War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

[LazyBoy]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

If corporations are people and some are apparently Catholic, should they tithe?

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I see that the idea of missing a few meals is being equated with starvation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not advocating forced starvation, but a little hunger can be a great motivator. Please try fasting a day or two. Perhaps you could start by eating just one meal a day once or twice. Fasting really is good for you if you are in reasonable health. People who die of starvation have generally been starved for months on end, sometimes years of privation. I have seen hunger in my own extended family. When I was a boy I had three cousins whose parents were alcoholics. You could not give them money if you wanted to help. You had to bring groceries to their house so the boys could eat. Do you think addicts and alcoholics use food stamps to feed their children? Not from my experience. Once again government makes the problem worse, not better.

The most effective charity begins at home; family helping family. Then the church and community are the next line of defense for those who need help. Government should be the last resort, not the first. And we must be honest and call welfare what it really is, charity. If you ever need help, it is good to be reminded that you are in fact receiving charity. Someone else has decided to help you from their earnings. This will be a humbling experience, one that is good for all of us. And you will be highly motivated to become self supporting again as soon as possible. You will learn that "self reliance" is good, but that we are not really "masters of our own destiny." There is a golden mean, a balance to be sought here that will grow your soul.

+1

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

If corporations are people and some are apparently Catholic, should they tithe?

Catholic Healthcare Partners had a net operating revenue of $3.6 billion in 2011 and is owned entirely by catholic organizations.
I presume the entire amount was controlled by the church. Not a tithe (a tenth) but all of it.

[Ellen Z]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Catholic Healthcare Partners had a net operating revenue of $3.6 billion in 2011 and is owned entirely by catholic organizations.
I presume the entire amount was controlled by the church. Not a tithe (a tenth) but all of it.

Catholic Healthcare Partners is a large, not-for-profit health system.

All not-for-profit hospitals and health systems are tax-exempt and are required to offer non-compensated care and other forms of community benefit, because they are tax-exempt. With recent changes, they are now required to fill out annual federal tax forms (the 990) with detailed information about how much community benefit they have accomplished each year. (I'm not sure precisely which taxes they are exempt from, so perhaps some legal mind could fill in that gap.) Anyway, they all fill out a form 990, it is available for public viewing, and it is full of details about their board, their expenditures, etc.

I don't happen to know specific details about Catholic Healthcare Partners, but many Catholic healthcare systems do amazing, exemplary work and go far beyond the standard definition of "healthcare" ... they are truly devoted to service. I recall a San Francisco hospital that set up a free walk-in clinic for people with diabetes ... another group set up an array of support services for homeless people... both of these hospitals were in deteriorated downtown neighborhoods so they also had a financial incentive for offering these services .... it cut down their emergency room usage. But if all our healthcare met the standards set by hospitals that were founded by Catholic nursing sisters, we would be in much better shape. No organization is saintly.... but some of the original founding spirit persists ... in my opinion.

Anyway, here are some basic statistics on Catholic Healthcare Partners, from their web page. Note how much they spent on community service.

• Hospitals: 24
• Long-Term Care Facilities: 15
• Health Insurance Plan (PPO) Covered Lives: 97,182
• Home Health Agencies: 8
• Associates: 32,537
• FTEs: 26,686
• Affiliated Physicians: 5,593
• Total Assets: $5.4 billion
• Net Operating Revenues: $3.6 billion (2011)
• Net Income: ($6.1 million) (2011)
• Operating Income: $119.9 million (2011)
• Total Annual Community Service Benefits: $345.7 million (2011)
• Bond Ratings: Moody's: A1, S&P: AA-, Fitch: AA-

PS -- if you want more information about the not-for-profit hospitals in your town, go read the 990. If you're part of a community group that needs funding for a health-related service project, present it to the local hospital... they often make grants to local organizations as one aspect of community service.

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

If corporations are people and some are apparently Catholic, should they tithe?

Many Christians (including some very conservative evangelicals) do not believe that tithing applies in New Testament times. I personally encourage tithing and in addition offerings, but only for those who are joyful in so doing.

