Posted on 06/29/2012 3:15:28 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
The bishops released a statement a short time ago:
Today the United States Supreme Court issued a decision upholding as a tax the provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires individuals to purchase a health plan—the so-called “individual mandate.”For nearly a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have been and continue to be consistent advocates for comprehensive health care reform to ensure access to life-affirming health care for all, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable. Although the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) did not participate in these cases and took no position on the specific questions presented to the Court, USCCB’s position on health care reform generally and on ACA particularly is a matter of public record. The bishops ultimately opposed final passage of ACA for several reasons.
First, ACA allows use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions and for plans that cover such abortions, contradicting longstanding federal policy.The risk we identified in this area has already materialized, particularly in the initial approval by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of “high risk” insurance pools that would have covered abortion.
Second, the Act fails to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protection, both within and beyond the abortion context.We have provided extensive analyses of ACA’s defects with respect to both abortion and conscience.The lack of statutory conscience protections applicable to ACA’s new mandates has been illustrated in dramatic fashion by HHS’s “preventive services” mandate, which forces religious and other employers to cover sterilization and contraception, including abortifacient drugs.
Third, ACA fails to treat immigrant workers and their families fairly.ACA leaves them worse off by not allowing them to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges created under the law, even if they use their own money.This undermines the Act’s stated goal of promoting access to basic life-affirming health care for everyone, especially for those most in need.
Following enactment of ACA, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has not joined in efforts to repeal the law in its entirety, and we do not do so today. The decision of the Supreme Court neither diminishes the moral imperative to ensure decent health care for all, nor eliminates the need to correct the fundamental flaws described above.We therefore continue to urge Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, legislation to fix those flaws.
Socialism would be the platform of the Socialist Party in the United States in 1912. There were four major candidates. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson and Debs. The parties: the Bull Moose, the Republican, the Democrat and the Socialists. look up the platforms and compare them.
No, seriously, show me your proof for your claim that 40% of combat arms personnel In WWII were Catholics.
Seriously, show your proof that I am wrong.
LOL, That isn’t the way it works.
When someone makes an absurd claim like that they have to prove it.
When you use the term absurd, you have to show facts that support it. Maybe the files of the Catholic league, or some other apologetics site have a quick reference. What I have given is a truism generally know forty years ago. By and large Catholics in the US were not middle-class until the ‘50s. This is why the ranks of the infantry and marines were disproportionately filled by men of that faith. Ditto, Southern Protestants.
When will the Catholic Bishops figure out that Marxism is hostile to God and to human life...I wonder if they ever will. I don’t understand how anyone could be a Democrat and be pro life. How could any Christian be for the total power of an atheist, unethical State that is hostile to God.
If they want people to be treated as children by an all powerful atheist State, they should stop pretending to be Christians. They are serving Ceasar in the name of God and that is wrong. Ceasar does not do the work of God - care for the poor. God does this through Catholics and other Christians. Ceasar kills and oppresses people and partakes in everything immoral.
By pushing communism or socialism on a free mostly Christian nation, the Catholic Church has not served God nor has it served the Nation and the poor. Pushing a socialized nation on our people is not Christian.
No one knew that “forty years ago”, 40 years ago I was a combat instructor in the army and the Vietnam war was going on.
I had been a military obsessed reader all of my life and especially of WWII, every male in my family served, my dad was already military when WWII started, my step dad served in WWII, my brothers and step brother served during Vietnam, I have an interest in military history and WWII.
Show your proof for such a bizarre claim.
Such dictates are the hallmarks of fascism.
spunkets:
So according to you, all forms of business regulation and rules that relate to Industry are “facist”. So the Securities Exchange Commission which requires U.S. Publicly traded companies to have full and fair disclosure in Annual Reports is “facist” Having appropriate regulatory oversight over Accounting and Reporting principles is “facist”. So all forms of Regulations are “facist” Requiring Health Care coverage is facist.
I am no fan of Obamacare but I work for an organization that has a sound Insurance Coverage and I am thankful that I work for such an oranization.
Facist policies involve controlling private industry for the good of the state, while allowing limited private ownewrship of Industry from those in the private sector. But the dictates of what is to be produced is from the state.
So by your definition, Ronald Reagan giving targeted investment tax credits and R&D credits, etc for firms in the Defense Industry would also be “facist” as he used federal tax laws and policy to direct billions of federal dollars toward defense related industries. Is that also facist.
Fight away. The Church does better when it is attacked. I think, anyone interested in freedom should fight for true Catholicism in America and anywhere else, and to let the evil fruits of the Reformation die a natural death.
No.
"Requiring Health Care coverage is facist."
Yes.
"Facist policies involve controlling private industry for the good of the state, while allowing limited private ownewrship of Industry from those in the private sector. But the dictates of what is to be produced is from the state.
Fascism is socialism with limits on democratic corrective action. That includes limits that might be imposed by a democratic majority.
"So by your definition, Ronald Reagan giving targeted investment tax credits and R&D credits, etc for firms in the Defense Industry would also be “facist” as he used federal tax laws and policy to direct billions of federal dollars toward defense related industries.
