Health insurance is part of an employee’s compensation. What is the difference between using health insurance to purchase birth control, and using salary to purchase birth control? Do churches like to fool themselves that salary cannot be used to buy birth control?
I would like to hear an answer to this by someone on the Catholic Church’s side of this debate.
Will Republicans support the right of Muslim employers to demand their female employees only be treated by female doctors?
Perhaps the Church should look to Haiti and other countries and see how many poor people can’t afford to feed, clothe, house ,educate or get health care for the people who they have believing that Birth control is a sin ,but it is alright to have children one can’t afford,but are taught to believe it is sinful to practice responsible parenthood. The the Church talks alot about how sad that so many are poor and going with out!
As I see it if Birth Control is a sin, it is a bigger sin to have children one can’t afford the necessities of life, and many Catholics ignore the Church’s teachings
. No one is forcing a person to use birth control either, but the Church’s actions are forcing people( not of their faith) to follow their beliefs.The unwanted chikdren that are born to people who don’t want them suffer for what the Church decides is what must be. One need look to the over populated countries or districts in thei country where so many live in poverty. I read recently that one out of every 6 american children do not have enough food to eat.Crime is larger in such places as well.
The price of birth control is payed for by the employees, they do not get free insurance, at least as I understand it, it is part of their wages.If this is so it is the employees, paying not the Church!
Scenario One: The Catholic Church is paying these employees. Some of those employees use their salary to purchase birth control.
Scenario Two:The Catholic Church is paying an insurance company. Some of those insurance companies will use that money to purchase birth control for their employees.
I don’t see a Constitutionally relevant distinction between those two scenarios.
Ugh. Pathetic.
Oh, well, whatever.
Result! That’s exactly the kind of spineless jellyfishing I was hoping would happen. We’re a step closer to seeing a complete breakdown of the employer-provided insurance system. As the awareness grows of how employers can fuck over employees for any or no reason, the demand to take insurance out of employer’s hands will grow. This is a win for people who want single payer, no matter how stupid it may seem today.
My own hope for amusement in reading a tortured opinion from the Supreme Court as they found some sort of justification for why it’s OK for Catholics to refuse to comply with a general law but not ok for Mormons, Jews, Native Americans, etc. is dashed, but I’ll take this result.
Enjoy,
Steven
Can someone explain exactly how this new compromise is supposed to work? From a MSNBC article, it said that they are keeping the contraception coverage requirement, but that religious organizations don’t have to provide it. Instead, “workers at such institutions will be able to get free birth control coverage directly from health insurance companies.”
As I understand it, those workers had health insurance provided by the religious institutions. So if they get it directly from the companies…isn’t that the religious institutions? 
It’s my understanding that the Religious Hospital gets to offer insurance without contraception. But the Insurance Company then offers the woman contraception coverage for free, and she has to opt into it.
Hum. Sounds like a win-win for both sides then. Religious hospitals get to do right by their faith, and women still get free birth control.
Now I shall wait in anticipation for Republicans to laud Obama for such a magnanimous and equitable compromise that takes into account the needs of both sides!
waits
Or, perhaps the Church can look at the US as it is now, and has been forever, and see that we’ve never had this rule and we were never like Haiti.
We’re already talking about this. It’s exactly the same thing, only semantically shifted so the religious people can puffin themselves up.
No, it’s not the same thing. It’s forcing the check to be written by the insurance companies, not the Church. The issue is whether the insurance companies will balk.
The Church will presumably pay the same amount. Because contraception is required to be supplied for free.
So it’s just mystic thinking. The Church doesn’t like the *impression *that they are paying for it.
Obama is trying to shift the cost onto the insurers. Read the article.
If they don’t pick up the tab, then nothing has changed. But Obama does want them to pick up the tab.
Except the insurance company is already picking up the tab. Contraceptive care has to be offered at no additional cost.
Person A: A dude, pays X dollars.
Person B: A woman, pays X dollars, and gets contraception coverage.
Person C: A woman who works at a Catholic Hospital pays X dollars. But her contraceptive coverage isn’t supplied by the hospital, the insurance company approaches her separately and offers if for zero dollars.
Unless the Catholics want to pay X minus some amount for women, they aren’t paying any less. How do they pay less if the additional coverage is provided at no cost? Will the insurance company figure the real cost of the coverage and charge the hospital X - $23 (or whatever)?
But all of this is horseshit in any case, because this law only applies to businesses that churches own. Not churches. It also was the law in 28 states already. And in 8 states it even applies to the churches themselves. And no one heard about this issue until this week.
This is a tantrum thrown by the Catholic church because they want more secular power, this isn’t about rights or freedom.
John Mace, I posted this earlier and would like to hear your thoughts:
What is the distinction between those two scenarios that makes one acceptable and one unacceptable?
It seems to me that the latest switch to insurers paying will simply result in a higher premium for the religious organizations (and all the payors into the insurance) than they would pay without having contraception covered, which would then be given to the workers who need contraception covered. Either way, the money is going from the Church to the insurers and then to the birth control. It just seems to me that the idea that the Churches will be forced to pay for contraception is simply a matter of mental gymnastics more than anything real.