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

A compelling argument:

http://eerdword.wordpress.com/tag/hosanna-tabor/
....

The labels for the after-the-fact pills say that they may sometimes work after fertilization. Asking Catholic institutions to pay for something that they believe sometimes results in homicide is a grave threat to religious liberty.
The bishops’ principal legal claim is under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — RFRA. RFRA says that the federal government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, unless the imposition of that burden is the least restrictive means to serve a compelling government interest. The government says that its compelling interest is in adequate medical care for women.
But the government cannot claim an interest as compelling if it fails to protect that interest in any important range of cases. And the contraception mandate has enormous gaps. The health-care reform act does not apply to employers with fewer than 50 employees, which leaves 20 to 40 million employees uncovered. It does not apply to grandfathered plans, of which there seem to be a great many. They may remain grandfathered for many years. And the Department of Health and Human Services has reportedly granted thousands of administrative waivers to employers who were initially covered. McDonald’s got a waiver on the ground that it can’t afford to offer full coverage for its low-income employees. When the government is willing to make tens of millions of exceptions, it cannot credibly say that its interest is so compelling that it cannot make exceptions to protect the free exercise of religion.
These exceptions also support a claim directly under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that the Free Exercise Clause does not require religious exceptions from laws that are neutral and generally applicable. But a law with tens of millions of exceptions is not generally applicable. Nor is it neutral; it reflects a value judgment that McDonald’s low-wage business model is more important than the bishops’ freedom of conscience.
What the courts will do with this politically charged litigation remains to be seen. But do not underestimate the bishops’ legal claims. Uniao do Vegetal won its right to use its hallucinogenic tea under RFRA — and the Supreme Court was unanimous.compelling argument on this:

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Well would or wouldn't the case represent new precedent that would effect everyone based on the SCOTUS decision?

It might or might not, it completely depends on what the premise of the case is.

If, for example, the SCOTUS case was over the issue on religious exemption from federal laws, then the result might affect recognized religions but not anyone else.

If, on the other hand, the premise were a 1st amendment/freedom of expression issue, then it might.

Thus the assumption of a slippery slope is very problematic.

Absolutely, but I never said they should either. Remeber the argument here is that employers don't have to compensate for things that they have religious/ethical/whatever objections too, cost isn't the problem here.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. What exactly is the difference between an employer refusing a benefit because they don't feel like it, vs. an employer refusing a benefit because they feel their religious views don't permit it?

This is like comparing apples to rocks. The Catholics don't have to sanction or advocate for contraceptives, they'd just have to allow their health care plans to compensate for them. If you, or the Church, want to argue that is the same thing as advocating for contraceptives then I'd say you're conflating two very different things.

I'd say you're stretching.

Paying for contraception is exactly the same as condoning contraception, just as paying for drugs is exactly the same as condoning drugs. Nor is this a situation like methadone, where the government pays for a drug specifically to help an individual get off worse drugs.

I do not see how you can possibly position the Catholic institution's views as not being moral from said institution's own perspective.

I totally agree with you about FIRE, but the same crooks who facilitate the banksta's piracy, are at the same time busily creating a dependent class who will be their willing pawns, and keep them in office.

This is a belief, not fact.

The fact is, poor people don't vote. Thus they cannot be said to be keeping anyone in office:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socde...10/tables.html

