[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The insurance coverage is like a minimum wage, it has to include some minimum set of services. Could a religious institution have the belief that employees should only get paid $4 an hour?[/quote]
Also, you do realize they can drop insurance coverage, right? It’ll suck for those who’d voluntarily agree to work for coverage that didn’t include contraception coverage (you know, like they’re doing now), but there you go…The well thought out tyranny of the left.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
C. The “accommodation” is done but the government pays the cost difference to free the church from indirectly paying through an accounting trick.[/quote]
Where does the government get its money?[/quote]
Obama’s stash?
It’s because Catholics are self-afflicted by ‘pseudo-persecution’.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The insurance coverage is like a minimum wage, it has to include some minimum set of services. Could a religious institution have the belief that employees should only get paid $4 an hour?[/quote]
Also, you do realize they can drop insurance coverage, right? It’ll suck for those who’d voluntarily agree to work for coverage that didn’t include contraception coverage (you know, like they’re doing now), but there you go…The well thought out tyranny of the left.
[/quote]
So anyways, which of these 2 options would the church prefer.
A. Insurance companies offer contraceptive insurance to individuals on the side, church pays for it indirectly via an accounting trick.
B. Small tax increase for everyone, government makes sure free contraceptives are available to everyone through services like PP, etc.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The insurance coverage is like a minimum wage, it has to include some minimum set of services. Could a religious institution have the belief that employees should only get paid $4 an hour?[/quote]
Also, you do realize they can drop insurance coverage, right? It’ll suck for those who’d voluntarily agree to work for coverage that didn’t include contraception coverage (you know, like they’re doing now), but there you go…The well thought out tyranny of the left.
[/quote]
So anyways, which of these 2 options would the church prefer.
A. Insurance companies offer contraceptive insurance to individuals on the side, church pays for it indirectly via an accounting trick.
B. Small tax increase for everyone, government makes sure free contraceptives are available to everyone through services like PP, etc.[/quote]
Oh shit Sufi you used the PP now this thread is really going to go off course!
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The insurance coverage is like a minimum wage, it has to include some minimum set of services. Could a religious institution have the belief that employees should only get paid $4 an hour?[/quote]
Also, you do realize they can drop insurance coverage, right? It’ll suck for those who’d voluntarily agree to work for coverage that didn’t include contraception coverage (you know, like they’re doing now), but there you go…The well thought out tyranny of the left.
[/quote]
So anyways, which of these 2 options would the church prefer.
A. Insurance companies offer contraceptive insurance to individuals on the side, church pays for it indirectly via an accounting trick.
B. Small tax increase for everyone, government makes sure free contraceptives are available to everyone through services like PP, etc.[/quote]
A complete exemption.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m supposed to believe that an almost non-enforceable “mandate” with something that NO ONE is going to be forced to provide is all of a sudden shaking the very foundations of the Faith?[/quote]
If it’s unenforceable, why include it in the legislation?
If it is enforceable, but you don’t think the President would choose to enforce it, why would he create the expectation among the beneficiaries of this bill that it most certainly will be enforced only to piss them off when he shrugs his shoulders when these institutions “deny” this right to the intended beneficiaries?
Enough. I am one of those people who get angry with those who attack the President on mindless partisan grounds, but let’s face it - our country is more hamstrung by the inability to have a frank and intellectually honest discussion about the President among those who have some level of support for him.
President Obama deserves fair criticism and credit, but like the garbage criticism of the fringe (birthers, etc.), the inability of some his fans to shoot straight isn’t helping anyone.
Obama’s mandate clearly demands that church-affiliated institutions be required to provide coverage for contraception. He introduced this mandate for a number of reasons, not the least of which was an attempt to improve his electoral standing among women, which had been sliding.
You can like it, hate it, or think it’s something in between, but be honest about what it is.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The insurance coverage is like a minimum wage, it has to include some minimum set of services. Could a religious institution have the belief that employees should only get paid $4 an hour?[/quote]
Also, you do realize they can drop insurance coverage, right? It’ll suck for those who’d voluntarily agree to work for coverage that didn’t include contraception coverage (you know, like they’re doing now), but there you go…The well thought out tyranny of the left.
[/quote]
So anyways, which of these 2 options would the church prefer.
A. Insurance companies offer contraceptive insurance to individuals on the side, church pays for it indirectly via an accounting trick.
B. Small tax increase for everyone, government makes sure free contraceptives are available to everyone through services like PP, etc.[/quote]
A complete exemption.[/quote]
So choice B?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The insurance coverage is like a minimum wage, it has to include some minimum set of services. Could a religious institution have the belief that employees should only get paid $4 an hour?[/quote]
Also, you do realize they can drop insurance coverage, right? It’ll suck for those who’d voluntarily agree to work for coverage that didn’t include contraception coverage (you know, like they’re doing now), but there you go…The well thought out tyranny of the left.
[/quote]
So anyways, which of these 2 options would the church prefer.
A. Insurance companies offer contraceptive insurance to individuals on the side, church pays for it indirectly via an accounting trick.
B. Small tax increase for everyone, government makes sure free contraceptives are available to everyone through services like PP, etc.[/quote]
A complete exemption.[/quote]
So choice B?[/quote]
suf, we’re talking about this within the actual legislation that is to be the law of the land. Why are we talking about a brand new universal single-payer sex-life coverage now? Can we just talk about what’s actually going on? I’m not in the mood for pointless hypotheticals. “Would you be satisfied if we GRANT you continued free exercise of your religious conscience (as has been the case) if Obama was to hypothetically create a stand alone universal single-payer sex-life program.” What, are you taking fundamental constituional freedoms hostages in exchange for redistributionist sexual subsidization?
