what ever happened to separation of church and state?

 

The Catholic Church is not a company. It isn't Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Humana Health Care. Forcing it to give out abortion inducing drugs and contraception goes against everything the church believes in.

Again, with all the other places that a woman can get contraception in this country, very easily I might add, why is it neccessary to force a faith based group to give out stuff it doesn't believe in?

Whats next? Forcing them to eat chicken on Fridays instead of fish because fish has too much mercury and might be bad for a Catholics health? Or forcing a Muslim Hospital to serve pork because it is a good source of protien?

The Government has no business doing this and it is just another example of why this administration shouldn't get 4 more years. Who knows what kind of crap he would do as a lame duck with nobody to answer to.

 

Can you elaborate on this ?

I seem to be missing how WellPoint ( or any of the others ) is a religious organization
- this is just in the BSBC association alone, not to mention any other insurance associations.

Not really a change in what the goal is, just how to get there.

Looks like the end result is still the same.

 

Here we go, toss some additional hype on the pile.
This was not in the prescription coverage mandates. It was specifically excluded...

Really, this was your take away ?
You normally read better than this.
The topic is the insurance prescription coverage for birth control ( not termination ).
Not a single factual report has it where the church itself is handing out things.
This is a case of an employer ( a religious org ) being able to say what is covered and not covered under a given plan.

This opens up a whole host of issues when a company gets next years premium increase estimates, and works a deal where any expensive item is omitted. Your company decides that blood thinners are not covered, it is not their belief that your eating poorly should not be covered by them.
Take a look at a prescription for lovelox.
Do you want the presidence set that your company can remove an expensive prescriptions, so you can pay the 1,000.00 per month or risk a stroke ?
If it is on prescription coverage, why not medical procedures, so you need an MRI, sorry not covered.

Again I cannot stress enough, this looks to be the start of the fall out from the Health Care Law passed by the 111th congress.
Allow this to set the stage for omission of what ever a company wants to, might as well be uninsured is going to be the results.

 

My understanding is that the coverage does not cover abortion fees, but it includes coverage for emergency contraceptives like Plan B and Ella, which some faiths believe are abortion drugs due to their belief that life begins at conception.

 

I see that is the topic today, but yesterday's HHS specifically excluded any abortion. Maybe HHS was playing word games yesterday as well.

The question still stands unanswered; do you want your employer deciding what you can have excluded with your insurance ?

This is what is comes down to, an employer being able to list what you can and can't have from ( at least now ) a prescription plan.

It would make the PBM's job easier, as the starting point could remove complete categories of drugs.

 

If I worked for a faith based organization that didn't believe in contraception or abortion inducing drugs I would not force them to provide them to me, I would find my own co-pay and provide them for myself. I guess I don't see the Catholic church as a company like a Wal Mart or McDonalds is. They aren't faith based organizations so I don't know why standard companies would be able to start excluding stuff because of their beliefs, they aren't religions. But maybe I am wrong.

 

The question remains unanswered because it irrelevant.

The relevant question is:

Under what authority can the United States government force religious organizations to violate their beliefs?

Bottom line is this was a heavy handed, unconstitutional overreach by the POTUS.

Oh, and to answer the quesiton you posed: As an employer, I should have the FREEDOM to exclude certain coverages I find against my religious beliefs. If this prevents me from attracting qualified employees in the FREE MARKET, I will go out of business, or have to bend on my beliefs. This is my decision to make, NOT the government's.

 

Makes perfect sense, hard to argue against this point.

 

Here lies the problem with this whole mess, they are an employer just like the above list.
What they do to make money does not matter, the employee side of things is the same for a Church or Walmart.
They have to pay Social Security taxes on the employees, they have to pay Medicare taxes on the employee, they are required to have workmans comp ins and figure federal and if applicable state income taxes and withhold it.
They are employing people just the same.

Really ?

You have no issue with the presidence being set that your company could eliminate any drugs off the prescription plan they want to ( read the expensive ones ) ?

