Active Users:75 Time:28/11/2015 11:47:56 PM
Sounds like they just do not want Catholics directly financing; great argument for public healthcare Joel Send a noteboard - 10/02/2012 02:27:36 AM
That's likely why DHHS eliminated the exemption: in order to move the conversation away from the realm of barely-veiled theocracy.

From the article linked below:

The rule goes into effect Aug. 1, but if objections are raised, another year's extension is possible.

That was no consolation to Catholic leaders. The White House is "all talk, no action" on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular," Picarello said. "We're not going to do anything until this is fixed."

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

Obama and DHHS want to give people access to birth control (free choice) regardless of income level (equality). The Catholic Church wants to keep anyone from having access to birth control (oppression) because their specific religious beliefs oppose it (theocracy). It's clear who the "villain" here actually is.

Nowhere in those statements does anyone affiliated with the Catholic Church advocate denying everyone contraception (which actually would be oppression) or any kind of theocracy. They just do not want Catholics forced to directly pay for something they morally oppose, any more than you would want to be forced to pay for their next new church. That is a reasonable position.

The problem is that healthcare, of which contraception is undeniably a part, is a basic right. Even Santorums comments imply warped agreement (they suggest he thinks healthcare a right of businesses and institutions, to extend to employees—or not—as they please.) It is entirely possible Obama erred in recognizing healthcare as a right but leaving it to private institutions to maintain as much or as little as they wish. Seems to me anything the public possesses only so far as private institutions and individuals grant is not much of a right. That makes it no less vital to their survival. If healthcare is only available to the 80% of US adults with full time employment, only to the extent their employers underwrite it, either it is not a right or America has a serious civil rights crisis. Three guesses which is the case.

This is why Obamas healthcare "reform" is unworthy of the name, and why so many of us said it was worse than nothing: Because it is. What is covered at what rate is still entirely at the discretion of private employers and private insurers. All that has changed is that 1) all Americans must purchase private insurance, whether or not they can afford it, or pay a tax penalty, 2) the bloated private insurers driving up costs for both patients and doctors are guaranteed a $900 billion taxpayer windfall and 3) insurers cannot refuse coverage to 50 year old diabetics with heart disease (they are, of course, free to charge them $2000/month knowing most of them will simply pay a $750/year tax penalty instead.) This is why we needed a public option, and still do; we can expect plenty more arguments over whether the feds are unreasonable to expect sick people get medical care.

I will get back to you tomorrow in that other thread, incidentally; now I must sleep (sorry.)
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 10/02/2012 at 02:29:31 AM
Reply to message
Democrats bailing on Obama - War against the Catholic Church heats up - 09/02/2012 04:03:35 AM 812 Views
This is not a war on Catholics, it is Obama being an idiot again. - 09/02/2012 04:52:01 AM 199 Views
For someone who used to be a Con Law professor - 10/02/2012 08:23:34 PM 149 Views
Also, kudos for linking to a source, and a fairly non-partisan one as well. - 09/02/2012 01:33:07 PM 243 Views
I am a non-partisan guy, so I only use unbiased sources! *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:02:50 PM 125 Views
Is there really such a thing? *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:11:30 PM 108 Views
You lost all credibility in the first line of your post. - 09/02/2012 04:49:23 PM 234 Views
The subject line didn't help. *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:04:11 PM 110 Views
But it added some flair to the discussion! *NM* - 09/02/2012 07:46:47 PM 99 Views
You actually think any of us has 'credibility' anymore in regards to neutrality? *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:46:13 PM 100 Views
It's one thing to have a bias. - 09/02/2012 07:28:51 PM 193 Views
Some would say putting a spotlight on it is more honest. *NM* - 09/02/2012 09:34:17 PM 98 Views
Ah, the Rupert Murdoch School of Objectivity. - 09/02/2012 10:15:57 PM 143 Views
Wow, talk about making a supernova out of a couple hydrogen atoms. - 09/02/2012 08:41:44 PM 169 Views
The Catholic Church wants to eliminate the birth control coverage requirement entirely. - 10/02/2012 12:24:01 AM 201 Views
Sounds like they just do not want Catholics directly financing; great argument for public healthcare - 10/02/2012 02:27:36 AM 168 Views
I'm somewhat suprised that Obama blundered this badly. - 10/02/2012 01:40:14 AM 170 Views
Why? Have you not been paying attention? - 10/02/2012 02:03:43 AM 160 Views
If I am not satisfied with Romney then my Plan B is to not vote. - 10/02/2012 10:58:34 PM 145 Views
How does that help anything? Except Romneys election chances, of course. - 11/02/2012 01:08:22 AM 128 Views
Bullshit. - 11/02/2012 04:29:31 AM 166 Views
A vote for no one is a vote for more BS. - 11/02/2012 05:55:11 AM 182 Views
Obama doing this actually impresses me to no end. - 10/02/2012 02:21:10 AM 293 Views
He is already preparing to cave. - 10/02/2012 02:42:32 AM 183 Views
Why are you even replying to me? What you said has little meaning to what I said. - 10/02/2012 03:33:27 AM 151 Views
"And here I thought he was just another politician." - 10/02/2012 01:29:36 PM 138 Views
Aaaaand you can put your hat back on now: Obama has already caved. - 10/02/2012 04:04:30 PM 218 Views
So Jehovah Witness employers should not have to pay for blood transfusions? - 10/02/2012 03:57:47 AM 170 Views
Not if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. - 10/02/2012 04:20:32 PM 187 Views
Money is not the same as speech! - 10/02/2012 07:20:56 PM 175 Views
One last point - 10/02/2012 11:35:25 PM 153 Views
The federal government forcing private groups to facilitate without committing sin also infringes. - 11/02/2012 01:03:30 AM 140 Views
You argument does not make sense - 11/02/2012 01:26:57 AM 196 Views
It was an analogy, not an equivalency. - 11/02/2012 01:48:14 AM 154 Views
Lets enhance your analogy making it closer to reality - 11/02/2012 02:19:41 AM 161 Views
Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 03:46:33 AM 153 Views
Re: Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 04:17:17 AM 130 Views
In other words, I could. - 11/02/2012 04:21:05 AM 107 Views
Some more points - 11/02/2012 02:30:27 AM 175 Views
Sex is not a necessity either. - 11/02/2012 03:56:51 AM 166 Views
I can't believe you just said that - 11/02/2012 04:30:12 AM 126 Views
The widespread inability to believe that is deeply worrisome. - 11/02/2012 06:33:01 AM 179 Views
LMAO due to Obama's compromise (the word compromise should have a in it ) - 11/02/2012 12:12:57 AM 183 Views
Obama just got two weeks of being portrayed as "anti-church" to the point even Dems complained. - 11/02/2012 02:00:28 AM 151 Views
The polls disagree with you. - 11/02/2012 02:32:59 AM 143 Views
It is an interesting article, but not for the polls. - 11/02/2012 04:18:17 AM 170 Views
I wouldn't put too much into that poll anyway - 11/02/2012 05:37:05 AM 236 Views
I don't think it's quite the laughing matter you think it is - 11/02/2012 12:31:23 PM 188 Views
Nossy that was not Joel, that was me - 11/02/2012 01:56:39 PM 225 Views
I know that. - 11/02/2012 03:23:32 PM 224 Views
Understood. - 11/02/2012 07:51:14 PM 170 Views
mmm... - 11/02/2012 08:20:26 PM 154 Views

Reply to Message