Will Obama's 1st act shut down 1/3 of hospitals?

[Tristan]

Aha. So, people who "want to think" will believe that Barack Obama is going to shut down 1/3 of the nation's hospitals.

I think, and I don't think so.

If you want to make a bet, then mark your calendar for one year from now.

If the Catholic hospitals are closed, then I'll send you an abject "You were right" apology for all to see.

If they aren't, then you get an "I told you so" in bright red letters.

Do we have a bet?

Oh, yes, I almost forgot:

"Hey, you monsters, get out of this closet! A little child has to sleep in this room, and is afraid of monsters! Shoo, I say, shoo, get out!"

You are not even close to getting what this thread is about if your still stuck on the flipping thread title. Book. Cover. Get it?

No one here thinks it will come to that including the guy who started this thread (me) and you would know that if you read the first sentence of the OP.

We are talking about political leverage an a nuclear culture bomb in a war that the liberals have already won. Obama has a lot of stupid ideas but he is not a stupid man and he's a damn good politician. He wont sign FOCA.

 

[Ravi]

According to the Catholics, they only have 12.5% of the hospitals in the country. That is a long way from "1/3 of the hospitals."

Methinks the person that wrote the article is a very sloppy journalist.

USCCB - (Office of Media Relations) - Catholic Information Project

Find your hysteria elsewhere.

 

[Annie]

According to the Catholics, they only have 12.5% of the hospitals in the country. That is a long way from "1/3 of the hospitals."

Methinks the person that wrote the article is a very sloppy journalist.

USCCB - (Office of Media Relations) - Catholic Information Project

Find your hysteria elsewhere.

So you find that acceptable? That perhaps 12.5% of hospitals, mostly in poor areas would close?

 

[KGB]

Leaving aside the fact that part of "regulating medical standards" IS telling hospitals what procedures they do, FOCA threatens to take away federal funding (such as medicare and medicaid) from anyone, Catholic or otherwise, who does not comply. And taking away that funding (about 27% of the population) is pretty compelling. That's just Medicare and Medicaid, I don't even know if that goes along with government workers and their contracted health insurance providers. Heck, maybe half of us are already on government health care.

They wont force doctors to do work they are unwilling to do, they will put them out of business.

regulating medical standards is defining the acceptable levels of care which is far different than telling them the menu of services they will be performing....

As another poster stated, Catholic hospitals will close before they do an abortion.....so this is a moot point.....

 

[Tristan]

According to the Catholics, they only have 12.5% of the hospitals in the country. That is a long way from "1/3 of the hospitals."

Methinks the person that wrote the article is a very sloppy journalist.

USCCB - (Office of Media Relations) - Catholic Information Project

Find your hysteria elsewhere.

I trust your link more than Slate. (your link also has them in all 50 States where the OP link, I think, said 46)

You think the Slate guy was also counting their " 404 heath care centers" and "1,509 specialized homes"? (whatever the heck those are) Unless the Slate guy got his numbers from somewhere else, or Catholic hospitals had a hostile takeover of flying spaghetti monster hospitals since 2005 then someting is off.

 

[Annie]

Where Catholic education and medicine meet: University Medical Centers. For the most part, both have been drain on church coffers, yet that isn't the point for their being ended:

CHAUSA: The Catholic Health Association of the United States — Articles: Can Medical Schools Be Catholic?

As I implied earlier, while these schools do not go out of their way to advertise they are Catholic affiliated, for to do so brings attacks, perhaps they need to, as the article argues. Medicine in general would be less at the loss of them. Note this isn't addressing the hundreds of Catholic non-teaching hospitals that primarily serve the poor:

...Nine U.S. Catholic colleges have had medical schools, four of which have been closed or sold.3 One of these (Niagara) lasted only two years (1888-1900). Another (Fordham) closed in 1921. Seton Hall's medical school opened in 1956 and was purchased by the state of New Jersey in 1965. Marquette's medical school became the Medical College of Wisconsin in 1967. Four Jesuit institutions (Saint Louis, Georgetown, Creighton, and Loyola Chicago) still operate medical schools. The newest, New York Medical College, became affiliated with the Archdiocese of New York in 1978, making it the lone non-Jesuit U.S. Catholic medical school still in existence...

 

[Ravi]

So you find that acceptable? That perhaps 12.5% of hospitals, mostly in poor areas would close?

Yep. Why should I want the government to give in to blackmail?

 

[Tristan]

Find your hysteria elsewhere.

Oops. I didn't read past your link. Some good stuff there.

But you have a point, I goofed the title quote. The link at the OP has the paragraph where the author says, "That's a third of all hospitals, providing care in many neighborhoods that are not exactly otherwise overprovided for." An awkward sentence for sure, but I should have double checked anyway. It's a shame no one else read it any closer than I did until now.

Here is the author googled. Lots of hysteria there.
Melinda Henneberger

 

[Tristan]

Yep. Why should I want the government to give in to blackmail?

It's politics.

Hey, if you gotta call me out on goofing my number for a hysterical thread title for a link to an article by a hysterical liberal, I gotta call you out when you use words you don't know the meaning of.

I'll give you a hint though. There is "blackmail" going on here. Who has the power Ravi? Who will put whom out of business? Which side has a legal monopoly on the use of force? (starting theme to jeopardy...)

 

[Annie]

Yep. Why should I want the government to give in to blackmail?

it seems the government being the one with blackmail. The hospitals are saying they will provide services to the poor, just not abortions. You wish to close them for that? Good luck for the poor then, as most hospitals turn them away when they hit their limit in about February.