Depends on the details... The only legitimate justification for govm't is to protect rights. Defense is a legitimate purpose. The spending depends on the scale of the threat to freedom only. Denying freedom to protect freedom is ridiculous.
spunkets:
Ok, so at least you are not for no regulations and rules of law in the market place, so banking regulation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, etc do form legitimate roles in making sure insider trading and fraudulent behavior is curtailed, to some degree, and those are part of the Federal Government’s laws and dictates.
Now, lets look at Health Care coverage and Reagan’s policies. Reagan did in fact cut the Corporate tax rate and Individual tax rate [a good thing] but he did proceed to put more money in defense than the baseline that the Pentagon established during that era and federal spending as a % of GDP under Reagan was over 22% versus the historical mean fo 20% for the 30 year period from 1970 to 2009. I think Obama is now approaching 28% of GDP, which is unsustainable. Now, I agree the role of the Federal Government is for National Defense, but lets also realize that Reagan did lower Corporate Tax rates while simultaneously increasing Defense to levels we have not seen since WWII so Defense industries and Stocks directly benefited from Reagans Policies.
I have no problem with trying to reform Health care, which is now approaching 20% of the U.S. GDP, so the ends of Health Care Reform does not bother me, I think it is a good think, it is the means to th end that I don’t like which is the Obama model of Health Care.
I think Nixon’s plan was a good one and had Watergate not occurred, I think Nixon’s policy would have been passed and we would not be dealing with Obamacare today.
What does the word reform mean? Why use that empty word instead of a word that refers to the exact nature of the real change sought after that's hidden by the word reform.
"I think Nixon’s plan was a good one and had Watergate not occurred, I think Nixon’s policy would have been passed and we would not be dealing with Obamacare today."
There's no real difference between the 2 plans. They're both socialist redistribution schemes that take other people's money to finance the health care industry for the benefit of the industry itself. There isn't a bit of fundamental difference between the 2 govm't run schemes — hiding the tax elsewhere, notwithstanding.
Nixon's Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan February 6, 1974: "Every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. Additional benefits could then be added by mutual agreement. The insurance plan would be jointly financed, with employers paying 65 percent of the premium for the first three years of the plan, and 75 percent thereafter. Employees would pay the balance of the premiums. Temporary Federal subsidies would be used to ease the initial burden on employers who face significant cost increases.(what about the employees? hmmm...)
Individuals covered by the plan would pay the first $150 in annual medical expenses. A separate $50 deductible provision would apply for out-patient drugs. There would be a maximum of three medical deductibles per family.
After satisfying this deductible limit, an enrollee would then pay for 25 percent of additional bills. However, $1,500 per year would be the absolute dollar limit on any family's medical expenses for covered services in any one year.
As an interim measure, the Medicaid program would be continued to meet certain needs, primarily long-term institutional care..."
spunkets:
They are different plans, Nixon’s would require the Industry to use the private Insurance Market and those Insurance expenses could also be subsidized by allowing them to be deductible against Earnings, so after taxes, the cost would have been lower than what you think.
Obama’s is a totally government run system that in principle, does not like the private insurance industry and in theory, they would want the Federal Government to run the entire Health Insurance System.
They are similar in there goals but they are different in principle. Lets start with some issues, if someone loses a job and has pre-existing medical conditions, it is impossible for those folks to get health insurance, so if you have diabetes, heart issues, high-blood pressure, etc, many Private insurance firms will not even allow those types of folks to buy insurance.
Nixon’s Health Insurance plan if you stop and think about it is not in essence different from how most Retirement plans are used today. Rather than the old Defined benefit plans, which are seriously underfunded regardless if we are talking about Corporations or Government entities, all new Retirement plans that are recognized under the tax laws are more of Defined Contribution Plans such as 401K type plans were the Employer makes a contribution to the employees retirement plan, the employee makes his or her contribution, and those retirement funds are “tax deferred” until the employee reaches retirement age
However, these Defined Contribution plans are run by Private Equity Fund/Mutual Fund Companies who have accountability to their Shareholders rather than the money from these Defined Contribution plans having to be put into a Government run Retirement plan.
So the underlying principles between Nixon’s Health Insurance plan are not different from how the Government allows Defined Contribution Plans to be run and how they are treated under tax law, i.e. COrporations can deduct the their share of the Retirement contribution as an expense and they can deduct their insurance costs as expenses against Corporat earnings.
And again, while I respect your almost pure libertarian views, those are in principle unworkable. Every president has used Tax policy to influence industries and corporate behavior. R&D tax credits have been used by Presidents to stimulate Investments by certain industry sectors [Drugs, Military/Defense, Chemical] so if you are a retail firm, the tax policy is favoring those industries that do R&D vs. those that are retailing or service firms, etc.
The Oil and gas industry has at times had investment tax credits to stimulate new drilling, again the tax policy is favoring those industries vs. others.
And as stated before, every President has used tax policy to not only collect revenues for the Feds, but to help shape both economic and social policy. that is the world we live in. So the issue for me is what is the sensible use of tax policy for economic and social policy.
