Obamacare question
#1
my personal thought is pretty much what  it should be "bad"  however, I know or rather beileve that it contains many good thigns too  which we may disagree on.. and yes it definately should of been seperated into smaller specific issue bills...

of course the areas the the church speaks out against are not issues i consider good.  however I do have a question  I heard a priest say  "it puts everyone in a straight jacket, says we cant talk about faith except on our private property, or else face fines"  that seems  a little conspiratorial maybe?  but outside of the "must cover abortions/contraception" in the health plans  whats bad, from a moral perspective, and less  "democrat vs republican"?

or was the priest relating free speech or fines to covering contraception and abortions...  I ask because ive never heard anything like that?
Reply
#2
The HHS mandate is evil.  That's the abortion, sterilization, and contraception mandate.  My bishop, Daniel Jenky, gave quite a sermon in 2012 on that (it wasn't the only thing the sermon was about), at the Catholic Men's March.  I was there.  Michael Voris had a Vortex on it as well.



Other things I can think of.  It supposedly drives up prices, to the point where many smaller employers are dropping coverage or only hiring part time.  I'm not an economist, and there is a lot of 'noise' on that.  I'll let someone more knowledgable talk about the economics of it.

The other thing I have heard a lot about is the individual mandate - the government saying 'You must buy healthcare, or you will be fined!'.  I guess the first year fines are small, and go up from there.

My own experience - my company just sent out information yesterday talking about ObamaCare.  It talked about the exchanges, and stated that since we are offered 'approved' healthcare through my company, that if we chose to go with the exchanges, the money we use for healthcare would no longer be pre-tax.  But we are keeping our plans.  I haven't seen prices for it yet.  In another month or so, when we sign up for next year, I'll see if there is a big impact on my premiums from the law.

As to other 'bad' things, I don't know about them.  Other fishes, especially if they have companies, might be able to weigh in :)

-Martin
Reply
#3
well i know before HHS that it was always about 40 bucks cheaper for me to get my own plan that wasnt tied to my employer than it was to get my employers paln- even if it was pretax, my own plan was still cheaper...  but really im asking in regards to the

"cancels free speech" stuff....

in terms of fines for not buying insurance, but where was the outrage when the govt forced folk to by home, renters, car, whatever insurance? but, again im speaking more in regards to the "free speech argument and similar"
Reply
#4
(09-26-2013, 07:38 PM)medievalman86 Wrote: again im speaking more in regards to the "free speech argument and similar"

Ah.  Sorry.  Mea Culpa  :pray:

I haven't heard any limitations on free speech through ObamaCare.  And I work with at least a couple of people who REALLY don't like ObamaCare, and have been vocal about it.  I don't think it forces Catholic doctors to now start talking about contraception or abortion.  If any knows I'm wrong on that, please correct me!

I know at our local OSF hospital, they've never mentioned contraception to me or my wife... and we have eight kids, and several births at that hospital.  Of course our last baby was in March (and that was at home -- wifey's labor was 15 minutes, so I didn't have a choice), so I don't think any free-speech restrictions would have 'kicked in' yet.

So I guess that is the long way of saying, 'If there are restrictions on free speech, I don't know about them'. 

Perhaps I could have just said that  :doh:
Reply
#5
(09-26-2013, 07:51 PM)mlwalker1972 Wrote:
(09-26-2013, 07:38 PM)medievalman86 Wrote: again im speaking more in regards to the "free speech argument and similar"

Ah.  Sorry.  Mea Culpa  :pray:


Perhaps I could have just said that  :doh:

I forbid both of those!!  no apologies needed, and you are free to say what you think you need to say.
Reply
#6
(09-26-2013, 07:07 PM)medievalman86 Wrote: my personal thought is pretty much what  it should be "bad"  however, I know or rather beileve that it contains many good thigns too  which we may disagree on.. and yes it definately should of been seperated into smaller specific issue bills...

of course the areas the the church speaks out against are not issues i consider good.  however I do have a question  I heard a priest say  "it puts everyone in a straight jacket, says we cant talk about faith except on our private property, or else face fines"  that seems  a little conspiratorial maybe?  but outside of the "must cover abortions/contraception" in the health plans  whats bad, from a moral perspective, and less  "democrat vs republican"?

or was the priest relating free speech or fines to covering contraception and abortions...  I ask because ive never heard anything like that?

bolded = condemned by the Church> [source]
  • For one thing, the law will cost $2.6 trillion over its first 10 years of full implementation, according to the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff. At a time when federal debt and deficits are at all-time highs it is simply immoral to keep pushing the debt onto the younger generation, it blatantly is usury [Vix Pervenit]

