Catholic Church In Uproar Over Health Care Law

[horizon200]

OK...while I should not be surprised that the thread went off track, I didn't expect 5 pages of off track!

Amy here's that link again...hope it works this time
Medical News:Catholic Church Blasts HHS Birth Control Rule - in Washington-Watch, Reform from MedPage Today

And to quote part of it...

The final rule, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Jan. 20, says that starting on Aug. 1, 2013, health plans must cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including hormonal contraceptives such as birth control pills, implanted devices such as intrauterine devices (IUDs), Plan B emergency contraceptives (the "morning-after" pill), and sterilization -- all without charging a copay, coinsurance, or a deductible.

The plans will not have to cover abortions, however.

Churches and church-affiliated secondary schools are exempt from the rule, but other organizations with religious affiliations -- including universities, charities, and hospitals -- must comply. Such organizations petitioned HHS for an exemption after the preliminary rule was issued last summer. As a compromise, they have been given an extra year to comply.

Oh and I found this interesting...

The bill has 102 sponsors, seven of whom are Democrats

...So much for the religious right!

So, a church run hospital who's core foundation does not agree with contraceptions (including the morning after pill) has to provide health care for their employees. Now, they also have to ensure those health care plans cover contraceptives....I think THAT's the rub with the church.

And Mel...you're right...it is not about Abortions. As evidenced above, it specifically omits abortions.

So, people, let's stop the arguing over that topic...I think it is well documented that there are differing opinions on it and nobody here is going to change the participant's minds on it.

I intended for the thread to discuss how much influence the government should have on church beliefs. If we can't discuss that peacefully and without personal attacks, I'll ask a mod to close the thread.

Thanks

[ANDY]

Originally Posted by horizon200

OK...while I should not be surprised that the thread went off track, I didn't expect 5 pages of off track!

[gingele]

Originally Posted by horizon200

OK...while I should not be surprised that the thread went off track, I didn't expect 5 pages of off track!

Amy here's that link again...hope it works this time
Medical News:Catholic Church Blasts HHS Birth Control Rule - in Washington-Watch, Reform from MedPage Today

And to quote part of it...


Oh and I found this interesting......So much for the religious right!

So, a church run hospital who's core foundation does not agree with contraceptions (including the morning after pill) has to provide health care for their employees. Now, they also have to ensure those health care plans cover contraceptives....I think THAT's the rub with the church.

And Mel...you're right...it is not about Abortions. As evidenced above, it specifically omits abortions.

So, people, let's stop the arguing over that topic...I think it is well documented that there are differing opinions on it and nobody here is going to change the participant's minds on it.

I intended for the thread to discuss how much influence the government should have on church beliefs. If we can't discuss that peacefully and without personal attacks, I'll ask a mod to close the thread.

Thanks

The law prohibits private health insurance companies from discriminating against female lay-employees at Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities.

Yeah, I can see how some would have a problem with that.

Obviously I do not.

No one is telling the church to change its antiquated doctrines.
No one is forcing Catholics to take birth control.
No one is forcing the Catholic church to provide birth control.
No one is forcing the Catholic church to pay for anyone's birth control.

[Rissask]

holy crap indeed....sorry Mike, you can blame me for my part in taking it OT, with my response I addressed abortions here, and then spaz ran with that.....you had no link in your first post so I didn't know the story you were referring to and assumed. Sorry.

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by gingele

The law prohibits private health insurance companies from discriminating against female lay-employees at Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities.

Yeah, I can see how some would have a problem with that.

Obviously I do not.

No one is telling the church to change its antiquated doctrines.
No one is forcing Catholics to take birth control.
No one is forcing the Catholic church to provide birth control.
No one is forcing the Catholic church to pay for anyone's birth control.

Of course they are-that is the very point.If the church affiliated facility pays for insurance that must in turn provide these services then how are they not paying?And how in hell is this "discriminating"?

[gingele]

Originally Posted by Elysium

Of course they are-that is the very point.If the church affiliated facility pays for insurance that must in turn provide these services then how are they not paying?And how in hell is this "discriminating"?

The church pays for the contract to the insurance company, which they do since they are offering comprehensive medical insurance to their employees. The church doesn't write out the Rx for OrthoNovum, nor do they pay Walgreens to fill it.

It is discriminating because an employer (i.e., Catholic Hospital) is providing comprehensive health care insurance to all of its employees, but if Catholic Hospital had its way, they would provide less comprehensive coverage to the female employees.