Age and family income		Total Population	US Citizen
Total Citizen Population	Reported registered		Reported not registered		No response to registration 1		Reported voted		Reported did not vote		No response to voting 2
Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
18 YEARS AND OVER	Total	168,548	154,410	102,996	66.7	26,573	17.2	24,841	16.1	73,628	47.7	56,462	36.6	24,321	15.8
Under $10,000	6,679	5,496	2,857	52.0	1,945	35.4	695	12.6	1,465	26.7	3,406	62.0	625	11.4
$10,000 to $14,999	6,017	5,069	2,781	54.9	1,665	32.8	623	12.3	1,512	29.8	3,013	59.4	544	10.7
$15,000 to $19,999	5,626	4,549	2,644	58.1	1,389	30.5	516	11.3	1,518	33.4	2,552	56.1	478	10.5
$20,000 to $29,999	14,930	12,632	7,878	62.4	3,367	26.7	1,387	11.0	5,103	40.4	6,237	49.4	1,291	10.2
$30,000 to $39,999	15,002	13,182	8,692	65.9	3,040	23.1	1,450	11.0	5,845	44.3	5,979	45.4	1,357	10.3
$40,000 to $49,999	11,825	10,807	7,393	68.4	2,422	22.4	992	9.2	5,300	49.0	4,576	42.3	931	8.6
$50,000 to $74,999	27,168	25,516	18,641	73.1	4,179	16.4	2,695	10.6	13,252	51.9	9,680	37.9	2,583	10.1
$75,000 to $99,999	18,392	17,597	13,558	77.0	2,360	13.4	1,680	9.5	10,164	57.8	5,756	32.7	1,677	9.5
$100,000 to $149,999	17,236	16,586	13,257	79.9	1,694	10.2	1,635	9.9	10,121	61.0	4,777	28.8	1,688	10.2
$150,000 and over	12,629	12,102	9,716	80.3	1,126	9.3	1,260	10.4	7,454	61.6	3,353	27.7	1,295	10.7
Income not reported	33,044	30,875	15,580	50.5	3,386	11.0	11,909	38.6	11,893	38.5	7,132	23.1	11,850	38.4

The people who have money outnumber the poor people both in percentage of voting registration and in absolute number of registered voters. (note the 3rd and 4th columns of numbers are the number/percentage of registered voters. The iTulip background software doesn't import Excel tables very well)

The $50K and over income brackets comprise over 50% of the entire voting base (55,172K voters = 53.6% of all registered voters).

Thus if any conclusion is to be drawn, it is that welfare causes people to drop out of participation in politics as well as in the economy.

As for self reliance - again you make the presumption that there is hope.

For many poor people, they have none.

As the American Dream becomes ever harder to attain, so too will this attitude spread among the not yet poor, as the youth of America are experiencing now.

[Raz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

"The labels for the after-the-fact pills say that they may sometimes work after fertilization. Asking Catholic institutions to pay for something that they believe sometimes results in homicide is a grave threat to religious liberty."

The Orthodox Church maintains the concilliar and cannonical consensus of the Early Church in this matter and is in agreement with the Roman Magisterium: a procured abortion is the most evil act imaginable since the more helpless and innocent the victim, the more heinous the crime. It is the closest thing to Deicide - the murder of Christ Himself. And there is no difference between a mechanically induced abortion and a chemically induced abortion. Period.

The Roman Catholic church should absolutely refuse to obey the U.S. government should the position of the Obama Administration be upheld in the courts.
They should close or sell every Catholic hospital and shut down Catholic Charities if necessary. I would hope the Orthodox would do the same.

[lektrode]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

My only complain is that photo is no longer representative of the typical American woman. The legs should be fatter with vericose veins and with cellulite on the hips.

dont fergit the tatoos...

[lektrode]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I have a doctor friend who kept working at his small personal practice into his late 70s. He finally gave it up because his malpractice insurance was eating into his entire margin. Although he loved what he was doing (and it was not for the money) he finally said enough is enough.

have had a couple of my self empl'd doc clients tell me same: they either retired or went to work for a big outfit to escape the burden of the malprac ins

have also read about the workload from 3rd party billing, A/R-collections and gen'l dealings with the whole gov/ins buracracy driving more and more docs from their practices - my point here is that i dont believe gov stats that say all this only accounts for 1-2% of 'healthcare costs' - not when comparing the prices of basic 'encounters' (what a visit to the doc is referred to these daze) NEVER MIND HOUSECALLS (non existent) were in the past - or hospital stays for that matter - never mind what a couple hours in the emergency room costs....

and god help ya if need anything more than a routine exam...

