Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Apparently what Obama wants is all the government control of healthcare without the hard work and expense of actually getting a government-run healthcare system through Congress.

[au2004ece 30]

This adds even more absurdity to the employer-insurance-employee model. We need to blow up that whole system.

Individuals should purchases insurance individually, like with car insurance. Let competition reign instead of one employer deciding thousands of employees must use the same insurance company.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

This adds even more absurdity to the employer-insurance-employee model. We need to blow up that whole system.

Individuals should purchases insurance individually, like with car insurance. Let competition reign instead of one employer deciding thousands of employees must use the same insurance company.

It would be kind of cool to see a setup where employers compete for workers by who gives the best healthcare stipends rather than simply having your healthcare tied to them.

[RunInRed 16,458]

So let me make sure I've got this straight ... no precedent for a slippery slope exists one minute and then the next it's, 'well, serves the administration right.' Ummm, OK.

Your emotions are clouding your ability to rationally approach this topic IMO.

[Grumps 3,704]

So let me make sure I've got this straight ... no precedent for a slippery slope exists one minute and then the next it's, 'well, serves the administration right.' Ummm, OK.

Your emotions are clouding your ability to rationally approach this topic IMO.

I completely agree with you that the bill could be dangerous and it creates a slippery slope.

My question is: If the Senators see the Obama administration's mandate as violating the employers freedom of religious expression (I'm not saying that they are right)then would they be justified to create a slippery slope situation in an attempt to rectify what they perceive to be a larger problem of rights violations?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

So let me make sure I've got this straight ... no precedent for a slippery slope exists one minute and then the next it's, 'well, serves the administration right.' Ummm, OK.

Your emotions are clouding your ability to rationally approach this topic IMO.

I think your political commitments to this President are clouding your ability to rationally approach the issue. It's especially galling to me that you deem yourself the cool, emotionless purveyor of reason in this debate while I'm merely approaching it emotionally. You and others here employ the same tactic anytime the subject of abortion comes up, mistaking passion for lack of reasoning. I don't argue things just to blow off steam. If I hold to a position and am willing to strongly defend it publicly, it's because I have read about and given much thought to the ramifications of it from both sides. Don't trivialize my views in this way.

It's also amazing to me the amount of mental gymnastics you're willing to contort yourself to go through to affirm a "right" to someone else paying for a newly minted piece of "essential" health care, while ignoring the ACTUAL right to freedom of conscience enumerated in the free exercise clause of our Constitution.

Now to your claim: I don't believe the slippery slope you speak of truly exists because I don't believe there is any real support for taking this from an exemption for religious organizations to extending it to any and all. But given how opposed some are to ANY government mandates on private entitities, you had to know such a challenge was coming. In fact, similar challenges have already happened, they simply focused on the individual mandate requiring everyone to purchase insurance somewhere. This isn't something new that reinstating a exemption for religious organizations would bring about. What Obama's bungling insensitivity to Catholics did do, however, was give them an emotional wedge with which to bolster their cause.

[au2004ece 30]

So let me make sure I've got this straight ... no precedent for a slippery slope exists one minute and then the next it's, 'well, serves the administration right.' Ummm, OK.

Your emotions are clouding your ability to rationally approach this topic IMO.

Having employers provide insurance as compensation to employees instead of cash was a slippery slope that led to government involvement in the incentivizing of employers providing healthcare to employees. The government incentives became a slippery slope to government involvement in what healthcare insurance must cover. Government involvement in coverage options because a slippery slope that led to government mandates on employers and individuals to purchase healthcare insurance. The government mandates to purchase have become a slippery slope into government decisions of what healthcare must be purchased. This will continue until the government slippery slopes itself into price controls or single payer and causes a ruinous over-demand/under-supply of healthcare in this country.

Once a government gets involved in the business decisions of an industry, the slope is greased towards decline in the service provided and the ability to adapt.

So, I'm not sure where you thought I was saying there is no slippery slope with the new senate bill.

[Grumps 3,704]

So let me make sure I've got this straight ... no precedent for a slippery slope exists one minute and then the next it's, 'well, serves the administration right.' Ummm, OK.

Your emotions are clouding your ability to rationally approach this topic IMO.

