The Catholic Church and HealthCare.... What if the Bishops Aren't Bluffing?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Like Mitt Romney, they will be admitting how much they like firing people

Most posters will know, I'm not a big fan of starting threads on media articles, but I'm making an exception for this one. Because the article is a really good one, and has a lot of very significant information contained within it.

So, Obama takes on the Catholic Church... what exactly does that mean? What if the Catholic Church was forced to close its doors? I know that many, particularly on the left, would like to see the Church (and other faith based providers) forced out in order to achieve their 'Nanny State' agenda.... but just take a few minutes to consider the impact of your goal.

• 12.6 percent of hospitals are run by the Catholic Church
• 15.6 percent of all admissions - Catholic Hospitals
• 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses
• a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion

Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

What if Catholic bishops aren’t bluffing? « Hot Air

Read the article. Then tell me it's a good thing to force the Churches out of providing services. We do it better, cheaper, and for those who are most vulnerable.

Like Mitt Romney, they will be admitting how much they like firing people

 

[Annie]

Like Mitt Romney, they will be admitting how much they like firing people

Most posters will know, I'm not a big fan of starting threads on media articles, but I'm making an exception for this one. Because the article is a really good one, and has a lot of very significant information contained within it.

So, Obama takes on the Catholic Church... what exactly does that mean? What if the Catholic Church was forced to close its doors? I know that many, particularly on the left, would like to see the Church (and other faith based providers) forced out in order to achieve their 'Nanny State' agenda.... but just take a few minutes to consider the impact of your goal.

• 12.6 percent of hospitals are run by the Catholic Church
• 15.6 percent of all admissions - Catholic Hospitals
• 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses
• a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion

Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

What if Catholic bishops aren’t bluffing? « Hot Air

Read the article. Then tell me it's a good thing to force the Churches out of providing services. We do it better, cheaper, and for those who are most vulnerable.

Like Mitt Romney, they will be admitting how much they like firing people

You are meaning those that disagree with the teachings?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Like Mitt Romney, they will be admitting how much they like firing people

Most posters will know, I'm not a big fan of starting threads on media articles, but I'm making an exception for this one. Because the article is a really good one, and has a lot of very significant information contained within it.

So, Obama takes on the Catholic Church... what exactly does that mean? What if the Catholic Church was forced to close its doors? I know that many, particularly on the left, would like to see the Church (and other faith based providers) forced out in order to achieve their 'Nanny State' agenda.... but just take a few minutes to consider the impact of your goal.

• 12.6 percent of hospitals are run by the Catholic Church
• 15.6 percent of all admissions - Catholic Hospitals
• 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses
• a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion

Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

What if Catholic bishops aren’t bluffing? « Hot Air

Read the article. Then tell me it's a good thing to force the Churches out of providing services. We do it better, cheaper, and for those who are most vulnerable.

Like Mitt Romney, they will be admitting how much they like firing people

You are meaning those that disagree with the teachings?

the teachings? The RCC is a haven for pederasts and their protectors

 

[Annie]

Like Mitt Romney, they will be admitting how much they like firing people



Like Mitt Romney, they will be admitting how much they like firing people

You are meaning those that disagree with the teachings?

the teachings? The RCC is a haven for pederasts and their protectors

Gotcha.

 

[oldernwiser]

I truly fail to see how this is violates the constitution's 1st amendment protections on the establishment of religion. If adherents of Catholicism truly agree with the RCC's position on reproductive rights, then they should avoid seeking those services - even if they are to be made available. No one is forcing a patient to accept birth control, not even the law could force the issue.

But, what of the rest of us non-Catholics? Are we to also be bound by the RCC's morals and religious teachings?

I believe that if these organisations both employ and provide services to people without regard to their particular faith, then they should be held to the same standard as any other employer or service provider.

 

[California Girl]

Like Mitt Romney, they will be admitting how much they like firing people

Most posters will know, I'm not a big fan of starting threads on media articles, but I'm making an exception for this one. Because the article is a really good one, and has a lot of very significant information contained within it.

So, Obama takes on the Catholic Church... what exactly does that mean? What if the Catholic Church was forced to close its doors? I know that many, particularly on the left, would like to see the Church (and other faith based providers) forced out in order to achieve their 'Nanny State' agenda.... but just take a few minutes to consider the impact of your goal.

• 12.6 percent of hospitals are run by the Catholic Church
• 15.6 percent of all admissions - Catholic Hospitals
• 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses
• a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion

Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

What if Catholic bishops aren’t bluffing? « Hot Air

Read the article. Then tell me it's a good thing to force the Churches out of providing services. We do it better, cheaper, and for those who are most vulnerable.

