RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate

RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 4:08:25 AM)
AND if you roll in with your own pre-existing coverage, you don't need one from their Student Health Service group...

dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 5:37:37 AM)
<fr> I realize Georgetown comes to mind because it's Fluke's alma mater (and mine). But it may not be the best example, because the univerity has previously argued, with support from the Supreme Court, that it is not a "sectarian" institution. Learn more at http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4051057

DesideriScuri -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 10:03:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: When a company provides health insurance to its employees as part of their compensation package, the negotiation of policy details, coverage, deductibles, co-pays, etc., is conducted between the company and the insurer. Wrong. The Insurer tells the Company what benefits they'll offer. Take it or leave it. There may be different benefit levels offered, but no-one at an hmo is custom crafting coverage for anyone. Good, Better, Best. Pick one. Wrong again, farglebargle. Companies do, in fact, negotiate with insurance companies. There is the give and take between what the company wants covered (and/or coverage levels, deductibles, etc.) and the amount the insurance company is going to charge for said coverage. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata When a company provides health insurance to its employees as part of their compensation package, the negotiation of policy details, coverage, deductibles, co-pays, etc., is conducted between the company and the insurer. The contract is between the company and the insurer. And the company pays the group premium. The only financial responsibility that falls to the individual insured is the deductible and co-pay amounts. The employee simply signs a form accepting the company-provided coverage and acknowledging receipt of documents setting forth their rights and the insurer's Privacy Policy. Kirata, the number of companies that pay the full premium without shifting any of that cost onto employees is quite low. Other than that little bit, you're right as rain on this.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 10:29:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance However the tuition that the students pay covers the cost of the insurance, meaning that the students are paying for the plan themselves. So its with the students money that the costs are being covered, not the catholic church, so the church has no basis of to cry its against my faith when they are not paying for it. Georgetown is a business, its a university, regardless of who founded it its still a business. So it should be required to the same rules Penn State or Drexel or Yale are held to. Im sorry but you cant have your cake and eat it too in this situation. Your either a church, where your tax exempt and have tons of freedoms granted because your a church.. or your a business where your not. Im fairly sure if another university pulled this crap theyd have been fined up the wazoo for discrimination and for lack of compliance, but because we have a huge huge huge huge huge double standard about religion we are allowing them to break the law, be a tax burden and the like because of their opinion on what is or isnt okay. Most companies do not pay all or even some of the amount. I pay about 175 a month for my insurance, The company i work for i believe doesn't pay anything into the health costs. So the 175 is the amount of the premium divided by those covered. Im also required to pay the deductibles, co pays and co insurance as well as the premium. The amount of money birth control costs a system is pennies. When our company was forced to cover it (because im a cunt like that) Out premium went from 87.39 to 87.43 every two weeks. Not even a nickle not even a dollar a year. I could see them rejecting it because of the costs. But to be so heated over 8 cents a month, 96 cents a year? The only problem I have with what you are stating, is that the premiums that are being paid by the students is for the coverage offered. It isn't for full coverage. The coverage has been negotiated between GU and the insurance company taking into account the needs and finances of college students. So, if BC for birth control purposes was to be covered, it would, at least in theory, cost students a more. Your anecdote of 4 cents/two weeks may not be the same as what that coverage would be for GU students. All that being said, the Obama Administration has no authority to force a Church to offer coverage for a product or service that is morally against their tenets (which is different from the GU situation). Additionally, the Sandra Fluke anecdote had to do with a friend that was wrongly denied coverage of the BC. Under the GU insurance package, if the BC was for non birth control issues, or was otherwise medically necessary, it was covered. Hers was medically necessary. The insurance company didn't cover it because they didn't believe it was for non birth control purposes. The insurance company was in the wrong. Sandra Fluke's argument that the plan should cover BC for nothing more than birth control reasons is junk. No reason it has to. The student does not have to take the plan offered provided he or she can demonstrate that the minimum requirements are met by the student's chosen health plan. If the student doesn't like the coverage rates, he or she can go out and purchase a plan that includes coverage he or she desires.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 10:32:32 AM)
And that is where we disagree, DS. The administration certainly does have authority to "force" the church to something when they are not acting as a church, but as a business. What connection does operating a law school have to do with a church's mission?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 11:10:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The only problem I have with what you are stating, is that the premiums that are being paid by the students is for the coverage offered. It isn't for full coverage. The coverage has been negotiated between GU and the insurance company taking into account the needs and finances of college students. So, if BC for birth control purposes was to be covered, it would, at least in theory, cost students a more. Yeah, according to that liar, Fluke, about $1,000 per year more! LOL Peace and comfort, Michael

