Obama announces that insurance co's, not churches, will have to pay for contraceptives

[hadit]

You're stuck on one note, aren't you?

Because that's essentially what's going on. Aside from the few cases where the Pill is prescribed to help control a truly medical condition, forcing people to pay for others' condoms IS forcing them to subsidize others' sexual activities.

The only time the Catholic church is mandated to pay for anything they don't "agree" with is if they also own the insurance company.

Right, they formed an insurance company to serve their own members, not everyone in the world.

That brings the church into the realm of private business, but no need to go into that. Do not forget that the person is paying half their premium, all of their deductible and all of their co-pays. They deserve to have a say in their healthcare and medicine too because THEY ARE PAYING FOR IT. Since 98% of Catholics have used birth control, I'd say the Church is well behind the times here.

That's irrelevent when it comes to the First Amendment. The Church has always been clearly against birth control, a stance I don't agree with but do agree that forcing them to subsidize it also forces them to violate their religious beliefs.

And quite frankly if the Catholic Church can't catch up with the rest of society regarding birth control, I think I'll err on the side of women when it comes to this particular issue.

I've already said I disagree with the Catholic Church on this issue, but I do believe that if this power grab is allowed to stand, there will be no Constitutional protection against, say food providers being forced buy and give away food they abhor. All in the name of health care, you know. There will be further restrictions on the things we're allowed to do, buy, consume, etc.

They (the Church) may have more credibility on this issue IF they weren't currently paying off lawsuits for child abuse.

No kidding. They probably won't ever recover from that.

So do people who pay their tithes get to dictate that the Church not use this money to pay settlements? No. They don't. Tithes or premiums can be expected to go into a pool and you won't always agree with everything that money is spent although you support the cause. That is life.

What you are describing is the ideal, a voluntary exercise in association. I can choose to support a church with my money, but if I don't agree with something they're doing, I can choose to NOT support it. Under Oh-crap! care, I no longer have that choice.

Now, does anyone remember Obama swearing up and down that you can keep the insurance you already have and want under his health-care plan? This whole episode represents a massive "screw you" from Obama to the people who believed him.

[Chachma v'Oz]

I don't know. I'm not a Catholic. What does it matter? Likely, they didn't see the US going to war as being a direct assault on their First Amendment rights.

Yet this unrelated issue is? No one is establishing a state religion or prohibiting anyone from exercising their own. It's an insurance industry regulation that covers medical care, nothing more. No one is required to receive the care.

Hardly. The Catholic Church is not universally aligned with one party or the other.

Fomenting dissent among special interests is a political ploy. This goes to show how desperate the GOP is, dragging the Church into it. They have no more cards to play.

[hadit]

Yet this unrelated issue is? No one is establishing a state religion or prohibiting anyone from exercising their own. It's an insurance industry regulation that covers medical care, nothing more. No one is required to receive the care.

They ARE required to pay for it, whether they consume it or not.

Fomenting dissent among special interests is a political ploy. This goes to show how desperate the GOP is, dragging the Church into it. They have no more cards to play.

The GOP isn't doing this. The Church rightly is upset at the government's power grab.

Remember Obama promising that you can keep the insurance you have and want?

[Chachma v'Oz]

We have to pay for many things whether we use them or not. Insurance coverage is no different. My wife and I pay more in premiums because maternity benefits and smoking cessation programs that are of no use to us. That's how packaged coverage works. We could probably tailor a plan to our specific wants, but that wouldn't necessarily be any cheaper. Group coverage has to meets everyone's needs to be effective.

Again, no one is keeping anyone from keeping their coverage.

The problem is that the church wants all the benefits of operating like a business but doesn't want to follow the rules that apply to the business. That isn't the way we do things. Either follow the rules or find an enterprise more compatible with church tenets than the insurance industry.

[hadit]

We have to pay for many things whether we use them or not. Insurance coverage is no different. My wife and I pay more in premiums because maternity benefits and smoking cessation programs that are of no use to us. That's how packaged coverage works. We could probably tailor a plan to our specific wants, but that wouldn't necessarily be any cheaper. Group coverage has to meets everyone's needs to be effective.

Again, no one is keeping anyone from keeping their coverage.

The problem is that the church wants all the benefits of operating like a business but doesn't want to follow the rules that apply to the business. That isn't the way we do things. Either follow the rules or find an enterprise more compatible with church tenets than the insurance industry.

Which means that Obama lied when he promised that everyone could keep the insurance they already have and want. They obviously can't, because some people now HAVE insurance that doesn't subsidize others' sex lives, but won't be allowed to keep it in the future.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Obama's powers are great, but foretelling the details of legislation not yet written by the legislative branch might test even them.