Like Mitt Romney, they will be admitting how much they like firing people

I assume you have a quote for that. And please, don't produce anything other than a direct quote from Romney saying he likes firing people.

 

[California Girl]

I truly fail to see how this is violates the constitution's 1st amendment protections on the establishment of religion. If adherents of Catholicism truly agree with the RCC's position on reproductive rights, then they should avoid seeking those services - even if they are to be made available. No one is forcing a patient to accept birth control, not even the law could force the issue.

But, what of the rest of us non-Catholics? Are we to also be bound by the RCC's morals and religious teachings?

I believe that if these organisations both employ and provide services to people without regard to their particular faith, then they should be held to the same standard as any other employer or service provider.

The Church cannot pay for your health services if that service includes things that are against its doctrine... such as birth control and abortion. Don't like that? Fine, work for some other organization.

Forcing the Church to pay for services against its doctrine breaches the First Amendment. And soon, Mr Obama is gonna find out just how seriously Catholics take our doctrine - even those who, personally, choose to ignore that doctrine.

Obama should not have picked a fight with the Church - we don't just have God on our side... we have vast numbers of non-Catholics too.

 

[oldernwiser]

The Church cannot pay for your health services if that service includes things that are against its doctrine... such as birth control and abortion. Don't like that? Fine, work for some other organization.

Forcing the Church to pay for services against its doctrine breaches the First Amendment. And soon, Mr Obama is gonna find out just how seriously Catholics take our doctrine - even those who, personally, choose to ignore that doctrine.

This is all well and good, however, reproductive services provisions aren't a separately negotiated item for which the church has to pay extra. The medical/counselling services provided are not paid for by the church. And subscribers would still have the ability to seek other alternatives.

Federal law mandates the standard of medical care insurance provisions for all public employers - which, apparently, the RCC has become. One could certainly make the argument that the Catholic Church is impinging on the 1st amendment rights of non-Catholics in their employ by forcing them to accept church doctrine as a condition of employment. That would certainly be in violation of EEOC laws as well.

How often do we need to be reminded that our moral issues are our own and can't be legislated?

 

[usmcstinger]

Most posters will know, I'm not a big fan of starting threads on media articles, but I'm making an exception for this one. Because the article is a really good one, and has a lot of very significant information contained within it.

So, Obama takes on the Catholic Church... what exactly does that mean? What if the Catholic Church was forced to close its doors? I know that many, particularly on the left, would like to see the Church (and other faith based providers) forced out in order to achieve their 'Nanny State' agenda.... but just take a few minutes to consider the impact of your goal.

• 12.6 percent of hospitals are run by the Catholic Church
• 15.6 percent of all admissions - Catholic Hospitals
• 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses
• a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion

Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

What if Catholic bishops aren’t bluffing? « Hot Air

Read the article. Then tell me it's a good thing to force the Churches out of providing services. We do it better, cheaper, and for those who are most vulnerable.

Great Points! I would have to add Catholic Charities:

Catholic Charities USA is the national office for*Catholic Charities agencies and affiliates nationwide. As a professional association and social justice movement, Catholic Charities USA supports local Catholic Charities as they provide help and create hope for over 10 million people each year regardless of religious, social, or economic backgrounds.Working to Reduce Poverty in America - Catholic Charities USA

This is an assault on all religions. Would make a good Federal Court Case.

 

[oldernwiser]

This is an assault on all religions. Would make a good Federal Court Case.

What am I missing here? I haven't seen where anyone has been mandated to change their religious views. Where, exactly, is the assault on religions.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Church cannot pay for your health services if that service includes things that are against its doctrine... such as birth control and abortion. Don't like that? Fine, work for some other organization.

You mean like the services that are already part of Georgetown Universities employee health insurance?[/QUOTE]

Federal law mandates the standard of medical care insurance provisions for all public employers - which, apparently, the RCC has become. One could certainly make the argument that the Catholic Church is impinging on the 1st amendment rights of non-Catholics in their employ by forcing them to accept church doctrine as a condition of employment. That would certainly be in violation of EEOC laws as well.

How often do we need to be reminded that our moral issues are our own and can't be legislated?

Just as a technical point of order. The 1st Amendment applies to government restriction on religious activities and worship. Since the RCC is not a government entity it would not be possible for them to be in violation of the 1st Amendment as the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them.



*************************************

Ya'll are really missing the major problem here which has been developing for years.

