mean that. No amendment has been passed... nothing. In other words, a SCOTUS in the future could very well reverse the interpretation.

These are the words: "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion." Period.

What if, in the future, SCOTUS decided, at the urging of the Executive and Legislative branches that the following:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Means that it is necessary to eliminate the bottom 10% of the country. I can interpret the above to mean that just as easily as I can interpret the constitution to mean absolute separation of church and state.

BTW: I support separation. Absolutely. I just think it was done wrong. There is a process, established by the constitution, to make changes. The Judicial branch legislating from the bench is not how it is supposed to happen. Just another example of our constitution being twisted and applied as desired instead of to the letter.

The biggest slippery slope evah!