Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

[Dauric]

I don't see why employers should even care about which healthcare they provide coverage for, anymore than they should care what their employees do with their money once they get it. It isn't their money anymore. They aren't providing a service for their employees, they're giving them something they've earned.

Benefits being remuneration for work done just like wages. I think we'd agree that the hospital has no business interfering with the employee purchasing birth control out of their wages, the question becomes one of 'custody' over the insurance plan. Is the hospital really being 'forced to pay', or is that bullshit to justify exercising control over the 'payment' for the employee's services to the hospital?

[Belial]

You need to make the argument, “Forcing religious organizations to choose between compromising their principles and shutting down their hospitals (either by making them private and excluding other faiths, or by leaving the health-care field entirely), is beneficial to society.” And you don’t get to use statements like, “This law stops religious hospitals from denying life-saving treatment,” because the medical services in question are almost never life-saving procedures.

How many times is enough?

Anyway, the law was passed because some portion of society believes that workers in this country deserve certain things, like reproductive freedom (and preventative medicine for painful and life-affecting conditions like endometriosis and suchlike). The question, then, is whether we think non-religious entities funded or controlled by religious organizations should get to treat their female employees worse than the law would normally allow because they want to?

I say no. If we make exceptions to workers' rights just because the employer doesn't like those rights, and might be willing to throw a tantrum over it, what's the point in having those rights in the first place?

Further, it's absolute horseshit that we depend on the church for as much of our medical care system as we do. I half-hope they take their ball and go home, so there's more pressure to fund more secular hospitals to replace them.

[yurell]

Institutions which are owned, operated, managed, and funded by religions are considered to be religious institutions regardless of which sick people they help.

And that makes it right for them to refuse certain treatments? What, if I oppose emergency contraception in case of rape as a personal belief, my opinion is unacceptable, but if I oppose it because a bronze age book vaguely indicates something my opinion is suddenly acceptable? No it shouldn't be any more or less (in)valid whether I'm going at it storybook in hand or sans sky fairy.

[lutzj]

Wouldn't a compromise along the lines of "instead of buying you x health insurance, we'll buy you x health insurance - contraceptives and make up the difference by increasing your salary" be acceptable to everyone?

[Belial]

How do you prove what their salary was going to be before?

[lutzj]

How do you prove what their salary was going to be before?

Take their salary + compensation as it was from before the law was passed and adjust for inflation? Add the stipend to whatever male employees make?

[sardia]

No, don't be silly. Why would Catholics or any other religious group give up the right to oppress others? In addition, you are ignoring ease of access, which is one of the complaints about Catholic hospitals. Many of them don't even have contraceptives on hand. There's a Catholic university that doesn't stock birth control pills, just to enforce their viewpoints.

[yurell]

Take their salary + compensation as it was from before the law was passed and adjust for inflation? Add the stipend to whatever male employees make?

I thought wage growth in the US was already less than inflation?

[lutzj]

Then you'd use wage inflation alone instead of overall inflation, or compare the percentage change on last year with nurses at other hospitals. It can't be that hard.

[sourmìlk]

The immorality of denying people the rights to certain necessary operations substantially outweighs the potential immorality of making a hospital find a practitioner willing to perform said surgery.

[Xeio]

So then pay would increase/decrease when your family situation changes? And who decides what a fair price is for the extra insurance policy?

[Belial]

Basically what we're saying is that that solution is silly and unworkable.

[lutzj]

Basically what we're saying is that that solution is silly and unworkable.

Not really; instead of buying your employee the $1000 insurance, you buy them the 900$ policy that doesn't include coverage for contraceptives and staple $150 to their paycheck (because buying medical services individually is probably more expensive than getting them through insurance.) The hospital doesn't really mind the extra 50$ because they're avoiding a much larger penalty. As a pleasant side effect, the secretary who doesn't want contraceptives can now use her money for something else.


(I think the whole notion of "employers buy the insurance" is silly and unworkable, but that's not really relevant here.)

[Belial]

Which only works if you have a standard salary for every position and a standard raise per year. Most companies do not.

[lutzj]

... which is why the whole idea of regulating the way companies compensate their employees is silly. I still don't see how "this is enough money to buy the contraceptives we're not buying you; we'd rather you donate it all to charity but hey it's a free country" isn't morally neutral and economically much better (because people who don't want this unnecessary service are no longer forced to pay for it).

[sardia]

... which is why the whole idea of regulating the way companies compensate their employees is silly. I still don't see how "this is enough money to buy the contraceptives we're not buying you; we'd rather you donate it all to charity but hey it's a free country" isn't morally neutral and economically much better (because people who don't want this unnecessary service are no longer forced to pay for it).

It has something to do with Democrats being pansies/conservative. Those people think that having government pay for and control healthcare, so we can avoid this debate, is socialist or communist. Which, to them, is like Stalin rising from the grave.