1-2% is the total burden/pricetag/vig for legal-associated costs 'absorbed' by the medical industry? (and then tacked onto our med insurance premiums) ???

i'd bet its more like 25%, just based upon what my doc clients have told me and the anecdotal evidence that i've read here and there

and this is the ultimate/epic-fail of obamacare: it didnt even address the issue.

but then... what should we expect from legislation brought to us by the party of the tortbar... (never mind the banksta's)

[lektrode]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

The Roman Catholic church should absolutely refuse to obey the U.S. government should the position of the Obama Administration be upheld in the courts.
They should close or sell every Catholic hospital and shut down Catholic Charities if necessary. I would hope the Orthodox would do the same.

while i agree with the spirit of that mr raz, we dont want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, do we?

Catholic Healthcare Partners, from their web page. Note how much they spent on community service.

• Net Operating Revenues: $3.6 billion (2011)
• Net Income: ($6.1 million) (2011)
• Operating Income: $119.9 million (2011)
• Total Annual Community Service Benefits: $345.7 million (2011)

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

If, for example, the SCOTUS case was over the issue on religious exemption from federal laws, then the result might affect recognized religions but not anyone else.

If, on the other hand, the premise were a 1st amendment/freedom of expression issue, then it might.

Even if you're only talking about a ruling effecting organized religions you're talking about a hell of a lot of people being effected in a broad manner. There are religions that don't believe people should get organ transplants, blood transfusions, etc. even in life threatening situations. Either which way you look at it this a decision will not be truly narrow in scope.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. What exactly is the difference between an employer refusing a benefit because they don't feel like it, vs. an employer refusing a benefit because they feel their religious views don't permit it?

I think you're reading that part wrong or something, I wasn't suggesting and don't believe there is one.

I'd say you're stretching.

Paying for contraception is exactly the same as condoning contraception, just as paying for drugs is exactly the same as condoning drugs.

Bad metaphor to say the least. The legal, social, and health aspects of birth control and crack or methadone are very very different to put it very very mildly. By allowing their healthcare plans to compensate for contraceptives they would simply be meeting their employees and society's general expectations of what a healthcare plan should and normally does cover.

I do not see how you can possibly position the Catholic institution's views as not being moral from said institution's own perspective.

Of course its moral from their perspective, I didn't say it wasn't, but why are only the employer's morals to be considered here and not the employee's as well?

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

have had a couple of my self empl'd doc clients tell me same: they either retired or went to work for a big outfit to escape the burden of the malprac ins
,,,,,,,
1-2% is the total burden/pricetag/vig for legal-associated costs 'absorbed' by the medical industry? (and then tacked onto our med insurance premiums) ???

i'd bet its more like 25%, just based upon what my doc clients have told me and the anecdotal evidence that i've read here and there

Oh come on now, I already gave you an article that cited a study which beats out anecdotal evidence any day of the week and 50 times on Sundays. On top of that the same article mentioned how the state of Texas cut malpractice suites in half AND lowered costs by 30% at the same time but health care costs in that state went up even higher than some other states.

Even if you want to ignore the first point the second one shoots giant gaping holes in the idea that legal costs are having any significant impact on health care costs. To help add to the discussion and perhaps even change your mind I'll give you another article on the subject. Note this one cites another newer study done in 2007 by a private actuarial firm, it also does a better job of explaining the why of the whole situation too.

Q. A lot of people seem to have taken up the cause of tort reform. Why isn’t it included in the health care legislation pending on Capitol Hill?
A. Because it’s a red herring. It’s become a talking point for those who want to obstruct change. But [tort reform] doesn’t accomplish the goal of bringing down costs.


Q. Why not?
A. As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.


Q. But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.
A. That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.


Q. You said the number of claims is relatively small. Is there a way to demonstrate that?
A. We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Of course its moral from their perspective, I didn't say it wasn't, but why are only the employer's morals to be considered here and not the employee's as well?

Because the employer is the one paying the bill!

[Raz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

while i agree with the spirit of that mr raz, we dont want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, do we?

With all due respect, lektrode, (and I am sincere) - if the price of performing good deeds is complicity in mass murder then the Church must forego the good deeds.

From the very beginning the world has been at war with the Church because she refused to compromise the truth. (Refusing to worship the Roman "gods" embodied in Caesar sent one to the lions.)

To so compromise is to deny Him who is Truth.