Friday, September 7, 2012

Commerce Law

From "Teddy" (I've decided that Anonymous posters who don't sign any name will be given one by me of my choice, usually a child's toy):
My logic applies here:
"Catholic organizations were exempt from providing birth control pill coverage *if* they self-insured. So a number of Catholic organizations self-insured."

Because they think that buying health insurance from another company should give them the right to dictate to others what they do with their money, since they weren't afforded that right, they decide to force their religious views on their employees through self insurance. Its rooted in the same issue: The church doesn't want other people to sin with money that isn't theirs anymore but came from them. If that's the case, and they're willing to self-insure to avoid it, you should only grow your own food so the money you give others for things like groceries can be assured not to be used for sin.

I don't know how they would get a church built if they don't want other people sinning with money they pay out. They could just as easily apply this to the purchase of health insurance. If the people building their buildings sin with their wages, then its a sin of the builder, not the church. The same is true for health insurance providers. Its a hypocritical position.
I'm not sure, Teddy, if you are more upset that the government had the loop hole available for organizations and businesses or if you're upset that the Church decided to self-insure in accordance with Commercial Law?


Maybe you are unaware that what the Church has done is no different than any other business or organization.  I'll give a real life example.

Two years ago (roughly) my husband was a student at the University of Arizona.  He was also a research assistant so the university provided him free medical coverage under Aetna.  This was student insurance coverage but it also covered research assistants and teaching assistants. 


The insurance coverage that university bought did not cover prescriptions.  It was well within the university's right to not cover medications.  We knew that and we both knew that while students.  It also didn't provide prescriptive coverage for myself or my son, HB, who we elected to also cover under the plan.  We had to pay for it out of own pocket.  At one point Aetna got into a tiff with our pediatrician and then refused to contract with her.


We had choices all along the way.  We could have:
1) Gotten jobs that did not have Aetna and provided drug coverage
2) Sought out another university who provided different insurance
3) Paid for our pediatrician on our own
4) Paid for our medications on our own
5) Sought out a new pediatrician under Aetna contract
6) Bought an individual health care plan


Nobody forced us to stay with the University.  Nobody told us we couldn't get our medications or visit our pediatrician.  Nobody infringed on our personal rights.


Furthermore the University (at that time) was well within it's legal right to do this.


It wasn't until Obamacare came along that birth control pills (which we could have easily gotten for cheap at the University's on-campus pharmacy) that insurance companies had shell out money.  Does it make a difference?  You bet.

The university system in Arizona is already suffering.  They have hiring freezes and salary freezes.  They aren't even adjusting for the cost of inflation and that was before added on health care costs.  Now the University is forced into providing birth control.  In order to compensate for the higher cost of premiums that the insurance companies have had to add, the University has had to hike up tuition costs and continue to freeze jobs.  Now how is that good for the economy?

And that has nothing to do with religious beliefs.  It's pure economics.

But since you asked...nobody held a gun to our heads and said this was our only option.  We had a right to ask what the university provided, and we knew it before we paid for it or were hired.  


It surprises me that people apply for jobs at Catholic schools without thinking to ask what the benefits are.  If they felt that they needed to have abortion coverage, then they are well within their rights to seek employment elsewhere.  They are also allowed to pay for it themselves from their own pay checks.


But...and I guess you didn't understand this when I said this before....Obamacare is forcing Catholic organizations to either directly pay for the abortionist or to pay for the service through their premiums  And that is against business law.  You cannot force anyone to pay for something they do not want.  It's the same scenario with the Jewish deli owner being forced to buy bologna.

If the Church was saying to their employees "you can't use your pay check to pay for an abortion."  Then I would agree that that is infringing on personal liberties.  But this is not the case.  I'm not sure how to be any plainer.

Just a side note:  To force the Catholic church to pay for something is outside the scope of the 5th amendment.  The more we regulate health care the more we are starting to look like a socialist democracy instead of a constitutional republic.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I love to read your thoughts. Thanks for sharing!