Don’t you guys ever feel a bit…exposed, with these line of arguments? If the bedroom, sexual attitudes and behaviors, really are all about the individual, why do you folks continually undercut your own argument by trying to make it a public concern/burden? You completely make a lie of it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m supposed to believe that an almost non-enforceable “mandate” with something that NO ONE is going to be forced to provide is all of a sudden shaking the very foundations of the Faith?[/quote]
If it’s unenforceable, why include it in the legislation?
If it is enforceable, but you don’t think the President would choose to enforce it, why would he create the expectation among the beneficiaries of this bill that it most certainly will be enforced only to piss them off when he shrugs his shoulders when these institutions “deny” this right to the intended beneficiaries?
Enough. I am one of those people who get angry with those who attack the President on mindless partisan grounds, but let’s face it - our country is more hamstrung by the inability to have a frank and intellectually honest discussion about the President among those who have some level of support for him.
President Obama deserves fair criticism and credit, but like the garbage criticism of the fringe (birthers, etc.), the inability of some his fans to shoot straight isn’t helping anyone.
Obama’s mandate clearly demands that church-affiliated institutions be required to provide coverage for contraception. He introduced this mandate for a number of reasons, not the least of which was an attempt to improve his electoral standing among women, which had been sliding.
You can like it, hate it, or think it’s something in between, but be honest about what it is.[/quote]
Thanks for the input, Bolt.
I’ve said it more than once; the whole Patient Protection and Affordability Act was a TERRIBLE Bill. So much political capital was utilized, with what appears to be VERY little upside (in total).
To then add mandates of any kind (which, as you know, will be challenged in the Supreme Court this spring) made it worse. THEN to add mandates to religious institutions regarding controversial issues simply has left me scratching my head and saying “What were they THINKING”???
So…in answer to your question; WHY they added virtually non-enforceable mandates makes no sense and therefore has no true answer. (Like most Bills this size, it most likely was a “political payment” to someone or to some group?). And THAT is backfiring. (As may the whole Bill/Act once it is reviewed by the Supreme Court).
The PPAA is my greatest, and strongest, criticism of this Presidency.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
So…in answer to your question; WHY they added virtually non-enforceable mandates makes no sense and therefore has no true answer.[/quote]
But why is it unenforceable? The government could easily levy fines - it’d be cake. And it would be easy to police, because beneficiaries who are denied coverage are very likely to report non-compliance with the government (it is very unlikely that someone who wants contraception who cannot get it because of the religious institution’s refusal to oblige is not someone who will simply shrug and ignore the issue).
And the government can easily audit the process with one interview under oath of the religious institution.
I still don’t understand why you think it’s unenforceable.
A caveat, though - the Supreme Court isn’t reviewing (and won’t review) the whole bill. It’s only reviewing the constitutionality of the individuaaal mandate. And now, it looks like the Supreme Court will (ultimately) review the religious mandate.
Fair point, and it should be. It’s the most dishonest bill of the modern age.
But without the mandates (the overall ones); doesn’t the whole Act fall like a stack of cards? (At least to my understanding).
My point about the “non-enforcable” part…maybe I am using the wrong terms…maybe “difficult to enforce?”
I know that many on the Far Right are thinking that the President is taking us to a Totalitarian State (and that’s the kind of hyperbole that makes ME angry, and that I don’t think furthurs any discussion); but in the U.S., I just don’t see them being able to enforce in any meaningful way something that goes against the basic tenents of a Religion.
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Muf, it’s absolutely ludicrous to suggest the federal government can’t enforce a mandate like this one.
THAT’S what THE principal role of the executive branch is - to enforce laws passed by Congress.
If you think it would be difficult to enforce please direct your attention to how easily the IRS enforces the income tax mandate.
The authority to levy fines, backed up by the point of the sword, makes this mandate very easily enforceable from a practical standpoint.[/quote]
But Push…RELIGION goes deeper into the American Psyche than taxes on wages, no?
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
If you think it would be difficult to enforce please direct your attention to how easily the IRS enforces the income tax mandate.[/quote]
All the agency needs to do is request copies of the insurance policies at issue and get a sworn statement (under questionnaire) from the institution, and when the agency determines the institution isn’t compliant, institute a fine for every day of non-compliance until it is corrected.
Staff bureaucrats enforce “mandates” of all types - tax, environmental, OSHA, health care, anything - like this on a daily basis. It’s what they do - that’s the point of a mandate…it’s mandatory, and the executive branch will enforce it, just as easily as they enforce everything else.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
My point about the “non-enforcable” part…maybe I am using the wrong terms…maybe “difficult to enforce?”[/quote]
It’d be easy to enforce, though. See above. It’d be easier to enforce than enforcing the tax laws.
This makes no sense - either the religious institution covers contraception in its package of health insurance services, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, the institution gets fined under the law.
So now the institution is being fined for adhering to one of basic tenents of its religious teachings.
This is not complicated - how is it unenforceable in a meaningful way?
As for the claim that Obama is pushing us toward a totalitiarian statem, yes, it’s overheated, but we’ve never had a president so eager to command rules from on high via the executive branch, particularly with respect to such conroversial laws.
Even the late Ted Kennedy - an unapologetic liberal and unapologetic champion of unversal health care - believed the church should be exempted. Obama not only doesn’t think an exemption should exist - so he is to the left of Ted Kennedy on this - he thinks the issue should be decided by basically the executive branch alone.
That’s one of the major problems with this President - he doesn’t particularly respect democracy, and doesn’t even pretend to.