So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it?

[cbelt3]

FWIW, the White House staff has, this afternoon, recognized that they've stepped in a steaming pile of doo doo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/w...story.html

"the White House is looking for a way to calm the growing election-year firestorm that’s erupted since it was announced late last month.

Carney said President Barack Obama’s focus is making sure that women employed by Catholic church-affiliated employers like hospitals, colleges or charities are able to get contraception. At the same time, Carney said Obama wants to respect religious beliefs and convictions."

- - - -
In other words, it's time to start talking out of both sides of your mouth.



- - -
In other points, it's also important to remember that religious groups were often the ONLY health (and education) provider in many cities and towns in the 19th and early 20th century. There's a reason most older hospitals have "Saint" at the beginning of their names.

You can happily stand in 21st century judgement, but remember the basic fact that without those 'religious organizations', public health in this country would have never gotten started.

[Grace62]

Let's see, in the 19th and early 20th centuries we also had Catholic orphanages where children were raped and abused, Catholic schools where tribal children were forced to give up their language and culture, and Catholic hospitals where unwed mothers were forced to give up their newborns.

Ah yes, the good ol' days.

I don't think it's tough to make the case for "2012 judgement."
If Republicans want to set up an election year battle over the availability of contraception in the United States, then bring it on.
Looks like a losing issue for them as far as I can tell.

[Gutenberg]

No, Mr. GOP, the White House staff is looking for compromise. The White House staff ALWAYS looks for compromise. That's why the left is so mad at them.

Religious groups were often major healthcare providers from the Dark Ages till the 19th century, when scientists, through the grace of our great and merciful Providence, took over. We can be happy for that, because more of us live through conditions that "doctors" in the old days would have deemed the Will of God and therefore not treatable.

Good Lord. Do you really want to go back there?

[Grace62]

One important thing to keep in mind here - prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, private insurers were not required to cover birth control and many did not. So this is a change for EVERYBODY. Religious-affiliates were given extra time to comply, but that time is up now.
Why American women have to fight like this for basic healthcare is beyond me. It's like we can't get the pilgrim hats off or something.

[the_poochies]

As a lifelong Catholic who still attends Mass every weekend, my pastor read a letter at Mass on Sunday in opposition to the HHS ruling because it was mandated by my Archbishop. Fine....I have little problem with that.

However, I wish the Bishops mandated that some letter - heck, any letter - mentioning that the 2003 Iraq War was an unjust war and, hence, prohibiting any Catholic from serving in the military for that war - was read aloud at Masses. Why didn't they call religious discrimination against President Bush back then as thousands of Catholics took up arms in a war that was condemned by the Pope and the USCCB?

Unfortunately, my Church leadership picks and chooses what issues it wants us Catholics to raise the pitchforks and torches over.

[Pops]

You know, this really has been a fairly civilized discussion and I applaud everyone for that.

[Bill in NC]

So everyone's fine with these employers dropping health care coverage?

Isn't that a valid option if they find these mandates morally objectionable?

[davester]

Grace62 wrote:
One important thing to keep in mind here - prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, private insurers were not required to cover birth control ...

or anybody who was actually sick, and they are still getting away with it. There are many wrongs of the past that those of us around now should be pushing to correct. I could give a damn about what the churches did in the past.

[Grace62]

Bill in NC wrote:
So everyone's fine with these employers dropping health care coverage?

Isn't that a valid option if they find these mandates morally objectionable?

I don't think large employers of salaried people can legally drop coverage. And this would be a "shoot self in foot" move anyway if they could do it. How would these organizations recruit employees without offering health insurance?
A hospital that doesn't offer health insurance to employees. Perfect.

[August West]

Religious hospitals don't pay taxes. They are run as non-profits.

Thanks for clearing that up, $tevie. I pay little to no attention to the relations of organized religion and the government, and this is a useful opportunity for me to do so.

You can happily stand in 21st century judgement, but remember the basic fact that without those 'religious organizations', public health in this country would have never gotten started.

It would seem that if religion has control over health care, both then and now, public health is still not established.