Obama and HHS vs Little Sisters of the Poor

[judechild]

That was my point.

Yes, and your point is irrelevant, because the homes are owned by the Sisters - which, curiously enough, was the part of my sentence that you cut off. Here's the explanation, re-stated: Since they are the employers, they enter into contracts with their employees to supply x salery and y benefits in exchange for the work that they've hired the employees for. The government's plan, though, is to say that ''you must offer z benefits, as well as the benefits you've already been offering, or else you will be fined''. The trouble is, z benefits are against these particular employers religious statutes. That doesn't matter to most people, because they've accepted the notion that secularists can tell everybody else that they must act just like them, or get out of the public sphere.

 

[KatherineS]

Jude, you have a point btu keep getting the details wrong.

the homes are owned by the Sisters

Yes, the Sisters own a corporation they set up to separate the homes from the Order.

Since they are the employers...

, The corporation is the employer. Not the Sisters. The Sisters own the corporation.

they [the corporation] enter into contracts with their employees to supply x salery and y benefits in exchange for the work that they've hired the employees for. The government's plan, though, is to say that ''you must offer z benefits,

Actually with the accomodation, the contract between the employer and the workers does not have to offer "z" benefits. If the contract does not offer contraception, then the insurance company (not the corporation) must offer contraception benefits to the employees who want it.

or else you will be fined''.

Actually, the insurance company would be fined not the corporation. It is their action not the employer.

 

[Chrystal-J]

I understand that. The Catholic hospitals have said the arrangement on contraception is workable. If the Old Age Homes disagree with that, then we have different viewpoints amongthese Catholic organizations.

What arrangements have been made by the Catholic hospitals for contraception?

 

[KatherineS]

What arrangements have been made by the Catholic hospitals for contraception?

They said they can accept the present compromise offered by the Administration.

 

[Chrystal-J]

They said they can accept the present compromise offered by the Administration.

Which is what?

 

[KatherineS]

Which is what?

The old folks home is not required to offer abortion or contraception in their health care plan. However, insurance companies have to offer contraception to enrollees whose religious employer does not include it in their plan. There are no abortion services period.

 

[Chrystal-J]

The old folks home is not required to offer abortion or contraception in their health care plan. However, insurance companies have to offer contraception to enrollees whose religious employer does not include it in their plan. There are no abortion services period.

Why are the sisters suing?

 

[judechild]

The corporation is the employer. Not the Sisters. The Sisters own the corporation.

Okay, that point is taken. It still doesn't matter because the homes are a Catholic organization, run by a religious institute in the same way as a school or other program is run.

Actually with the Accomodation, the contract between the employer and the workers does not have to offer "z" benefits. If the contract does not offer contraception, then the insurance company (not the corporation) must offer contraception benefits to the employees who want it.

You do know that their insurance provider is suing too, right? (it's a class-action lawsuit). And what's more, the insurance provider used by the Sisters is private and is funded only by religious. It's the same money, just with an extra loophole that doesn't matter in the slightest. Since most dioceses and orders are self-employed, the ''accommodation'' is senseless.

So yes, they do have to provide z benefits, whether people want to play a dumb-show with it or not.

Actually, the insurance company would be fined not the corporation. It is their action not the employer.

Nope, the employer has a responsibility under the Act to hire an agency that will provide the coverage, and they both get fined for not complying. Believe it or not, the Little Sister of the Poor do for the most part have college degrees - they know why they're suing.

 

[Brother Bread]

We all should not participate in the HSS mandate. We should start networking with Doctors who will take cash and help the poor. We who can should help the Doctors who give free services.

 

[AMDG]

We all should not participate in the HSS mandate. We should start networking with Doctors who will take cash and help the poor. We who can should help the Doctors who give free services.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yes, and your point is irrelevant, because the homes are owned by the Sisters - which, curiously enough, was the part of my sentence that you cut off. Here's the explanation, re-stated: Since they are the employers, they enter into contracts with their employees to supply x salery and y benefits in exchange for the work that they've hired the employees for. The government's plan, though, is to say that ''you must offer z benefits, as well as the benefits you've already been offering, or else you will be fined''. The trouble is, z benefits are against these particular employers religious statutes. That doesn't matter to most people, because they've accepted the notion that secularists can tell everybody else that they must act just like them, or get out of the public sphere.

I approve this message.

 

[Sojourner1]

Mod Hat On​

Thread has been moved from the OBOB main forum to the OBOB Politics forum.


Mod Hat Off​