We're stuck with this for the foreseeable future, meaning someone has to give, or compromise. Speaking of my hypothetical scenario with government owned healthcare, the Catholics would still whine. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/healt ... ity&st=cse
The students have health insurance, but the Catholic school refuses to prescribe them, even for non birth control reasons.

Spoiler:

"One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically — along with her ovary. "

[sourmìlk]

Is there a lawsuit in there somewhere? Or is it totally fine for the school to refuse to cover birth control even for medically necessary reasons?

[quantumcat42]

Those people think that having government pay for and control healthcare, so we can avoid this debate, is socialist or communist.

Government run healthcare wouldn't avoid this debate, it would exacerbate it. ~45% of the country is pro-life, ~22% of the country is Catholic -- we'd go from talking about forcing church-run organizations to provide benefits incompatible with their beliefs to talking about forcing a large fraction of the tax paying population to fund procedures and medication incompatible with their beliefs.

[Belial]

Because the idea behind taxes is that we only fund the shit we personally believe in, right?

Alabama takes a fucklot of federal money, and I...I'm morally opposed to alabama. Seriously, fuck that place. How do I get an exemption?

[quantumcat42]

Belial, are you disagreeing that taking this issue to a national level would exacerbate the argument? Or just assuming that since one side is clearly right, the question would just go away?

[sardia]

Belial, are you disagreeing that taking this issue to a national level would exacerbate the argument? Or just assuming that since one side is clearly right, the question would just go away?

I'm thinking that as the old guard ages, the question will fade. You know, like racism, sexism, or being gay; it'll become more acceptable as old people die off and the younger generation takes over.

Edit: I was trying to think of old beliefs that were or will die off in the future, but I could only think of those 3 + creationism. Oh, I know, the belief that global warming is a hoax/inconsequential.

Is there a lawsuit in there somewhere? Or is it totally fine for the school to refuse to cover birth control even for medically necessary reasons?

The catholic school is trying to get a 1 year exemption on the birth control thing, in addition to appealing for an overall exemption. The school won't provide the pills for any reason, on grounds that it violates religious beliefs, not that it will cost them money. This is where the school and the hospital differs. The hospitals don't want to fund contraception, but the school doesn't prescribe it period.

[sourmìlk]

Alabama takes a fucklot of federal money, and I...I'm morally opposed to alabama. Seriously, fuck that place. How do I get an exemption?

Next time the south secedes, we let them. All XKCD'ers in the south are invited up here.

The catholic school is trying to get a 1 year exemption on the birth control thing, in addition to appealing for an overall exemption. The school won't provide the pills for any reason, on grounds that it violates religious beliefs, not that it will cost them money. This is where the school and the hospital differs. The hospitals don't want to fund contraception, but the school doesn't prescribe it period.

The thing is, I'm not sure the religious argument holds, because the right to practice religion freely does not extend (or should not extend) to the right to deny access to necessary medical care.

[Malice]

... which is why the whole idea of regulating the way companies compensate their employees is silly. I still don't see how "this is enough money to buy the contraceptives we're not buying you; we'd rather you donate it all to charity but hey it's a free country" isn't morally neutral and economically much better (because people who don't want this unnecessary service are no longer forced to pay for it).

Maybe I'm just a godless heathen, but I seriously do not understand the moral difference between "Here, the government said I had to buy you these birth control pills, so here's the insurance money to pay for them" and "I'm not going to give you insurance money for those birth control pills, but I'll give you the same amount in your paycheck". Is it that the latter lets you stick your fingers in your ears, hum, and pretend they're using the money to buy a bunch of Bibles? Cause either way you're giving them the money to go buy birth control pills.

And where did this reluctance to fund other peoples' choices come from, anyway? Is it a Bible thing? If you help someone do what they want to do (to fulfill your legal obligation, no less), how does their moral choice fall on your shoulders? Aren't they responsible for their moral choices?

[Belial]

Belial, are you disagreeing that taking this issue to a national level would exacerbate the argument? Or just assuming that since one side is clearly right, the question would just go away?

No, just saying that a strong minority preferring not to pay for something has never deterred us before. I could point to a war or two, while we're at it. What it does do is remove the religious institution objection, since churches already don't pay taxes, and we're talking about a tax funded plan rather than a religious-employer-funded one.

(to fulfill your legal obligation, no less)

I seem to remember a kindly irish catholic priest delivering to me (and several others) a sermon about rendering unto caesar...

It's one of the many things that makes all this so bloody dumb.

[DSenette]

Private businesses, religious or not, are still required to follow the regulations set out by the government.

The question at hand is one of “Are the specific regulations that the government is setting out currently a good thing, and would changing them in a certain way make them better or worse?”