The problem is big government and the imposition of practices on private entities.

This is accomplished through what are commonly referred to as "Public Accommodation Laws" where the government mandates to private entities - be it business, a non-profit organization (religious or non-religious), or to actual organizations of worship (Church, Synagogue, Temple, etc. - which are different than non-profit religious organizations. Public Accommodation laws mandate that legal entities cannot discriminate based on (varies by location) race, religion, ethnicity, gender, marital status, veterans status, age, sexual orientation, parental status, etc.

I'm for the repeal of this classification of laws commonly referred to as "Public Accommodation" laws and I mean both at the federal, state, and local level because they interfere with the right of private individuals in terms of speech, assembly, self determination. A private business should be able to choose to service or not service customers base on a business model they choose to create and then they can survive or fail based on how the public accepts (or rejects) that model.


As long as the argument is incorrectly framed as "reproductive rights" on one side and "religious freedom" on the other, we will never reach a true solution. The problem is neither of those, the problem is government overreach.


>>>>

 

[oldernwiser]

Just as a technical point of order. The 1st Amendment applies to government restriction on religious activities and worship. Since the RCC is not a government entity it would not be possible for them to be in violation of the 1st Amendment as the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them.

Good point - and I stand corrected.

A private business should be able to choose to service or not service customers base on a business model they choose to create and then they can survive or fail based on how the public accepts (or rejects) that model.


As long as the argument is incorrectly framed as "reproductive rights" on one side and "religious freedom" on the other, we will never reach a true solution. The problem is neither of those, the problem is government overreach.

This certainly deeper than it first appears. The Public Accommodation laws were designed to allow women into the workplace and is responsible for handicapped access to buildings and parking places, for example. While it's true that the public COULD censure the business for it's ethical treatment of a particular class of individuals, the reality is that we don't. As a more-or-less healthy individual, it usually doesn't occur to me when a public building doesn't provide a ramp - and I'm not all that likely to shun a particular business because they have discriminated against women. Not that I'm being callous, it's just that - at the time - I had a need to be filled and didn't fall into either classification.

While it could be argued that quite a few PA laws harm a business more than it helps the minority of people they're designed to help, on the whole, there is no way to protect the rights of minority groups of people without them. Business can not be relied upon to police itself, and if we don't particularly fall into one of the protected classifications we tend not to see this as an issue.

As long as the argument is incorrectly framed as "reproductive rights" on one side and "religious freedom" on the other, we will never reach a true solution. The problem is neither of those, the problem is government overreach.

I believe this comes to more than just "repro rights vs religious freedom". This particular problem is more rooted in the church as a business as opposed to the church as the seat of religion. Without the repeal of the Public Accommodation laws, the church-as-a-business should be held to the same standard as any other business. If the employees of the church should decide they don't want to avail themselves of any service provided to them under law, they aren't compelled to. On the other hand, those who do shouldn't be penalized, IMO.

On top of that, as long as we view any attempt at regulating just what the church-as-a-business does as an assault on religious freedom, then there's no way to reach a solution either.

 

[Intense]

I believe this comes to more than just "repro rights vs religious freedom". This particular problem is more rooted in the church as a business as opposed to the church as the seat of religion. Without the repeal of the Public Accommodation laws, the church-as-a-business should be held to the same standard as any other business. If the employees of the church should decide they don't want to avail themselves of any service provided to them under law, they aren't compelled to. On the other hand, those who do shouldn't be penalized, IMO.

On top of that, as long as we view any attempt at regulating just what the church-as-a-business does as an assault on religious freedom, then there's no way to reach a solution either.

I believe this comes to more than just "repro rights vs religious freedom". This particular problem is more rooted in the church as a business as opposed to the church as the seat of religion. Without the repeal of the Public Accommodation laws, the church-as-a-business should be held to the same standard as any other business.

Do you even know what the business of the Church is? Public Service. You cannot demand thew Church act against Conscience in the name of conformity to your or anyone Else's will. Fail.

 

[Ravi]

I believe this comes to more than just "repro rights vs religious freedom". This particular problem is more rooted in the church as a business as opposed to the church as the seat of religion. Without the repeal of the Public Accommodation laws, the church-as-a-business should be held to the same standard as any other business. If the employees of the church should decide they don't want to avail themselves of any service provided to them under law, they aren't compelled to. On the other hand, those who do shouldn't be penalized, IMO.

On top of that, as long as we view any attempt at regulating just what the church-as-a-business does as an assault on religious freedom, then there's no way to reach a solution either.

