The Catholic Church's War on Healthcare

[keith1]

For the health of the company, it's seems rational for an employer to pass out contraceptives, so as to eliminate pregnancy down-time.

 

[spidergoat]

The problem isn't people receiving the benefits, it's the Catholic organizations giving it. If Healthcare is provided by the government, then it's not something an employer has to deal with.

So it's all about feeling guilty for another person's personal health decisions?

What you chose to access isnt the issue, its the employer deciding what you should and shouldn't access. Actually I find it facinating that those who were saying that if obama care got through there would be "Death pannels" and that "beurocrats rather than yourself and your doctor would be deciding what health care you could recive" aren't up in arms about this. Insted of the goverment deciding what your alowed to recive its your employer. So theoretically if we take this to the logical conclusion even though its illegal to discriminate based on pregancy, an employer could just say they aren't providing any obstetric services and keep women who want kids out of a company that way in spite of the laws forbiding it. Also the church doesnt just employ priests and adminstrative services, how many hospitals are paid for by the catholic church in the US because the goverment isn't providing health care? School teachers etc.

That's a good point except that people are going to get these health products one way or another.

 

[joepistole]

Let's turn the question around a bit. Religious organizations are not taxed in this country, yet churches get all the benefits of our government (roads, EMS, education, police, fire, etc). So their tax exemption status amounts to a government subsidy to churches. They get all the government services/benefits but don't have to pay any taxes for those services.

So using the logic of church officials, why should I who am not a member of any church, be forced to subsidize through my tax dollars some church that I do not believe in or participate? Their position is a bit hypocritical.

If churches in this country are willing to give up their special tax exempt status and start paying taxes like the rest of us, then I will agree with them on this birth control issue. At least they will then be consistent in their argument. They don't like paying for something they don't believe in, well I don't either.

 

[Yazata]

This thread really belongs in 'Politics'.

So apparently there are provisions in the new health care bill that would force employers like Catholic hospitals to provide birth control and the morning after pill to their employees as part of providing health insurance.

Which is morally repugnant to them.

The right wing crazies are going apeshit about this

That's just name-calling.

saying that this proves Obama wants to attack religion, specifically the Catholic church. What do you think?

It does illustrate that when the government takes it upon itself to "give" the little people an ostensible 'gift', the government oftentimes also assumes detailed control over how their gift is used. The more times that's repeated, the more people and organizations become like children and the less control that they have over their own lives and activities. It becomes even more problematic when the government rules that everyone must accept the 'gift' (and all the strings attached) and that nobody will be allowed to opt out or make alternative arrangements.

Should all employers have to provide health care, no matter what that specifically entails?

I'm not entirely thrilled with the idea of employers being forced to double as health insurers in the first place.

If somebody in government wants to address the large number of uninsured people out there, perhaps the best solution might be for the government to be the insurer of last resort, offering a bare-bones minimum plan at very low cost. Perhaps a sliding-scale based on income, merging into Medicaid at the low end or something. But don't eliminate the possibility of alternative kinds of private health plans existing alongside the government plan, free to differ from the government plan if that's their choice, and let people make their own choices as to what kind of coverage they need and about whether they want to pay higher premiums for a better plan.

Or should an employer, due to religious belief, be able to withhold certain kinds of medical services their employees?

It would be best to let the employer follow its conscience. If individual employees aren't happy with that, then give them the option of opting-out of the employer's plan and have the employer give the employee the amount of money that they spend per-employee instead, in cash or voucher, so that the unhappy employee can take it to a different insurer in search of different and more desirable coverage.

What if the employee supports the institution but happens to use contraception, like 98% of Catholics in the US do? What if you are an employee and are not Catholic? Is this an attack on religious freedom?

Yes. What Obama's doing is probably legal though. If a church wanted to shelter under constitutional religious-freedom provisions, I suspect that they would have to restrict the social services that their church provides to members of their church alone. Make it an internal matter about how they practice their religion and stop trying to accomodate the general public in their ministrations. So one danger in Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi trying to claim that they have superior moral discernment and the power to preempt the Catholic church's right to make its own moral choices, is the possibility that non-Catholics might eventually be excluded from Catholic social services. That would be a very bad outcome, if it ever came to that.

 

[spidergoat]

The only choice a Catholic hospital might make is to provide health care, something that everyone will need sooner or later, it's not a gift. I don't think they should have a right to interject themselves into someone's personal health care decisions.

Additionally, these Catholic institutions are hypocrites, since they also tend to support right wing policies that kill children, either by withholding funds for a social safety net, or adding to the tax burden of the poor by giving tax cuts to the rich.