 

[Tristan]

regulating medical standards is defining the acceptable levels of care which is far different than telling them the menu of services they will be performing....

As another poster stated, Catholic hospitals will close before they do an abortion.....so this is a moot point.....

Abortion is not the acceptable level of care Catholic Hospitals wish to provide babies. But the government also has regulations on services hospitals perform don't kid yourself.

Making political hey out of the fact that they will close rather than submit was a pretty big point of the article! I'm sure you would have picked it up if you had read it though so don't feel bad. lol

 

[Ravi]

It's politics.

Hey, if you gotta call me out on goofing my number for a hysterical thread title for a link to an article by a hysterical liberal, I gotta call you out when you use words you don't know the meaning of.

I'll give you a hint though. There is "blackmail" going on here. Who has the power Ravi? Who will put whom out of business? Which side has a legal monopoly on the use of force? (starting theme to jeopardy...)

heh, I was raised a Catholic, I know what they are capable of...and it certainly is blackmail. The weak blackmail the strong, not the other way around.

 

[Ravi]

it seems the government being the one with blackmail. The hospitals are saying they will provide services to the poor, just not abortions. You wish to close them for that? Good luck for the poor then, as most hospitals turn them away when they hit their limit in about February.

For the third time, someone else will step in to fill the void. And I don't wish to close them at all. And they won't close. This entire thread is based on something that isn't going to happen.

 

[Tristan]

heh, I was raised a Catholic, I know what they are capable of...and it certainly is blackmail. The weak blackmail the strong, not the other way around.

Main Entry: black·mail
Pronunciation: \ˈblak-ˌmā(&#601l\
Function: noun
Etymology: black + 1mail
Date: 1552
1: a tribute anciently exacted on the Scottish border by plundering chiefs in exchange for immunity from pillage
2 a: extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution b: the payment that is extorted

It's Catholic principles and religious freedom that is being extorted. It's the government that will run them out of business if they don't pay the ideological tribute.

For Catholics is go out of business or go to Hell.

 

[Ravi]

It's Catholic principles and religious freedom that is being extorted. It's the government that will run them out of business if they don't pay the ideological tribute.

For Catholics is go out of business or go to Hell.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe for one minute the government has any interest in closing down the hospitals. The government cannot force someone to provide a medical procedure. The blackmail, or perhaps I should have said bluff, is the inflammatory threat of taking their cookies and going home if they don't get their way (the Catholics) and meant to get people to vote against FOCA.

IF anything in the article you linked to is even true.

 

[Annie]

For the third time, someone else will step in to fill the void. And I don't wish to close them at all. And they won't close. This entire thread is based on something that isn't going to happen.

Can't wait to see the 3rd party, as if the law passes, my guess is the working at a loss Catholic hospitals will close. Good luck for the poor then, well until that third party steps up.

 

[Tristan]

I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe for one minute the government has any interest in closing down the hospitals. The government cannot force someone to provide a medical procedure. The blackmail, or perhaps I should have said bluff, is the inflammatory threat of taking their cookies and going home if they don't get their way (the Catholics) and meant to get people to vote against FOCA.

IF anything in the article you linked to is even true.

Like I said it's a HuffPo regular writing for Slate. (left and lefter) The hysteria comes from the fact that the author believes the Catholics are not bluffing. As to the actual law I posted seperate links to that as well as Obama's promise.

I don't believe the government wants hospitals closing either. But I doubt they anticipated what kind of backlash FOCA will get and not just from Catholics.

I don't care what anyone's view on abortion is (for the purpose of this thread anyway) Pro-Choice or Pro-Life FOCA is bad law.

And that's not even touching Parental notification yet. That's got to be a nightmare provision for parents.

 

[Skeptik]

You are not even close to getting what this thread is about if your still stuck on the flipping thread title. Book. Cover. Get it?

No one here thinks it will come to that including the guy who started this thread (me) and you would know that if you read the first sentence of the OP.

We are talking about political leverage an a nuclear culture bomb in a war that the liberals have already won. Obama has a lot of stupid ideas but he is not a stupid man and he's a damn good politician. He wont sign FOCA.

From the OP:

According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors.

Now, tell me again: Is the thread title somehow not what the thread is really about?

The thread appears to be about Obama signing into law an act that would force the Catholic hospitals to close their doors, not accept public funding, or perform abortions. The OP appears to be about the same thing. I've said that such a thing will never happen.

Now, just what is this thread about, again?

 

[Tristan]

Can't wait to see the 3rd party, as if the law passes, my guess is the working at a loss Catholic hospitals will close. Good luck for the poor then, well until that third party steps up.

I tend to agree that void can not be filled. "Someone" is not an answer. Not in normal circumstances and not in this economy.

On the bright side the church would have more dough for other charity work. Maybe they could do even more feeding of the poor than they already do. At least until the government comes in and shuts them down because not feeding the poor meat on Fridays constitutes subtle indoctrination of the helpless. Or the ethanol subsidies raise the cost of breaking bread to high. Or the church bus can't meet the emissions standards or the price of gas is too high because drilling is illegal. Or the bus was stolen because concealed carry didn't pass this time around and you could not defend your property from the thief who had to be let out of jail early to make room for some poor sap with half a joint and a mandatory minimum sentence.

 

[Ravi]

Tristan, are you by chance the person that wrote the article linked to in the OP