As I stated before, had Nixon got his plan thru, we would not be dealing with Obamacare in all liklihood today. So step out of your libertarian theoretical worldview and ask yourself this, which would you rather have in place. Nixon’s plan or Obama’s when one relied on the private sector the other was “Government run”
" Obama’s is a totally government run system that in principle, does not like the private insurance industry and in theory, they would want the Federal Government to run the entire Health Insurance System.
LOL! Zero care requires folks to buy private insurance, just like Nixon's. There's no real difference, including the part about eliminating competition to run up the costs. Both of them are set up to benefit the industries and pander to their political customers by hiding costs and otherwise keeping them stupid and ignorant.
"pre-existing medical conditions, it is impossible for those folks to get health insurance, so if you have diabetes, heart issues, high-blood pressure, etc, many Private insurance firms will not even allow those types of folks to buy insurance.
It hasn't been that way for a long time. Zero care did not affect any significant change.
"Nixon’s Health Insurance plan if you stop and think about it is not in essence different from how most Retirement plans are used today."
Yes it is. No one is forcing participation. Nixon, the crook's plan forces participation just like Lord zero's plan.
"...these Defined Contribution plans are run by Private Equity Fund/Mutual Fund Companies who have accountability to their Shareholders"
LOL!
"step out of your libertarian theoretical worldview...
This is a religious thread, I will now return to the regularly scheduled program. Thou shalt not steal is not some rule of thumb to be compromised for cause. Good and evil are determined by referencing a moral code, which is a codified set of rules instituted for the purpose of protecting individual rights. For that code to be objective, it must protect the rights of every individual equally, w/o respect to posiiton, or any other qualification. Referencing the code obtains that stealing is evil, regardless of cause — unless you're at war with them.
"...and ask yourself this, which would you rather have in place. Nixon’s plan or Obama’s when one relied on the private sector the other was “Government run”.
Neither.
spunkets:
Ok, how many fortune 500 companies do you think do not have Retirement plans. So no company is required to have a retirement plan but how attractive will those companies be to potential employees?
And I did not say they were not similar, Nixon’s did not make everyone buy into the Government plan. And you are correct, this is a relgious thread not public policy or economics.
It would be more instructive to ask how many are solvent, or have retained sufficient value to fullfill their intended purpose.
"So no company is required to have a retirement plan but how attractive will those companies be to potential employees?"
Employees are concerned with compensation, ie. pay check. Their concern with retirement "plans" are due to govm't tax treatment of their compensation, else they would just be saving on their own. Compensation levels also depend on competition.
"Nixon’s did not make everyone buy into the Government plan."
Everyone that is employed must pay into the plan.
"And you are correct, this is a relgious thread not public policy or economics."
So, why did the Bishops fail to condemn Lord zero's mandate as theft. Does people's earnings belong to Lord zero's mob, or any other mob that happens to hold a political majority? Is this like a platation?
spunkets:
As for Pension plans, most of the defined benefit plans that large corporations have unfunded liabilities, similar to Social Security and Medicare, Medicaide, etc.
Defined Contribution plans, which in the last 30 years, have become dominant [no Companies in the last 30 years have offered Defined Benefit plans because of the costs of administrating them] have no impact on a companies balance sheet other than the Cash Contribution the company makes to the employees Retirement account. The Pension plan is managed by some Equity/Retirement Management firm. Once the Company makes its contribution, its obligations to the Employee and Pension Plan are done.
Nixon’s plan, did not result in a Government run plan similar to Obama’s and it is on that point that say they ar different. Obama’s plan requires to use money from other sources to pay for it [borrow from medicare, medicaide] since those have a tax source, but those plans are as of now underfunded so that Obama’s plan means is more debt and or more taxes.
Nixon’s plan was largely based on using the Private Sector Insurance companies. If I recall, once obamacare was held by the SCOTUS, Insurance Company Stocks took a drastic hit and dropped significantly telling me the market changed its expectations about the future earnings prospects of said Insurance Companies those a revision in the stock price, i.e. downward.
I already provided ou with a link that shows Nixon sought to force both employers and employees to but health insurance. The unemployed rest would be covered by Medicare/Medicaid equivalent as they are now. That means fundamentally, they are the same. The fact that the feds in Zero care chose to impose minimum federal standards on private insurers is irrelevant.
"Obama’s plan requires to use money from other sources to pay for it [borrow from medicare, medicaide] since those have a tax source, but those plans are as of now underfunded so that Obama’s plan means is more debt and or more taxes."
This refers to Medicaid expansion to cover the unemployed and low wage earner subsidies. It does not change the fact that Nixon attempted to force everyone to buy insurance - theft.
"If I recall, once obamacare was held by the SCOTUS, Insurance Company Stocks took a drastic hit and dropped significantly telling me the market changed its expectations about the future earnings prospects of said Insurance Companies those a revision in the stock price, i.e. downward."
What does held mean? There was no big change Fri(June 29)+, nor was there when the case was accepted in 2011.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.