DaddySatyr -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 11:23:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice <fr> I realize Georgetown comes to mind because it's Fluke's alma mater (and mine). But it may not be the best example, because the univerity has previously argued, with support from the Supreme Court, that it is not a "sectarian" institution. Learn more at http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4051057 I'm no lawyer but, after reading all of that, it seemed to say: The president and board of the college are agents of the Catholic church but that they are non sectarian because they do not only educate Catholics. quote: There is, in our judgment, no merit in the contention that the persons claiming as president and directors of the college are not the legal successors of the original incorporation. There is no evidence that the same has been dissolved. The franchise of a corporation is not taken away or surrendered, nor is the corporation dissolved, by the mere failure to elect trustees. We do not think that in this case there was any failure to elect, nor was there any dissolution. Except for the justice mentioning some things in his decision, it's tough to tell what Georgetown argued but, if I read that paragraph correctly, no matter what Georgetown argued, the court says that there's been no dissolution from the original corporation (I'm assuming that would be the church?). Peace and comfort, Michael

Arturas -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 11:49:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I know we've done this issue to death, but I ran into a devout Catholic friend tonight, and she was haranguing me about the Obama Administration's "war on religion." Exhibit A, of course, was the new HHS mandate to pay for contraceptives. After we parted ways, I put my finger on something that's been bugging me throughout the whole fracas, and that's the role of the Catholic bishops in leading the charge. I find myself thinking it's a bit, well, creepy for an all-male, all-unmarried elite to be so hellbent on controlling other people's reproductive lives. It doesn't help, of course, that the institution in question also has a history of sheltering child molesters, so its "moral leadership" is a bit tarnished in my eyes. This make sense to anyone else? It does not make sense to me that one could criticize the Catholic Church and suggest they should not let the leadership of the Church not "lead the charge", as you say, simply because they are male, as you say. I am thinking they clearly should not abdicate their responsibilities to every woman and man in the Church because individuals outside the church might not like it because they happen to be (corrections, they MUST be) male, as they are supposed to be, as church Doctrine says. Hmmm...what shall we do, shall we elect female Cardinals in case another reproductive question comes up, or something else the Left decides to push on the Church? I'm very sure that should not happen of course. So, when I (just now) reversed this (question), it should be apparent to you and any other thinking person who is sensitive to the rights of others, specifically the Church, that this notion while at first blush sounds like a good MSNBC talking point it instead is a notion that make no sense and might even touch on violation of Church and State. As a side point to this question, I would think the Church is not going to tolerate being put on puppet strings and having to react to any old demand the President makes. Continuing that line of thought, there is indeed the matter of Separation of Church and State in the Consitution, the Law of This Land, which contrary to at least one or two people here, does protect both entities and is not one-way, it does NOT protect just the State but gives equal protection to Churches. It does not allow the State to mandate anything on the Church. Which is really why Obama has backed off, because he was being called on it by the Cardinals. Good job Guys, stand your ground and protect the Constitution. So sorry for all you who somehow missed this fact. P.S. If any of you dislike the Catholic Church then leave it and join say, the Methodist Church. You will probably like it better. P.P.S I'm not a Catholic but I certainly know the Consitution and know how the Church and how the Left operates because I have researched both.

farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 12:00:58 PM)
The fact that the employer isn't a signatory to the contract between the insured and the insurer disproves the hypothesis that there's a negotiation occurs of these contract terms. If there's a negotiation, it would have to be between the two parties of the contract. And since everyone knows that the employer isn't a party to the contract, that disqualifies them. Now, stop lying.

Arturas -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 12:01:23 PM)
quote: It doesn't help, of course, that the institution in question also has a history of sheltering child molesters, so its "moral leadership" is a bit tarnished in my eyes. Fair enough I would think. I also think that point is NOT strong enough to reverse the Constitutional protections afforded the Church in conducting it's lawful business nor does it support the notion that it should fire all it's leadership. I'm thinking of a President or two who kinda lacked moral leadership on the Left but we did not fire them so I suppose it is a bad idea to do so, according to the Left.

Kirata -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 12:19:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas I would think the Church is not going to tolerate being put on puppet strings... It [the Constitution] does not allow the State to mandate anything on the Church. It most certainly does, and the church will dance to its tune. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't DO whatever you want. K.

