Obama and HHS vs Little Sisters of the Poor

[Chrystal-J]

Correct. The Little Sisters of the Poor are exempt from the HHS essential benefits rule. The Order is not required to provide any such insurance.

Why are they suing over this mandate?

 

[judechild]

The Order is not required to provide any such insurance.

No, not correct. The Order is not required to provide insurance as regards their convent. As regards their apostulate, they have to provide the insurance for their employees, or they will be fined. If they weren't going to be fined, then they wouldn't be suing; it's a fairly simple axiom. They must either hire a provider to supply the coverage (which they pay for through premiums), or they're going to have to exit the market - because their order will not be able to stand the financial strain.

Breast-beater: Why doesn't the Catholic Church do more to help the poor?!

Little Sisters: Because we're not allowed in this country.

 

[KatherineS]

No, not correct. The Order is not required to provide insurance as regards their convent.

The Order does not have to provide such insurance. They reason they are in this pickle is that they have chosen to separately incorporate their old age homes from the Order in order to avoid liability. If the old age homes were not separately incorporated, they would have no problem.

 

[judechild]

Of course the homes are incorporated differently; that's standard business and accounting practice. Similarly, every hospital, refugee program, etc that a diocese or Order runs (or, for that matter, the government) is incorporated seperately. The point is still that the Order owns the home, and is the employer of the employees - and they are being forced to provide contraception coverage for those employees.

 

[KatherineS]

Of course the homes are incorporated differently; .

It didn't use to be that way. In the past, these orders included their apostolates. But in modern times they decided to create separate corporations so if wrong was done, they would not be responsible for it. I think this discussion can continue, but this is an accurate point. There is a little bit of picking and choosing for responsibility for the actions of the corporation.

I'm happy to talk about an exemption for the corporation, which is separate from the Little Sister of the Poor.

Let me add, there are lots of "standard business practices" that the Church should not blindly follow. Why to elavate business to such a high moral place?

 

[judechild]

Let me add, there are lots of "standard business practices" that the Church should not blindly follow. Why to elavate business to such a high moral place?

It prevents corruption by keeping accounts separate. It's Accounting 101 that separate accounts help accountability; you've focused on the negative (limited liability - also good practice since it prevents blackmail and financial leverage), and missed the positive. Financial responsibility is not in opposition to morality.

Which practices of financial responsibility would you have the Church not 'blindly' follow? In any case, no, it is not true that all apostulates were part of an Order at one time; the Salesians, for example, had to be completely separate when they were founded.

 

[KatherineS]

It prevents corruption by keeping accounts separate.

How potentially corrupt do you think the Little Sisters are?

 

[WarriorAngel]

It's not about their convents; it's about their apostulate in hospice-services, which is not exempt. If they do not provide contraceptive, abortifacent, and sterilization insurance to the employees working at their homes for the elderly, then they will be forced to exit the market because of the fines. In other words, they cannot be Catholic hospice-providers; they can only be secular hospice-providers who happen to be Catholic.

Obama and his cronies are doing everything - and i mean everything to destroy Catholic institutions.

The left has made it so the charities will be forced to deliver this insurance - who help the poor with FREE health care services . Likely they will shut their doors.
The Church - unless or until only Catholics work for them so they can say they are discriminatory if they only hire Catholics.
They have forced adoption agencies to close because of the gay junk.
They are attacking everything - they can.

But i keep remembering - they can fight the One on the white horse - but He will be victorious.
As the Just Judge - they or the agenda is hardly going to get past Him.

 

[KatherineS]

Obama and his cronies are doing everything - and i mean everything to destroy Catholic institutions.

The left has made it so the charities will be forced to deliver this insurance - who help the poor with FREE health care services . Likely they will shut their doors.
The Church - unless or until

The Catholic hospitals and many universities have already said they can accept the current revision of the HHS mandate and are not shutting their doors, so this has been porven wrong.

And, of course, contrary to all of the treats to shut down, several states have already passed much more extensive contraception policies that Catholic agencies and even dioceses have accepted.

So I think the evidence is this is an idle threat.

 

[judechild]

How potentially corrupt do you think the Little Sisters are?

Potentially? The potential for corruption is always there, and as much potential corruption exists as can be actualized. Trust in the wrong person, given the wrong set of circumstances, is always a possibility - no matter what the organization is, and it's naïve to think otherwise. The best judge of character can be wrong, so there are internal controls built into the accounting and business system to avoid potential problems. Separate accounts - with people accountable for different accounts - and limited liability allows for an auditor to easily see where a financial leak has sprung and who is responsible; therefore, it removes some of the potential for scandal. Goodness, people fault the Institute for the Works of Religion for not having standard control, and you're trying to fault the Sisters for having them; just no way to win.

 

[KatherineS]

Well Jude, you've hit on it with limited liability. Something very wrong could be done by the old folks homes so it is separately incorporated so that the Sisters are not responsible for the actions of the Old Folks Home. As you point out, it makes business sense. A wrongful act could force the Sisters to take a big financial hit in order to make right what was done wrong. Instead they form a corporation so if the earthly goods of the corporation are exhausted before a wrong can be made right, the victim is simply only partially compensated rather than having a claim against the Sisters.

Now I don't think this closes the argument of the old folks homes from relief from the basic benefits rule. But we should be clear. The Order and the old folks homes are distinct entities and the Sisters deliberately set it up this way to remove responsibilty from themselves of the actions of the old folks home. There is a case for doing that.