Having employers provide insurance as compensation to employees instead of cash was a slippery slope that led to government involvement in the incentivizing of employers providing healthcare to employees. The government incentives became a slippery slope to government involvement in what healthcare insurance must cover. Government involvement in coverage options because a slippery slope that led to government mandates on employers and individuals to purchase healthcare insurance. The government mandates to purchase have become a slippery slope into government decisions of what healthcare must be purchased. This will continue until the government slippery slopes itself into price controls or single payer and causes a ruinous over-demand/under-supply of healthcare in this country.

So, I'm not sure where you thought I was saying there is no slippery slope with the new senate bill.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

So let me make sure I've got this straight ... no precedent for a slippery slope exists one minute and then the next it's, 'well, serves the administration right.' Ummm, OK.

Your emotions are clouding your ability to rationally approach this topic IMO.

Having employers provide insurance as compensation to employees instead of cash was a slippery slope that led to government involvement in the incentivizing of employers providing healthcare to employees. The government incentives became a slippery slope to government involvement in what healthcare insurance must cover. Government involvement in coverage options because a slippery slope that led to government mandates on employers and individuals to purchase healthcare insurance. The government mandates to purchase have become a slippery slope into government decisions of what healthcare must be purchased. This will continue until the government slippery slopes itself into price controls or single payer and causes a ruinous over-demand/under-supply of healthcare in this country.

Once a government gets involved in the business decisions of an industry, the slope is greased towards decline in the service provided and the ability to adapt.

So, I'm not sure where you thought I was saying there is no slippery slope with the new senate bill.

Slippery slopes only exist on things Democrats fear will happen.

[RunInRed 16,458]

Well, so much for that...

Senate kills controversial GOP plan to let employers opt out of health care coverage if they oppose it on moral grounds.

Of course, every single Republican except for Maine's Olympia Snowe voted for the amendment. So much for 'some opposing' it. Anyways, folks have returned to their respective corners making decent dialogue almost impossible. Still, I maintain my position, as I've consistently stated in this thread.

[RunInRed 16,458]

Slippery slopes only exist on things Democrats fear will happen.

Gun control says hello.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Well, so much for that...

Senate kills controversial GOP plan to let employers opt out of health care coverage if they oppose it on moral grounds.

Of course, every single Republican except for Maine's Olympia Snowe voted for the amendment. So much for 'some opposing' it.

Republicans oppose what they see as an overall gov't overreach into health care. This amendment wouldn't have even made it to the floor without Obama's intransigence on religious institutions.

This simplistic response tells me you either don't wish to honestly discuss this or you didn't think for more than a second or two before blurting out this response. First, four Democrats supported it. Second, you know a portion of these people jumped in simply to take a notch out of what they derisively call "Obamacare." They weren't prompted by any compromise efforts. Others joined in because of their genuine consternation at Obama's unwillingness to negotiate a real compromise in good faith. You can try to paint as your proverbial slippery slope all wrought by the seeking of a real exemption for religious organizations all you want, but that dog don't hunt when you think on the matter with a critical mind.

Anyways, folks have returned to their respective corners making decent dialogue almost impossible. Still, I maintain my position, as I've consistently stated in this thread.

We're actually having decent dialogue here when people actually address the points others are making. You're skimming over legitimate issues with vague responses.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

An update from Cardinal Timothy Dolan:

Over the last six months or so, the Catholic Church in the United States has found itself in some tension with the executive branch of the federal government over a very grave issue: religious freedom. Can a government bureau, in this case the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), define for us or any faith community what is ministry and how it can be exercised? Can government also coerce the church to violate its conscience?

I wanted to let you, the great people of the archdiocese, know how we’re doing in this fight. Thank you for your extraordinary unity, support, and encouragement. Throughout all the archdiocese, our people – both as patriotic citizens and committed Catholics — have been very effective in letting government know that we are not at peace at all with this attempt to curtail the freedom of religion and sanctity of conviction we cherish as both Catholics and Americans.

