Don’t forget blaming the victims too.
I imagine those employees that did quit would run into several problems trying to collect unemployment or find new jobs.
That would be the same thing has lying off staff off.
They have to do something with the patients and they can’t just stop caring for most of them and discharge them without finding someplace to take them. If you’re talking about literly dumping patients off gurneys in the parking lot that’s beyond absurd and if that did somehow happen would result in criminal charges (including potential manslaughter charges) against the staff members that physically moved the patients as well the administrators who allowed it.
Francis Cardinal George is just stooping to the level of manipulation in order to get his flocks worked up to vote as they are suppose to. It is politically charged B.S., and yet the church is supposably so removed from politics, they can go without paying taxes!
Nothing is going to change. His scenario of -future suffering for our beliefs- is an unoriginal line of bull, and typical fear mongering. The big bad unrighteous are attacking us yet again, and we must move swiftly to elect a protector of church values, or there will be even more evil to come.
They should remember that part about Caesar being rendered. He got rendered in Rome, being in Rome is no guarantee you don’t get rendered.
Turn the hospitals over to the Anglicans and give the Pope the bill.
When you get down to the brass tacks dogma trumps human life. The purpose of life from a Catholic perspective is to worship and obey God. The goal of human existence is to get to heaven. Given a choice to commit a sin or die the correct one is death other than commit a mortal sin. The soul is the most important not the physical body.
Closing of Catholic hospitals would kill Chicago. The NW Side has only two hospitals both Cartholic. The near NW side has a few more, but you totally vacat the NW side.
Resurrection Health Care does most of the charity work outside Cook County and the teaching hospitals, which are very selective about their charity cases.
You look at Advocate which was started by Adventists, and they are the most aggressive for collecting money. So much so that it was used to deny them the ability to build a hospital in the SW suburbs, which is greatly underserved.
A few years ago, in the South Suburbs, St Francis said, if they weren’t allowed to build an additional hospital in the SW suburbs they would have to close their Blue Island hospital. This way they could offset the charity care in the poor Blue Island with the richer Tinley Park/Orland area. They were refused and the hospital closed. It now reopened under a for profit organization.
Hospitals do carry through on their theats in Chicago, you can just look at the history of closures. Part of it is Illiinois has a certificate of need, which makes opening or rebuilding a hosptial very difficult. Indeed only one new hospital has been built in the Chicago area, since 1979. (In Bolingbrook). Others have been relocated but stay within a specific area to avoid a certificate of need.
Contrast this to Indiana who’s hospitals do much better.
This isn’t about rendering. Still, I have to believe that the Cardinal is bluffing. It would be a huge effort to close all the hospitals and would generate way too much negative PR.
Does anyone have the actual text of the existing state law that supposedly requires them to do this already? I’ve heard it asserted by a number of analysts, but if would be nice to see the text of the actual law.
[QUOTE=Illinois Laws, P.A. 95-331 (eff. 8-21-07.)]
Sec. 356z.4. Coverage for contraceptives.
(a) An individual or group policy of accident and health insurance amended, delivered, issued, or renewed in this State after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 93rd General Assembly that provides coverage for outpatient services and outpatient prescription drugs or devices must provide coverage for the insured and any dependent of the insured covered by the policy for all outpatient contraceptive services and all outpatient contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Coverage required under this Section may not impose any deductible, coinsurance, waiting period, or other cost-sharing or limitation that is greater than that required for any outpatient service or outpatient prescription drug or device otherwise covered by the policy.
(b) As used in this Section, “outpatient contraceptive service” means consultations, examinations, procedures, and medical services, provided on an outpatient basis and related to the use of contraceptive methods (including natural family planning) to prevent an unintended pregnancy.
(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to require an insurance company to cover services related to an abortion as the term “abortion” is defined in the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975.
(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to require an insurance company to cover services related to permanent sterilization that requires a surgical procedure.
[/QUOTE]
There is a conscience clause exception, but it applies to insurers and self-insured employers, not to insured employers:
[QUOTE=P.A. 90-246 (eff. 1-1-98)]
Sec. 11.2. Liability of health care payer. No health care payer and no person, association, or corporation that owns, operates, supervises, or manages a health care payer shall be civilly or criminally liable to any person, estate, or public or private entity by reason of refusal of the health care payer to pay for or arrange for the payment of any particular form of health care services that violate the health care payer’s conscience as documented in its ethical guidelines, mission statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations, or other governing documents.