I believe this comes to more than just "repro rights vs religious freedom". This particular problem is more rooted in the church as a business as opposed to the church as the seat of religion. Without the repeal of the Public Accommodation laws, the church-as-a-business should be held to the same standard as any other business.

Do you even know what the business of the Church is? Public Service. You cannot demand thew Church act against Conscience in the name of conformity to your or anyone Else's will. Fail.

You can when they are operating as a business and taking tax money.

And they are free to do their public service elsewhere.

 

[Intense]

I believe this comes to more than just "repro rights vs religious freedom". This particular problem is more rooted in the church as a business as opposed to the church as the seat of religion. Without the repeal of the Public Accommodation laws, the church-as-a-business should be held to the same standard as any other business. If the employees of the church should decide they don't want to avail themselves of any service provided to them under law, they aren't compelled to. On the other hand, those who do shouldn't be penalized, IMO.

On top of that, as long as we view any attempt at regulating just what the church-as-a-business does as an assault on religious freedom, then there's no way to reach a solution either.

I believe this comes to more than just "repro rights vs religious freedom". This particular problem is more rooted in the church as a business as opposed to the church as the seat of religion. Without the repeal of the Public Accommodation laws, the church-as-a-business should be held to the same standard as any other business.

Do you even know what the business of the Church is? Public Service. You cannot demand thew Church act against Conscience in the name of conformity to your or anyone Else's will. Fail.

You can when they are operating as a business and taking tax money.

And they are free to do their public service elsewhere.

Careful what you wish for, Dear. I wonder how many poor suffer, because of the Government's issues with both the Church and God. Good one Rav.

 

[Ravi]

Do you even know what the business of the Church is? Public Service. You cannot demand thew Church act against Conscience in the name of conformity to your or anyone Else's will. Fail.

You can when they are operating as a business and taking tax money.

And they are free to do their public service elsewhere.

Careful what you wish for, Dear. I wonder how many poor suffer, because of the Government's issues with both the Church and God. Good one Rav.

If the Church takes their ball and goes home, it is on them for letting the poor suffer.

 

[JessMathers]

great article...I do not believe that the bishops are bluffing at all. they are serious

 

[California Girl]

This is an assault on all religions. Would make a good Federal Court Case.

What am I missing here? I haven't seen where anyone has been mandated to change their religious views. Where, exactly, is the assault on religions.

Forcing any Church, Catholic or other, to pay for services that are in breach of our doctrines is an assault on our religion. To quote many thousands of non-Catholics across this country.... "We're all Catholics now". We thank them for their support, and together, we will bitchslap your President back to Chicago.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is this the first Federal Health Care Bill not to exempt those of religious ideology?
All of the other Federal health care bills have.

Because one of the aims is to force charitable providers out of the system, so that the government can run it all. It's for our own good.... despite the fact that it will cost more, force costs up, and lead to worse care..... none of that matters to the left. They just want to control everything.

I don't get it. I thought liberals WANTED people to do things for altruistic, "help everyone out of the goodness of your heart" reasons, rather than those evil, greedy profit motives. So whyever would they want to attack the Catholics, who have a long history of putting their money where their mouths are when it comes to charity and helping their fellow man?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most posters will know, I'm not a big fan of starting threads on media articles, but I'm making an exception for this one. Because the article is a really good one, and has a lot of very significant information contained within it.

So, Obama takes on the Catholic Church... what exactly does that mean? What if the Catholic Church was forced to close its doors? I know that many, particularly on the left, would like to see the Church (and other faith based providers) forced out in order to achieve their 'Nanny State' agenda.... but just take a few minutes to consider the impact of your goal.

• 12.6 percent of hospitals are run by the Catholic Church
• 15.6 percent of all admissions - Catholic Hospitals
• 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses
• a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion

Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

What if Catholic bishops aren’t bluffing? « Hot Air

Read the article. Then tell me it's a good thing to force the Churches out of providing services. We do it better, cheaper, and for those who are most vulnerable.

As long as hospitals remain open the communities, it won't matter. Systems will come in and buy out the faith based hospitals if they wish to get out of the healthcare game. These takeovers happen everyday in the USA.

Yea, at higher costs..... and less efficiency.... but no doubt that is fine.... as long as it doesn't effect you - it's just the poor and vulnerable that will be most impacted.... who cares about them, right?

I loved that breezy assumption that someone - "systems" - would just step in and handle the fallout from the left's selfish insistence on having everything their way, no matter who they have to step on to get it. Didn't you?