  • Demands health-plans of all employers under coercion (including the Church) to support abortion-related drugs, contraception and sterilization. [Humane Vitae]

  • The massive amount of bureaucracy and the over-reaching powers added to the government in order to micro-manage healthcare is a massive intrusion in the doctor-patient relationship and is a direct violation of subsidiarity [Rerum Novarum; Quadragesimo Anno]

  • Creates death-panels and forcing people to buy a government-sponsored produce which is against human dignity [pick any encyclical you like]
Reply
#7
(09-26-2013, 08:05 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(09-26-2013, 07:07 PM)medievalman86 Wrote: my personal thought is pretty much what  it should be "bad"  however, I know or rather beileve that it contains many good thigns too  which we may disagree on.. and yes it definately should of been seperated into smaller specific issue bills...

of course the areas the the church speaks out against are not issues i consider good.  however I do have a question  I heard a priest say  "it puts everyone in a straight jacket, says we cant talk about faith except on our private property, or else face fines"  that seems  a little conspiratorial maybe?  but outside of the "must cover abortions/contraception" in the health plans  whats bad, from a moral perspective, and less  "democrat vs republican"?

or was the priest relating free speech or fines to covering contraception and abortions...  I ask because ive never heard anything like that?

bolded = condemned by the Church> [source]
  • For one thing, the law will cost $2.6 trillion over its first 10 years of full implementation, according to the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff. At a time when federal debt and deficits are at all-time highs it is simply immoral to keep pushing the debt onto the younger generation, it blatantly is usury [Vix Pervenit]

  • Demands health-plans of all employers under coercion (including the Church) to support abortion-related drugs, contraception and sterilization. [Humane Vitae]

  • The massive amount of bureaucracy and the over-reaching powers added to the government in order to micro-manage healthcare is a massive intrusion in the doctor-patient relationship and is a direct violation of subsidiarity [Rerum Novarum; Quadragesimo Anno]

  • Creates death-panels and forcing people to buy a government-sponsored produce which is against human dignity [pick any encyclical you like]

death panels, do you happen to know where in the bill it says that?  last i heard snopes said it was false, some ideas occured in some drafts, but do not exist in the draft that was voted into law.
Reply
#8

[/quote]

death panels, do you happen to know where in the bill it says that?  last i heard snopes said it was false, some ideas occured in some drafts, but do not exist in the draft that was voted into law.
[/quote]

Snopes is wrong as always. The INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD (aka Death Panel) exists.
Reply
#9

death panels, do you happen to know where in the bill it says that?  last i heard snopes said it was false, some ideas occured in some drafts, but do not exist in the draft that was voted into law.
[/quote]

Snopes is wrong as always. The INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD (aka Death Panel) exists.
[/quote]

ahh, the IPAB

"The myth is also likely to persist because the law calls for the establishment of a 15 person committee– the independent payment advisory board (or IPAB)–which is given the job of recommending cost-saving measures to the Secretary of Health and Human Services if Medicare expenses rise too quickly.  The IPAB will consist of independent healthcare experts who are forbidden, by law, from proposing changes that will affect Medicare coverage or quality.  In other words, they are a far cry from a death panel, with the ACA specifically noting that this group is not allowed to do anything that would “ration” healthcare.  The law also makes sure that the IPAB is not in a position to make policy, but instead to simply make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, proposals that Congress is specifically empowered to override if it sees fit." from:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/20...anel-myth/

I guess i see how future legislation could transform the IPAB into a death panel, but at the same time  there is im sure plenty of legislation you support that given future legislation could be used for evil also.... so i guess back to my original topic,   along the lines of "canceling free speech"  and it costs this or that.. what else?

i,e  to say "it cancels free speech" i would ask for the reference i guess in the law.. and that is the crux of the OP is to look less at the what it does and doesnt do from a "health care" standpoint and more from a well, to beat a dead horse- "free speech" standpoint.
Reply
#10
so far we have:

1) IPAB: it is what it is now, further legislation could make it actually bad
2) yes, usual catholic objections (regards sterilization, i assume thats in regards to contraceptions, in that it requires employers to cover: abortions, contraception, AND sterilizations)
3) yes mainstream republican objections (the death panels isnt realy in this category anymore as its pretty much debunked baring chapter book verse so to speak in the bill that says he IPAB has permission to deny health care to ____ because it costs to much)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)