This has not been a fight of our choosing. We’d rather not be in it. We’d prefer to concentrate on the noble tasks of healing the sick, teaching our youth, and helping the poor, all now in jeopardy due to this bureaucratic intrusion into the internal life of the church. And we were doing all of those noble works rather well, I dare say, without these radical new mandates from the government. The Catholic Church in America has a long tradition of partnership with government and the wider community in the service of the sick, our children, our elders, and the poor at home and abroad. We’d sure rather be partnering than punching.

Nor is this a “Catholic” fight alone. As a nurse from Harrison emailed me, “Cardinal, I’m not so much mad about all this as a Catholic, but as an American.” It was a Baptist minister, Governor Mike Huckabee, who observed, “In this matter, we’re all Catholics.”

And it is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception. Pure and simple, it’s about religious freedom, the sacred right, protected by our constitution, of any Church to define its own teaching and ministry.

When the President announced on January 20th that the choking mandates from HHS would remain — a shock to me, since he had personally assured me that he would do nothing to impede the good work of the Church in health care, education, and charity, and that he considered the protection of conscience a sacred duty — not only you, but men and women of every faith, or none at all, rallied in protest. The worry that we bishops had expressed — that such government control was contrary to our deepest political values — was eloquently articulated by constitutional scholars and leaders of every creed. Even newspaper editorials supported us!

On February 10th, the President announced that the insurance providers would have to pay the bill, not the Church’s schools, hospitals, clinics, or vast network of charitable outreach. He considered this “concession” adequate.

Did this help? We bishops wondered if it would, and announced at first that, while withholding final judgment, we would certainly give it close scrutiny.

Well, we have — and we’re still as worried as ever. For one, there was not even a nod to the deeper concerns about trespassing upon religious freedom, or of modifying the HHS’ attempt to define the how and who of our ministry through the suffocating mandates.

Two, since a big part of our ministries are “self-insured,” how is this going to help us? We’ll still have to pay! And what about individual believers being coerced to pay? [still an issue no one here seems to want to address - TT.]

Three, there was still no resolution about the handcuffs placed upon renowned Catholic charitable agencies, both national and international, and their exclusion from contracts just because they will not refer victims of human trafficking, immigrants and refugees, and the hungry of the world, for abortions, sterilization, or contraception.

So, we have given it careful study. Our conclusion: we’re still very worried. There seem far more questions than answers, more confusion than clarity.

Now what to do?

Well, for one, we’ll keep up advocacy and education on the issue. We continue to tap into your concern as citizens and count on your support. Regrettably, the unity of the Catholic community has been tempered a bit by those who think the President has listened to us and now we can quit worrying. You’re sure free to take their advice. But I hope you’ll listen to your pastors who are still very concerned.

Two, we’ll continue to seek a rescinding of the suffocating mandates that require us to violate our moral convictions — or at least a wider latitude to the exemptions so that churches can be free — and of the rigidly narrow definition of church, minister, and ministry that would prevent us from helping those in need, educating children, and healing the sick who are not Catholic.

The President invited us to “work out the wrinkles,” and we have been taking him seriously. Unfortunately, this seems to be going nowhere: the White House Press Secretary, for instance, informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him, commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is simply scurrilous and insulting). The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry “without change.” The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, “Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets,” which doesn’t bode well for a truly acceptable “accommodation.” And a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff ended with the President’s people informing us that the broader concerns of religious freedom — that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent hardly-surprising but terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops are hopelessly out of touch with our people, and with those whom the White House now has nominated as official Catholic teachers.

So, I don’t know if we’ll get anywhere with the executive branch.

Congress offers more hope, with thoughtful elected officials proposing promising legislation to protect what should be so obvious: religious freedom. As is clear from the current debate in the senate, our opponents are marketing this as a “woman’s health issue.” Of course, it cannot be reduced to that. It’s about religious freedom. (By the way, the Church hardly needs to be lectured about health care for women. Thanks mostly to our Sisters, the Church is the largest private provider of health care for women and their babies in the country. Here in New York State, Fidelis, the Medicare/Medicaid insurance provider, owned by the Church, consistently receives top ratings for its quality of service to women and children.)

And the courts offer the most light. In the recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically defended the right of a Church to define its own ministry and services, a dramatic rebuff to the administration, but one apparently unheeded by the White House. Thus, our bishops’ conference and many individual religious entities are working with some top-notch law firms who have told us they feel so strongly about this that they will represent us pro-bono.