[/QUOTE]
The National Conference of State Legislatures has a handy-dandy guide to the state requirements here, and the Guttmacher Institute has a comparative chart here.
Texas? What’s going on in Texas?
It’s full of Texans. Just terrible.
The state said it will exclude Planned Parenthood and abortion providers from participating in Medicaid. The Obama administration said Texas will lose all Medicaid funding if it goes ahead with the plan. Discussion here.
There was a thread on it a while ago. A Texas woman’s health program partially funded by the Feds won’t pay for Planned Parenthood visits, so the Feds withdrew their funding.
I don’t really have any problem if the Catholic Church wants to withdraw its funding of the Hospitals they run (it apparently accounted for something like 3% of each hospitals total funds), and don’t have any problem with the Feds withdrawing funding from the Texas program either, so I guess they’re similar in that respect.
I’m pretty sure that’s not right. The Obama admin is withdrawing funding for Texas’s Women’s Health Program, not “all medicaid” which would be a much bigger deal.
The program in question pays for womans health services for woman who don’t qualify for Medicaid, but still need some financial assistance.
(as an aside, I think the program would’ve been moot in any case next year, when the ACA would’ve just subsidized insurance for woman in that situation)
It’s 10 minutes by ambulance to Swedish from Portage Park. 15 minutes to Weiss, all the way East by the lake. 20 minutes to Northwestern, and 20 to Evanston Northshore. 15 minutes to Children’s Memorial, if it’s a child you’re looking to transport. None of them is Catholic run. I didn’t even bother looking west to the 'burbs.
I suspect that people in rural areas would be jealous of those travel times to what are very good Emergency Departments at some of the best hospitals in the country. (Ok, that’s pushing it for Weiss, but it’s not a *bad *hospital.)
If all the Cardinals in the US got together on the White House lawn and threatened to set themselves on fire if Obama doesn’t change his mind I would believe you.
However, choosing the death of *someone else *over your conviction certainly appears to be an easier choice to make.
Actually if just THIS ONE cardinal actually set himself on fire in front of the white house, I bet Obama would change his mind. I wonder if he loves his god enough to do that.
They aren’t allowed to do that, strictly speaking, it being a form of suicide. If a Catholic is dying in unbearable pain and wants the Black Capsule, they are required to go to his bedside and tell him to walk it off. Life is a gift from God, and you can’t give it back.
But God is calling me home, and he wants me NOW!
Are you people all so dead-set on refusing to understand what I’m saying that you keep making up shit that I never said? Ok. I’m going to try one more time, then I give up.
All the administrators have to do is say “As of this date, we take no more patients. As of this next date, we stop paying for supplies and stop paying staff.” This does NOT involve dumping patients out on the street. Would there be legal repercussions? Of course. The state may fine the hospital corporation, and may (after a few years of legal wrangling) take over the building and equipment without compensation. Arguing that this means they cannot close the hospital is just false. There’s no gun to their head. They can decide to take the financial hit in exchange for not violating what they believe God demands of them. Hell, even if there were a gun to their head, they still have a choice. They can choose to violate what they believe God wants, or they can choose to take the consequences of refusing.
Arguing that the RCC won’t actually close things is a reasonable argument, but that’s not what the OP is about. Arguing that they can’t close it is both wrong, and ducks the OP’s actual question: what would happen if they did. Several people were dismissing that question by falsely arguing that they couldn’t. I merely pointed out that they indeed can if they are willing to take the financial consequences of doing so.
Anyone else wanting to distort what I’m saying is free to do so, unanswered. I’m done beating this dead horse.
ETA: this post is also a response to one or two other people who are also refusing to get what I’m actually saying, rather than what they want me to be saying. I just didn’t think it worthwhile to include quotes from more than one poster.
I bet he wouldn’t. Someone who sets himself on fire for a cause can still be wrong, and governmental policy protecting the rights of employees that don’t share the faith of their employers and protecting the religious freedom of the employers aren’t mutually exclusive.
But a great trivia question: when was the last time any Catholic set themselves on fire for a religious cause?