It is ridiculous to think for an instant that your employer can dictate what your doctor will or will not do for you. And that is precisely what the Catholic Church is looking to do, at least when it comes to their female lay employees.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by gingele

The church pays for the contract to the insurance company, which they do since they are offering comprehensive medical insurance to their employees. The church doesn't write out the Rx for OrthoNovum, nor do they pay Walgreens to fill it.

It is discriminating because an employer (i.e., Catholic Hospital) is providing comprehensive health care insurance to all of its employees, but if Catholic Hospital had its way, they would provide less comprehensive coverage to the female employees.

It is ridiculous to think for an instant that your employer can dictate what your doctor will or will not do for you. And that is precisely what the Catholic Church is looking to do, at least when it comes to their female lay employees.

Aren't they actually just saying they won't pay benefits coverage for bc?

That is not dictating what your doctor will do for you, really. It is just not paying for some or all of a prescription cost.

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Aren't they actually just saying they won't pay benefits coverage for bc?

That is not dictating what your doctor will do for you, really. It is just not paying for some or all of a prescription cost.

Of course it is.

This statement from Komen:Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.

Now while CS and the like will see conspiracy everywhere to stop "choice" what if the investigation had been over a Director misappropriating funds or abusing children or some other issue?Would they be lambasted for "supporting " that wrong-doer?

[gingele]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Aren't they actually just saying they won't pay benefits coverage for bc?

That is not dictating what your doctor will do for you, really. It is just not paying for some or all of a prescription cost.

They are trying to have the power to tell the insurance company not to pay for certain aspects of their female employee's health care.

And it is absolutely telling you and your doctor that you do not have the ability to decide between the two of you what is best for you. It's not just the prescription cost - that is actually between the woman and her pharmacist. But what about the visit to the doctor to get the IUD inserted? Fit the diaphragm? Or back it up even further - what about the doctor visit to simply discuss birth control options? Covered?

No employer has any business interfering with or otherwise dictating what the permissible health care options are for its female lay employees.

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by gingele

The church pays for the contract to the insurance company, which they do since they are offering comprehensive medical insurance to their employees. The church doesn't write out the Rx for OrthoNovum, nor do they pay Walgreens to fill it.

It is discriminating because an employer (i.e., Catholic Hospital) is providing comprehensive health care insurance to all of its employees, but if Catholic Hospital had its way, they would provide less comprehensive coverage to the female employees.

It is ridiculous to think for an instant that your employer can dictate what your doctor will or will not do for you. And that is precisely what the Catholic Church is looking to do, at least when it comes to their female lay employees.

Presumably they will not pay for vasectomies either,so it is equal,isn't it?

[gingele]

Originally Posted by Elysium

Presumably they will not pay for vasectomies either,so it is equal,isn't it?

Now why in the world would you presume such a thing?

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by gingele

They are trying to have the power to tell the insurance company not to pay for certain aspects of their female employee's health care.

And it is absolutely telling you and your doctor that you do not have the ability to decide between the two of you what is best for you. It's not just the prescription cost - that is actually between the woman and her pharmacist. But what about the visit to the doctor to get the IUD inserted? Fit the diaphragm? Or back it up even further - what about the doctor visit to simply discuss birth control options? Covered?

No employer has any business interfering with or otherwise dictating what the permissible health care options are for its female lay employees.

When they start drug testing for contraceptives and firing for use then you are correct.But to dictate funding for something so basically antithetical to the group can't be right.

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by gingele

Now why in the world would you presume such a thing?

The final rule, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Jan. 20, says that starting on Aug. 1, 2013, health plans must cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including hormonal contraceptives such as birth control pills, implanted devices such as intrauterine devices (IUDs), Plan B emergency contraceptives (the "morning-after" pill), and sterilization -- all without charging a copay, coinsurance, or a deductible.

Did not specify female sterilization.

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by gingele

Well here you go. A nice "quid pro quo" that scores one for the Catholic Church and the tea baggers hell-bent on interfering with women's reproductive health!



Komen for the Cure, indeed.

Link: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/31/415821/nations-largest-cancer-charity-caves-to-right-wing-pressure-ends-relationship-with-planned-parenthood/?mobile=nc

Love how even the first reference you choose to raise the issue is itself so imflammatory
Nation’s Largest Cancer Charity Caves To Right Wing Pressure, Ends Relationship With Planned Parenthood

[gingele]

Originally Posted by Elysium

When they start drug testing for contraceptives and firing for use then you are correct.But to dictate funding for something so basically antithetical to the group can't be right.

For an employer to offer full comprehensive health care coverage for sexual and reproductive health for their male employees but offer something less than that for their female employees is what is not right.