So, we have to be realistic and prepare for tough times. Some, like America magazine, want us to cave-in and stop fighting, saying this is simply a policy issue; some want us to close everything down rather than comply (In an excellent article, Cardinal Francis George wrote that the administration apparently wants us to “give up for Lent” our schools, hospitals, and charitable ministries); some want us to engage in civil disobedience and be fined; some worry that we’ll have to face a decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.

Sorry to go on at such length. You can see how passionately I feel about this. But, from what I sense, you do too. You all have been such an inspiration, and I owe it to you to keep you posted. We need you more than ever! We can’t give up hoping, praying, trying, and working hard.

http://blog.archny.org/?p=2291

[TitanTiger 20,510]

What if the bishops aren't bluffing?

What if Catholic bishops aren’t bluffing?

posted at 8:40 am on March 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this week, Francis Cardinal George of the archdiocese of Chicago sent a message to parishioners in Barack Obama’s home town that imposition of the HHS mandate to fund and facilitate contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization would force the Catholic Church to close its hospitals, clinics, schools, and all other organizations that would otherwise have to comply. “Two Lents from now,” Cardinal George warned, “unless something changes, the page [listing Catholic organizations] will be blank.” At the time, some commenters wrote that this has been Obama’s plan all along — to force religious charities out of business to make people more dependent on government. Others, including myself, figure that Obama just thinks the bishops are bluffing, and wants to engage in a high-stakes bout of brinksmanship to force them to kneel to secular authority over doctrine.

But how high are those stakes? In my column for The Fiscal Times today, I did a little research just on Catholic hospitals and their significance in American health care. As it turns out, this bet involved nearly $100 billion in annual costs and about one-seventh of all hospital beds in the US — and that’s not all:

The Catholic Church has perhaps the most extensive private health-care delivery system in the nation. It operates 12.6 percent of hospitals in the U.S., according to the Catholic Health Association of the U.S., accounting for 15.6 percent of all admissions and 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses, a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion. Whom do these hospitals serve? 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.

Compared to their competition, 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

.

Imagine the impact if these hospitals shut down, discounting the other 400-plus health centers and 1,500 specialized homes that the Catholic Church operates as part of its mission that would also disappear. Thanks to the economic models of these hospitals, no one will rush to buy them. One in six patients in the current system would have to vie for service in the remaining system, which would have to absorb almost $100 billion in costs each year to treat them. Over 120,000 beds would disappear from an already-stressed system.

The poor and working class families that get assistance from Catholic benefactors would end up having to pay more for their care than they do under the current system. Rural patients would have to travel farther for medical care, and services like social work and breast-cancer screenings would fall to the less-efficient government-run institutions. That would not only impact the poor and working class patients, but would create much longer wait times for everyone else in the system. Finally, over a half-million people employed by Catholic hospitals now would lose their jobs almost overnight, which would have a big impact on the economy as well as on health care.

Of course, it’s not just hospitals. The Catholic Church runs over 7500 primary and secondary education schools in the US (where over a third of students are non-Catholics), educating more than 2.5 million students. Thanks to a near-blanket moratorium on vouchers, taxpayer money doesn’t get used in teaching these students in a system that has a 99% graduation rate and a 97% success rate at placing students in college. Based on an average student cost of $8000 in public schools, Catholic schools save taxpayers about $20 billion dollars a year.

Perhaps with schools, though, the notion that Obama wants to crowd out private enterprise in favor of the public sector makes more sense. How about charities? Catholic Charities would also have to close its doors if the bishops refuse to comply with the HHS mandate. In 2003, the latest data available, they provided emergency food services to 6.5 million people, temporary shelter to over 200,000 people, and a range of other assistance to another 1.5 million people, including assistance in clothing, finances, utilities, and even medication. Those efforts would disappear overnight, along with schools and hospitals.