 

[Balerion]

The only choice a Catholic hospital might make is to provide health care, something that everyone will need sooner or later, it's not a gift. I don't think they should have a right to interject themselves into someone's personal health care decisions.

Additionally, these Catholic institutions are hypocrites, since they also tend to support right wing policies that kill children, either by withholding funds for a social safety net, or adding to the tax burden of the poor by giving tax cuts to the rich.

In a way, this hypocrisy is a good sign, because it shows how even the most devout today only allow their faith to inform some of their decisions. What was that old line about how people used to believe in multiple gods, but now they believe in one, and they're getting closer to the real number every day? Same sort of thing applies here, just with morals.

It's unsurprising that modern issues never become more cluttered than when they clash with religious belief. This is what you get when a 21st century society bases their morals on Bronze Age mythology.

Imagine if this applied in any other field. "No, no, we can't yet approve this new cholesterol medicine, because my religion says this I have to take this blue potion for that." "Sorry, you can't call that an exoplanet, because it totally screws up the chi of my rising house." "

 

[sifreak21]

Sean hanbity is talking about thus 2 woman one on each side the pro cathlic and the idiot sean could only say i dont want my tax dollars to go to birth control well news flash some dont want theres to go to war effforts or pay off debt they didn't accumulate. Like stated here the second thr church became ahealthcare employer they are no longer a religious entity they ate a buisness and have to abide by different rules and cant pick and choose what yhey do and dont want

 

[spidergoat]

Sean Hannity is a damn liar. It was his show that inspired this thread. I think they will just throw the kitchen sink at Obama and see what sticks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's a good thing Jehovah's Witnesses don't run businesses. They would want to refuse to pay for blood transfusions.

By the logic seen in this regard, given that benefits are a part of total income package, I guess Jewish hospitals could refuse to allow employees to eat un-kosher with money made on the job.

When a church goes into business, I think they forgo their unique status as a religious institution. The logic used by the church here could be applied to all sorts of issues, such as refusing to hire people for religious reasons.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

So apparently there are provisions in the new health care bill that would force employers like Catholic hospitals to provide birth control and the morning after pill to their employees as part of providing health insurance. The right wing crazies are going apeshit about this, saying that this proves Obama wants to attack religion, specifically the Catholic church. What do you think? Should all employers have to provide health care, no matter what that specifically entails? Or should an employer, due to religious belief, be able to withhold certain kinds of medical services their employees? What if the employee supports the institution but happens to use contraception, like 98% of Catholics in the US do? What if you are an employee and are not Catholic? Is this an attack on religious freedom?

I think that it is a violation of religious rights to force an employer to financially support something that goes against their concience.

I do think it's a deliberate attack on religious institutions, trying to force them to go against their beliefs. The employees this would impact know they are working for the Church and most of them that work for Catholic services and schools are Catholic themselves. If they do use ABC they are probably fine with purchasing it themselves, especially if the alternative is losing their insurance entirely or even losing their job if the organization is shut down.

I also don't believe birth control counts as healthcare in the first place. It doesn't cure or prevent an illness. (except in the case of certain pills being used for endomitriocis and the like) That would be like me saying that I really like tatoos and my health insurance should pay to remove my tatoos so I can go out and get new ones.

 

[Balerion]

I think that it is a violation of religious rights to force an employer to financially support something that goes against their concience.

Once the church starts taking on employees, they've entered the realm of the state, and as such they have to follow the same rules as everyone else. If it were a violation of religion rights for the state to force the church to provide the same healthcare as everyone else does to their employees, then by your logic it would also be a violation for equal opportunity employment to apply to them as well. Do you think church-based organizations should be able to discriminate in the hiring process if it were a part of their belief system that, say, women shouldn't be allowed to work for wages?

I do think it's a deliberate attack on religious institutions, trying to force them to go against their beliefs. The employees this would impact know they are working for the Church and most of them that work for Catholic services and schools are Catholic themselves. If they do use ABC they are probably fine with purchasing it themselves, especially if the alternative is losing their insurance entirely or even losing their job if the organization is shut down.

Nonsense. As an employer, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Again, following your logic, the CEO of Google, if Catholic, should have the right to deny his or her employees birth control coverage. You see how stupid this is yet?

I also don't believe birth control counts as healthcare in the first place. It doesn't cure or prevent an illness. (except in the case of certain pills being used for endomitriocis and the like) That would be like me saying that I really like tatoos and my health insurance should pay to remove my tatoos so I can go out and get new ones.