Next stop having an insurance policy that removes expensive procedures from the medical side of the plan. Not increased copay for them, removed all together, the employee pays the full bill.

This has zero to do with beliefs, and everything to do with employers being able to fulfill the Health Care Law requirements with a plan that qualifies under the minimum coverage and you get to foot the bill for anything expensive.

What happens in 2013 when the Health Care Law hits full stride, and the costs go up ( the increases to date are child's play so far ).
Employers are going to have to pass along huge cost increases to the employees or cut benefits. By law they cannot cut the policy ( adn the employee has to have it ), so on to cutting the insurance benefits. Design a policy around having anything expensive removed from it.

I could care less about the 1st companies that try it ( and if they go out of business ), it is when it passes 25% of the companies in the US, and the flood gates open that worries me.
How do you think health Care Law waivers were designed ?
- AT&T figured out they could can the entire health care offering to the employees ( 2.4B / yr ) and retirees ( 2.3B per year ) and pay the fine ( 283,000 x $ 2,000.00 = 566 M per year ). This netted AT&T about $ 4.1B / yr in savings.

What do you think happens when the flood gates open ?

AT&T only had to make a presentation and leak it to have a waiver program made to remove them from the Health Care Law.
What happens when companies don't just do saber rattling ?

The obvious part of what this being shot down brings to the table for EVERY employee is being missed, due to what the target does to make money.

Hope you get your beliefs are left intact, and you had better rethink the plate when it comes around, MRIs and Lovelox are not cheap.

Given this should have been a state insurance board issue, not the WH, but this is the easy way to make a common law that is protecting workers ( union and non union alike ) from getting the short end of the stick come Health Care Law full stride.

- Seems everyone has moved on to the next headline, and forgot about what the 111th congress did to the workers of the US by passing the Health Care Law. It starts to hit full stride next year people, wake up !

 

My take is that the people who have gone to work for Catholic organizations knew that birth control was not included in the package, so nothing is being taken away from them. Also most who work for them (catholic church) hold the same beliefs as the church. So why all of a sudden is it ok for the government to start peeing in someone else's sandbox?

Nothing is being taken away from those employees. What is happening is the government is mandating that things that are against the beliefs if the church be added. What is next, Nuns can be male, or women can be preist?

This is a perfect example of death by a thousand cuts, death of our constitution that is.

 

The bottom line is, they are removing someones right to choose. Allowing government to remove any one right, is granting government the power to remove any right.

You can slice this many umpteen ways, but the fact is, government is emassing power bit by bit. Mincing words won't do a thing. Actively trying to change direction will.

 

You bring up an interesting point, who opened their mouth and complained about this ?

Doubt the WH went on a hunt for "what can I do" with everything else going on.

And the back side of that blade ??

 

I don't think the WH was on the hunt, more like "think we can slip this one by", IMHO. Maybe a wag the dog kind of thing.......keep your eyes open!

 

There was a piece on the radio today, a government agency (don't recall which one) wants to broaden the criteria for mental illness to include things like depression. Sounds ok on the surface, but....Here is an example of how this could play out. Say you lost your job during the era of Hope and Change and eventually lost your house. That's pretty depressing right there, so the Doc puts you on some prescription anti depressant. Fast foward a few months/years and you are going for a job with a background check, or a CCW permit, or even buying a new firearm. "Do you have a history of mental illness?" Yup, no dice, SOL. Remember also that the government was pushing for access to everyone's medical records awhile back. Wow if we have Government health care who knows where your records will end up?

Heard also they are working on a re-deffinition for terrorist. Couple that with the new "can arrest anyone suspected to be involved in terrorism and hold them indefinatly" law/clause, and you have the back side if that blade.

I don't wear a tinfoil hat, but you do have to watch what the other hand is doing at all times, even more so with this bunch that occupy the White House.

It will be good come next year when he is voted out.