Surely, some will think, the bishops are just bluffing, and won’t purposefully create such a social disaster. Perhaps, but consider the teachings of St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit order and a deeply influential figure in Catholic thinking:

Some may doubt that the bishops would create this kind of havoc and disruption, and perhaps President Obama believes Cardinal George and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to be bluffing. However, Obama may want to read St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, and his Principle and Foundation of faith, which informs Catholics on the priority of salvation. The first task of mankind, according to St. Ignatius, is to serve God and “save his soul,” and “other things on the face of the earth” should be used only as long as they serve that purpose. When they become a hindrance to salvation, St. Ignatius warns to “rid himself of them.”

If the HHS mandate forces the Catholic Church to fund and facilitate access to products and services they believe imperil souls, they will apply Ignatius’ principle and stick with salvation — which is the entire raison d’être of any religious organization. The implications for public-sector spending and services is massive, and Obama may be pushing all in with only a pair of jacks. Don’t count on the bishops to blink first.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/01/what-if-catholic-bishops-arent-bluffing/

[RunInRed 16,458]

Republicans oppose what they see as an overall gov't overreach into health care. This amendment wouldn't have even made it to the floor without Obama's intransigence on religious institutions.

Well in that case...

This simplistic response tells me you either don't wish to honestly discuss this or you didn't think for more than a second or two before blurting out this response. First, four Democrats supported it. Second, you know a portion of these people jumped in simply to take a notch out of what they derisively call "Obamacare." They weren't prompted by any compromise efforts. Others joined in because of their genuine consternation at Obama's unwillingness to negotiate a real compromise in good faith.

Speaking of mental gymnastics...

You can try to paint as your proverbial slippery slope all wrought by the seeking of a real exemption for religious organizations all you want, but that dog don't hunt when you think on the matter with a critical mind.

And back to the character judgements; why can't you just accept that I (and judging by the polls ... I know, I know ... many others too - particularly, women) believe we, as a civil society, should be afforded basic access to healthcare options like birth control and other forms of contraceptions?

We're actually having decent dialogue here when people actually address the points others are making. You're skimming over legitimate issues with vague responses.

Your skimming over my responses because you don't agree with them. Sure I can Google with the best of them and plaster supporting views but what's the point?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Speaking of mental gymnastics...

What mental gymnastics? There are some hardcore Obamacare haters that would have brought this up anyway. But without this attack on religious freedom, it would have gotten no where. No Democrat would have voted for it at all and many Republicans would have sat it out as well. But either way, the slippery slope argument you're making is silly.

And back to the character judgements; why can't you just accept that I (and judging by the polls ... I know, I know ... many others too - particularly, women) believe we, as a civil society, should be afforded basic access to healthcare options like birth control and other forms of contraceptions?

First of all, I'm not judging character, I'm judging your full participation in the discussion.

And its fine that you think what you think about what is "basic" health care, but we also believe in the freedom of conscience. We decided the free exercise of religion was so important it warranted being in the very first amendment in the Constitution. No such primacy of place has been granted to someone else being forced against their beliefs to pay for you to have the sex life you wish. Polls be damned, that's the reality of the situation here.

Your skimming over my responses because you don't agree with them. Sure I can Google with the best of them and plaster supporting views but what's the point?

I haven't skimmed over anything you've said. I've addressed it head on at every turn. I can't say the same for you.

I have a lot of respect for you and I know you're not a shallow thinker. But on this issue, to me, you are not thinking deeply about it at all. You are letting something you want, a social end you find desirable, run completely roughshod over first principles and it's baffling to me. I don't care if everyone in the country wants to down birth control pills for dinner and chase it with ella and a pint of beer. I don't have any problem with contraception, tubal litigations or vasectomies. But I would never wish to force someone who found such things abhorrent to pay for them, no matter how good I thought providing such things was. I respect other people's beliefs and the beliefs of the religions they belong to. I don't always understand or agree, but me understanding or agreeing with it isn't the point nor a requirement for them to have religious freedom on the matter to decline to participate in it.

I would think a 'progressive'...someone who understands tolerance of different beliefs and cultures, of all people, would understand and support this. Not be hellbent on undermining it.

[RunInRed 16,458]

What is it you want me to address... shoot.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

Apparently what Obama wants is all the government control of healthcare without the hard work and expense of actually getting a government-run healthcare system through Congress.