Arturas -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 12:19:33 PM)
quote: And since everyone knows that the employer isn't a party to the contract, that disqualifies them. I love that phrase "since everyone knows". It is akin to that favorite of MSNBC when they make a fictional point, "Many feel...". Frankly, I enjoy and laugh everytime I see it because I assures me that person is on such thin ice they must bluster their way through it and hope nobody notices. I noticed. I'm thinking your general statement cannot encompass all such relationships so your point is a non-starter. I'm also thinking if the insurance company, if it is not simply administering a self-insured entity which is likely in the case of the Church, that the Chruch will simply select different plans next year and select only ones that will protect the Church from violating its trust. I also notice you called me a liar. What specifically was false? Did I say something false about the Consitution? Did I say something false about the Church? Obama? Me? What?

farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 12:23:00 PM)
quote: I'm thinking your general statement cannot encompass all such relationships so your point is a non-starter. You can easily support your claim by showing us a copy of a contract between an insured and an insurer where the employer is a signatory to the contract, and responsible for the premiums paid.

Arturas -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 12:42:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas I would think the Church is not going to tolerate being put on puppet strings... It [the Constitution] does not allow the State to mandate anything on the Church. It most certainly does, and the church will dance to its tune. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't DO whatever you want. K. Not so. Even the "against religion" statesman Thomas Jefferson stated the Constitutions 1st Amendment erected a hard barrier between the Church and State and this continued to be the interpretation by the Supreme Court. Specifically, the first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....". This means the Government may not mandate to any religion anything that in some way gives that religion preference and therefore establishes a "state religion" and it also may not mandate anything that might be interpreted to hurt a religion thereby establishing a religion controlled by the State, a State Religion in de facto. Hence, the concept of separation.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 12:43:34 PM)
I work for an insurance company where the initial negotiations are handled through the employer. Period. We approach the employer (or their broker) and we ask permission to offer our coverage to the employees. The employer decides if we get access to their employees and, conversely, if their employees get acces to our plans. I have had occasion where I am talking to someone, socially and they want me to speak with their employer and they will "grease the skids" for that to happen. In the only instance where I have dealt with a school, it was analogous to the Georgetown situation. The school required students to have insurance against illness/accidents which would cause loss to the students' based upon their inability to attend classes, etc. The school administrator (through his agents) told me what he wanted covered and I crafted a plan. That plan did not include a lot of what Georgetown's plan includes. This was not a *huge* school but they graduated about 400 students per year so, it wasn't miniscule, either. Not one student asked for BC pills to be covered (No, it wasn't an all-male school. In fact is was predominently female). Not one student asked for prescription drugs to be covered. Their concerns were re-imbursment for tuition in case they were incapacitated and the school's guidlines didn't allow for remuneration. Peace and comfort, Michael

farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 1:06:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I work for an insurance company where the initial negotiations are handled through the employer. Period. We approach the employer (or their broker) and we ask permission to offer our coverage to the employees. Full Stop. You offer coverage TO THE EMPLOYEES. And the contract is between THE EMPLOYEE AND YOU. Thank you for making my point for me. And now, since b/c is part of the regulated minimum coverage, it's not an issue anymore.

GotSteel -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 4:03:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi He didn't say religions, he said christians. Yes our government has allowed a law designed for Christianity to apply to other groups as long as they are found to sufficiently resemble Christianity. Clearly there's no Christian privileged there [8\|]

thishereboi -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 4:11:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi He didn't say religions, he said christians. Yes our government has allowed a law designed for Christianity to apply to other groups as long as they are found to sufficiently resemble Christianity. Clearly there's no Christian privileged there [8\|] could you try that in english please and maybe tell me some of these special privileges I have been missing out on.

dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 5:44:23 PM)
quote: I'm no lawyer but, after reading all of that, it seemed to say: The president and board of the college are agents of the Catholic church but that they are non sectarian because they do not only educate Catholics. I saw the part about Georgetown not being sectarian, but I didn't see about the president and board being agents of the Catholic Church. quote: Except for the justice mentioning some things in his decision, it's tough to tell what Georgetown argued but, if I read that paragraph correctly, no matter what Georgetown argued, the court says that there's been no dissolution from the original corporation (I'm assuming that would be the church?). Oh that was another whole subplot! (Quite the case, no?) The will was made out to "Georgetown University," if I read correctly, but the school's official name at that point was still "Georgetown College." I think the heirs argued that "Georgetown University" couldn't get the money because it didn't legally exist.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/21/2012 5:49:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet And that is where we disagree, DS. The administration certainly does have authority to "force" the church to something when they are not acting as a church, but as a business. What connection does operating a law school have to do with a church's mission? And, once again, you didn't really read my whole post. quote: All that being said, the Obama Administration has no authority to force a Church to offer coverage for a product or service that is morally against their tenets (which is different from the GU situation). See? I specifically said that government has no authority to force the Church to offer something against their tenets, and acknowledged that was not the same situation for GU. And, under what authority does the Federal Government have the right to force a business (see? not talking about a Church here) to offer anything to their employees?

Page: << < prev 11 12 13 [14] 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625