[caddis]

Why are there Catholic hospitals at all?

You're question sounds like a criticism, are you opposed to a non-profit healthcare system or just Christian ones?

[hadit]

Obama's powers are great, but foretelling the details of legislation not yet written by the legislative branch might test even them.

Hardly. It's HIS signature piece of legislation. He bullied it through, making sure he got in it what he wanted in it. Regardless, we are now faced with the reality that, under Oh-crap! care, you DON'T necessarily get to keep the insurance you have and want. You WILL be forced to buy what he wants you to buy, not what you want to buy. That's not freedom, and will be tested in the Supreme Court.

[Chachma v'Oz]

He got everything he wanted that the GOP didn't object to too much or added.

Claiming that Iraq had WMDs in order to drag our nation into an unnecessary war was lying. Stating that the health insurance program he had in mind would have such-and-such features showed his plans. But the best-laid plans often go awry, particularly after congress gets done with them.

[hadit]

He got everything he wanted that the GOP didn't object to too much or added.

The GOP didn't have the votes to do anything to it, and they didn't vote for it. You can't blame the package on them.

Claiming that Iraq had WMDs in order to drag our nation into an unnecessary war was lying.

Not if it was based on faulty intel, on which other nations concurred. Then it was just plain wrong.

Stating that the health insurance program he had in mind would have such-and-such features showed his plans. But the best-laid plans often go awry, particularly after congress gets done with them.

Then it was his own party that did it, since they had unassailable control and a veto-proof majority.

[Chachma v'Oz]

The Dems collectively got a lot of what they wanted. Obama, not necessarily so.

[hadit]

The Dems collectively got a lot of what they wanted. Obama, not necessarily so.

Nice spin, but it's Obama's baby, he made the promise, and now it's crap. I don't see him out there saying anything like "I didn't want to force everyone to pay for other peoples' contraceptives, but they made me do it". In fact, he's quite proud that he's doing it. Therefore, I don't believe for a moment that he didn't want this. I believe he knew all along this was going to happen and his promise was worth exactly nothing. Remember, it was hyped far and wide to win support for the plan. It wasn't a little side thing at all.

[Chachma v'Oz]

An unfulfilled promise over legislation he was constitutionally barred from writing is a long way from a lie.

[hadit]

An unfulfilled promise over legislation he was constitutionally barred from writing is a long way from a lie.

Not when it's obvious that this was his plan from the beginning. He didn't complain once about being forced to break his promise, in fact he's trumpeting what he's doing as a good thing. You can't deny any of that.

And it's totaly naive to claim he had no input into the legislation. Totally.

[Chachma v'Oz]

I shudder to think of all the things you consider "obvious", considering how oblivious some of you are to the world around you.

[hadit]

I shudder to think of all the things you consider "obvious", considering how oblivious some of you are to the world around you.

Are you maintaining that Obama is a victim of Congress on this issue?

[Chachma v'Oz]

I'm pointing out that a goal that was expressed but not (yet) met is not a lie.

What did you want to be when you grew up? Did you tell anyone? Did it come to pass? If not, were you lying?

[hadit]

I'm pointing out that a goal that was expressed but not (yet) met is not a lie.

It's a little ludicrous to claim that Obama might yet fulfill his promise of letting everyone keep their current insurance when he's already committed himself to forcing them to buy the insurance he wants them to buy. He made the promise many times, specifically to garner support for Oh-crap! care, and now he's enthusiastically doing the opposite, without any justification to those poor saps who believed him.

What did you want to be when you grew up? Did you tell anyone? Did it come to pass? If not, were you lying?

Are you seriously comparing a sitting president's promise about his signature legislation, promises made specifically to garner support for said legislation, to the hopeful wishes of a child? Because if you believe a president should make promises like that, you shouldn't be voting.

[Chachma v'Oz]

If this campaign promise issue is this important to you, I suggest you not listen to anyone campaigning ever again. You're destined for disappointment. Not everything people would have come about happens, by design or otherwise.

[hadit]

If this campaign promise issue is this important to you, I suggest you not listen to anyone campaigning ever again. You're destined for disappointment. Not everything people would have come about happens, by design or otherwise.

It wasn't a campaign promise. He repeated it multiple times in 2009, AFTER he was not only elected, but inaugurated. It was a promise made WHILE the legislation was being crafted in order to generate support. Had he been honest from the get go and told everyone that he was going to force even religious institutions who self-insure to buy contraception for everyone, he would have faced a huge First Amendment backlash and Oh-crap! care would never have gotten off the ground. He specifically promised that everyone could keep their current insurance, knowing that he was going to do this, which would break that promise. That is a lie.