This simplistic response tells me you either don't wish to honestly discuss this or you didn't think for more than a second or two before blurting out this response.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Apparently what Obama wants is all the government control of healthcare without the hard work and expense of actually getting a government-run healthcare system through Congress.

This simplistic response tells me you either don't wish to honestly discuss this or you didn't think for more than a second or two before blurting out this response.

It was sarcastic. But he is asking for an incredible amount of control for the actual system he put through the legislative process.

[au2004ece 30]

And back to the character judgements; why can't you just accept that I (and judging by the polls ... I know, I know ... many others too - particularly, women) believe we, as a civil society, should be afforded basic access to healthcare options like birth control and other forms of contraceptions?

What you just mentioned is the main point of contention in that hardly anybody disagrees with exactly what you said: "we, as a civil society, should be afforded basic access to healthcare options like birth control and other forms of contraceptions".

Again, hardly anybody disagrees with that. What you mistake for limiting access (not having insurance that covers it) does nothing to limit access to contraceptives. You are mistaking the "right" to have others pay for that access for you as the actual access. You are wrong.

Nobody wants to take away your access to birth control. We do want to give people the right to not have to pay for it for you. Remember, insurance is very expensive when it covers such common everyday options. In the cost area, I equate insurance coverage of contraceptives to car insurance coverage of gas fillups. Why should every insurance policy premium have the contraceptive factor added to it when not everyone will choose to use contraceptives? On the other hand, there should be no ban on allowing people or employers to choose plans that cover contraceptives.

You want your access/choice at the expense of denying others their own choices. That is what pisses people off: the entitlement attitude that is pervasive across this nation. Not only do you want access (which nobody wants to take away from you), you want somebody else to pay for it for you.

[RunInRed 16,458]

On the other hand, there should be no ban on allowing people or employers to choose plans that cover contraceptives.

So you, unlike almost every single Republican, would have voted against the Blunt amendment?

[au2004ece 30]

On the other hand, there should be no ban on allowing people or employers to choose plans that cover contraceptives.

So you, unlike almost every single Republican, would have voted against the Blunt amendment?

Most importantly, you skirted the main point. Additionally, I'm now questioning your understanding because the blunt amendment would have given employers a choice, it would not have been a ban against employers choosing plans that cover consequences. Therefore, the statement of mine that you quoted is not at odds with the blunt amendment.

Frankly, I would give employers the right to choose any insurance plan they wish or even no insurance plan. Individuals can use the cash they get as compensation to cover the gap between what their employers chooses to provide and what they wish to have.

Now, address my main point: Access does not equal having others pay for what you want access to.

[RunInRed 16,458]

You and I both know 99/100 employers will always choose the bottom line ... meaning, if they have an option to wiggle out of something that will cost money, they are going to do it. We have regulations and guidelines in this country for a reason ... history proves we need them.

[au2004ece 30]

You and I both know 99/100 employers will always choose the bottom line ... meaning, if they have an option to wiggle out of something that will cost money, they are going to do it. We have regulations and guidelines in this country for a reason ... history proves we need them.

You skirted around the main point, again, because you just cannot understand a world where people are allowed to make their own decisions. Am I to assume that you cannot rationalize your belief that others must be forced to pay for things you want access to?

Yes, of course that is how it works. That is how it should work. Employees then would choose which employer to work for based on what benefits or additional cash they offer.

The most efficient economy and employer/employee relationships would be achieved by employers only providing cash as compensation to employees.

If employers always chose the least expensive option, then no employee in this country would make more than minimum wage. However, the employers realize that certain positions are in higher demand than others and they offer much more than minimum wage. The same would apply to insurance coverage (or if no insurance provided, then a higher cash compensation). In order to attract employees, employers would offer better coverage or more cash.

Any decision that forces companies to provide things such as birth control means that part of the compensation for ALL employees in this country must include birth control pills whether they want them or not. Your pay is reduced by the birth controls that you are being compensated with whether or not you use them. That is not how I want it to work. I want cash, and then I want to decide if I need birth control pills. If not, I now have extra cash. In your world, I have access to all these birth control pills instead of that extra cash.

[BamaGrad03 0]

The irony here is that the people who keep mentioning slippery slope cautions are the same people who think employer provided birth control is an inalienable right up there with freedom and oxygen.