It's not the same thing at all, but one can make an argument as to the necessity of birth control in a health care bill. I think it's one of those "for the greater good" things, personally.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think that it is a violation of religious rights to force an employer to financially support something that goes against their concience.

Including hiring blacks, for example?

I do think it's a deliberate attack on religious institutions, trying to force them to go against their beliefs.

If it is a deliberate attack on religion, then why are churches themselves exempt?

The employees this would impact know they are working for the Church and most of them that work for Catholic services and schools are Catholic themselves. If they do use ABC they are probably fine with purchasing it themselves, especially if the alternative is losing their insurance entirely or even losing their job if the organization is shut down.

I also don't believe birth control counts as healthcare in the first place. It doesn't cure or prevent an illness. (except in the case of certain pills being used for endomitriocis and the like) That would be like me saying that I really like tatoos and my health insurance should pay to remove my tatoos so I can go out and get new ones.

So you believe employers should be exempt from laws as long as they can claim they are religion-based? You do realize that almost anyone can make a religion out of anything, right? I think the latest was the church of tatoos.

 

[Balerion]

Including hiring blacks, for example?



If it is a deliberate attack on religion, then why are churches themselves exempt?



So you believe employers should be exempt from laws as long as they can claim they are religion-based? You do realize that almost anyone can make a religion out of anything, right?

Great minds think alike.

 

[spidergoat]

Good point, the Mormons used to have a thing against blacks. If they started a hospital, would they have been allowed to hire whites only?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Some other churches that could influence employee rights.

The Creativity Movement (formerly known as World Church Of The Creator), is a white separatist organization that advocates the whites-only religion, Creativity. It was also a descriptive phrase used by Ben Klassen, that included all adherents of the religion. The use of the term creator does not refer to a deity, but rather to themselves (white people)....

Obviously spelling is not a fundamental part of this religion! Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth (TOPY) was founded in 1981 by members of Psychic TV, Coil, Current 93, and a number of other individuals. The ever-evolving network is a loosely federated group of people operating as a unique blend of artistic collective, and practitioners of magic...

The Nation of Yahweh is a predominantly African-American religious group that is the most controversial offshoot of the Black Hebrew Israelites line of thought. They were founded in 1979 in Miami by Hulon Mitchell, Jr., who went by the name Yahweh ben Yahweh. Their goal is to return African Americans, whom they see as the original Israelites, to Israel...

The Prince Philip Movement is a cargo cult of the Yaohnanen tribe on the southern island of Tanna in Vanuatu. The Yaohnanen believe that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, the consort to Queen Elizabeth II, is a divine being, the pale-skinned son of a mountain spirit and brother of John Frum...

The Church of Euthanasia (CoE)... further asserts four principal pillars: suicide, abortion, cannibalism (“strictly limited to consumption of the already dead”), and sodomy (“any sexual act not intended for procreation”). Slogans employed by the group include “Save the Planet, Kill Yourself”, “Six Billion Humans Can’t Be Wrong”, and “Eat a Queer Fetus for Jesus”...

http://listverse.com/2009/09/10/10-extremely-weird-religions/

And a somewhat related humorous note:

Now, in a quirk of fate laced with lawsuits, religious conversions and a small-town Southern narrative Harper Lee might deliver, a black pastor will eventually control what just might be the most famous white supremacist shop in America.

Last month, a state circuit judge in Greenwood, S.C., decided that Pastor Kennedy’s tiny New Beginning Missionary Baptist Church held the valid title to the old Echo Theater, whose lobby the Redneck Shop occupies. It was handed over fair and square years earlier by an acolyte of John Howard, the Klan leader who founded the shop...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/u...eck-shop-and-its-neighbor.html?pagewanted=all

 

[spidergoat]

If the government caves in on this, could a woman that got pregnant sue her employer for the cost of raising the child?

 

[adoucette]

Sure.

Couldn't win though.

 

[wellwisher]

I am glad this happened since this will come back to bite Obama in the election. Catholics often vote for democrats but this will change the vote in pivot states.

 

[spidergoat]

You wish, there are no pivot states, Obama is going to get a second term easily.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am glad this happened since this will come back to bite Obama in the election. Catholics often vote for democrats but this will change the vote in pivot states.

More likely, this will come back and bite the Catholics in the butt for expecting special treatment. That they are making such an issue out of this forces me to consider the ramifications, and it is clear to me that whether church-owned or not, a business is not a church, so they aren't entitled to such protections. If they are non-profit, fine, they can still enjoy tax exempt status, but not special protection due to religious affiliations. That is just a dodge.