Now, with that settled, we can proceed with a discussion for relief not of the Order but of the old folks homes associated them.

Sorry this took so long. I just wanted to get that point clarified before we proceed.

 

[Chrystal-J]

Domino's Pizza found Tom Monaghan is also suing over the mandate. Tom is a "Devout Roman Catholic [who] says that both abortion and birth control are 'gravely immoral". (At least the sisters aren't alone in this struggle.)

Link: Domino Pizza's founder sues over stipulation in health care law - Politics & Policy - Catholic Online

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - Monaghan filed a lawsuit last week in federal court. Domino's Farms is listed as a plaintiff, which is a Michigan office park complex that Monaghan owns.

Monaghan offers health insurance for his employees, but excludes abortion and contraception. According to the new federal law, employers are required to offer insurance including contraception coverage, or risk heavy fines.

Monaghan maintains that the law violates his rights, pointing out that it is not his responsibility to pay for the sexual habits of his employees, He is asking a judge to strike down the mandate. Monaghan's sentiments are echoed nationwide, as there are similar lawsuits pending nationwide.

 

[Wolseley]

This whole thing reminds me of something my old Daddy, may God rest his noble soul, told me once with regards to the government: he said "They'll take whatever they can get away with, and they'll just keep taking and demanding more until you finally stomp on their fingers and say 'That's enough!'"

 

[judechild]

Well Jude, you've hit on it with limited liability. Something very wrong could be done by the old folks homes so it is separately incorporated so that the Sisters are not responsible for the actions of the Old Folks Home. As you point out, it makes busis sense. A wrongful act could force the Sisters to take a big financial hit in order to make right what was done wrong. Instead they form a corporation so if the earthly goods of the corporation are exhausted be a wrong can be made right, the victim is simply only partially compensated rather than having a claim against the Sisters.

Separating the accounts does not lead the ''victim'' to only being partially compensated. For one thing, what works one way works the other, so if the person-at-fault is the Order, rather than the homes, than the residents in the hospice don't suffer because of the Order's faults. Making the innocent suffer with the guilty is not justice; it's responsibility with finances.

In the second place, compare Europe to America and you'd find that the accounting laws are much stricter here - and that America is moving slowly to the European system; in Europe, I'm pretty sure it would be illegal <I>not</I> to separate accounts, and America is moving in the same direction.

The sisters are simply following appropriate financial internal controls; don't lightly demonize it like they're trying to swindle potential litigants.

r The Order and the old folks homes are distinct entities and the Sisters deliberately set it up this way to remove responsibilty from themselves of the actions of the old folks home. There is a case for doing that

Here's that note of rhetoric again. By separating financial accounts, the sisters are establishing separate financial responsibilities, yes, but it's much more responsible to do that than to combine accounts. We finally find a religious order that does its accounting using 21st century methods, and people act like it's irresponsible.

Now, with that settled, we can proceed with a discussion for relief not of the Order but of the old folks homes associated them.

Wrong. The Order is still being wronged, because the Order owns the homes. If a person is an employer, the company is different from the person, but the employer still owns the company. The Order, like I was saying four posts ago, is saying that they are being discrimated against from entering the market as Catholic employers, since the current law unjustly causes catholics to be unable to run their apostulates as Catholics. Instead, the government is attempting to make the public sphere a ''secularists-only zone'' by fining persons who do not act like secular employers (hence, it does not matter if the Sisters cannot supply contraceptive coverage, because their religious beliefs are not secular, and are therefore not to brought into the public sphere).

 

[KatherineS]

If a person is an employer, the company is different from the person,

That was my point.

 

[Chrystal-J]

KatherineS
Do you think the Sister's company should provided abortion inducing meds and birth control to their employees?

 

[KatherineS]

KatherineS
Do you think the Sister's company should provided abortion inducing meds and birth control to their employees?

I am grateful that no company is required to provide abortion in their health plans, but I am disappointed that most voluntarily do and that conservatives are silent on this issue so not to risk their cozy relationship with Big Business.

As to contraception, I agree with the Catholic hospitals that the present arrangement is workable where they do not have to provide contraception but private insurance companies are required to outside of their plans.

 

[pizza steak]

I am grateful that no company is required to provide abortion in their health plans, but I am disappointed that most voluntarily do and that conservatives are silent on this issue so not to risk their cozy relationship with Big Business.

As to contraception, I agree with the Catholic hospitals that the present arrangement is workable where they do not have to provide contraception but private insurance companies are required to outside of their plans.

What? How in the world do you figure that? I'd say that the inherent complexity in our healthcare system is more a deterrant for lack of action against plans that offer abortion-coverage. And how would offering coverage for abortions help a business? I really don't understand this parallel.

 

[Chrystal-J]

I am grateful that no company is required to provide abortion in their health plans, but I am disappointed that most voluntarily do and that conservatives are silent on this issue so not to risk their cozy relationship with Big Business.

As to contraception, I agree with the Catholic hospitals that the present arrangement is workable where they do not have to provide contraception but private insurance companies are required to outside of their plans.

I was referring to the Sister's in this story...not the Catholic hospitals.

 

[KatherineS]

I was referring to the Sister's in this story...not the Catholic hospitals.

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.