You can’t use “The law says X” as a justification for why the law should say X.

You need to make the argument, “Forcing religious organizations to choose between compromising their principles and shutting down their hospitals (either by making them private and excluding other faiths, or by leaving the health-care field entirely), is beneficial to society.” And you don’t get to use statements like, “This law stops religious hospitals from denying life-saving treatment,” because the medical services in question are almost never life-saving procedures.

Instead you need to show that “providing for the common welfare” of the nation should include the medical procedures in question, and that it is more important than the right of religious institutions to operate their hospitals in accordance with their beliefs. And you don’t get to make strawman arguments about how some hypothetical religion could twist that to make a hospital do terrible things, because we’re talking about real hospitals run by real religious organizations that really want to help real people.

You need to focus on what the goals of the law really are, and whether this implementation accomplishes them well, poorly, or not at all. There is certainly an argument for you to make here, but the issue is not nearly so cut-and-dried as you have been trying to present it.

just as a clarification on the "life saving treatments"

if the hospital system in question was run by the Jehovah's Witnesses (well, if it was run by Jehovah's witnesses that acted a lot like other Christian denominations when it comes to actually forcing their beliefs on others) and they were allowed to simply not pay for things that their religion didn't approve of, you could hypothetically have a hospital that didn't do blood transfusions or have blood products at all on hand (you'd be surprised how many medicines you can take started out as blood), and on top of that wouldn't pay for you to have blood transfusions or receive blood products if you worked for them and then needed those products.


or of course someone could start a great religion who's major article of faith was "and lo he did sayeth unto the masses that no man should earneth more than .2 cents on the hour for any job!" and then decide that fair wage laws don't apply to them.

[quantumcat42]

Maybe I'm just a godless heathen, but I seriously do not understand the moral difference between "Here, the government said I had to buy you these birth control pills, so here's the insurance money to pay for them" and "I'm not going to give you insurance money for those birth control pills, but I'll give you the same amount in your paycheck". Is it that the latter lets you stick your fingers in your ears, hum, and pretend they're using the money to buy a bunch of Bibles? Cause either way you're giving them the money to go buy birth control pills.

And where did this reluctance to fund other peoples' choices come from, anyway? Is it a Bible thing? If you help someone do what they want to do (to fulfill your legal obligation, no less), how does their moral choice fall on your shoulders? Aren't they responsible for their moral choices?

As far as I understand, Catholic morality is not consequentialist -- and to them, it's something like the difference between handing someone a wad of cash, or handing them a gift card to Kiddie-Porn-R-Us. Sure, they could both have the same outcome, but it changes where the moral choice is being made.

Belial, are you disagreeing that taking this issue to a national level would exacerbate the argument? Or just assuming that since one side is clearly right, the question would just go away?

No, just saying that a strong minority preferring not to pay for something has never deterred us before. I could point to a war or two, while we're at it. What it does do is remove the religious institution objection, since churches already don't pay taxes, and we're talking about a tax funded plan rather than a religious-employer-funded one.

Would it really change things if pro-lifers polled in at 51% or higher, as they have in the past? Bumping this to a tax-funded level would avoid the question of what religious institutions are required to provide, but it would aggravate the question of who should pay for something that approximately half the population finds morally repugnant; I think we're just disagreeing on what the root of the issue is.

[Dark567]

Because the idea behind taxes is that we only fund the shit we personally believe in, right?

Generally, Yes? Honestly do you think taxes should go to things you are opposed to, lets say teaching creationism in Indiana. Your snark about Alabama not withstanding, I don't think you believe the government should fund things you believe to be immoral.

[Belial]

Generally, Yes? Honestly do you think taxes should go to things you are opposed to, lets say teaching creationism in Indiana. Your snark about Alabama not withstanding, I don't think you believe the government should fund things you believe to be immoral.

I believe that I don't get to pick and choose. If we all decide that we're going to war in Iraq, once that decision is made, I don't get to choose not to fund it. I can vote against the war, or the people who decided the war was a good idea, but if I start demanding an opt-out of war funding I don't deserve to be taken seriously.

[Malice]

Because the idea behind taxes is that we only fund the shit we personally believe in, right?

Generally, Yes? Honestly do you think taxes should go to things you are opposed to, lets say teaching creationism in Indiana. Your snark about Alabama not withstanding, I don't think you believe the government should fund things you believe to be immoral.

I don't think my taxes should go to teaching creationism; I'm morally opposed to teaching creationism in anything but a comparative religion class. I will vote for a government that doesn't spend my taxes on that. If I get outvoted, however, that does not mean I get to mail in a check to the IRS with a memo line that reads "Not to Be Used for Creationism". Nor do I get an exemption from paying taxes, as it is my responsibility as a citizen to contribute to the agreed-upon system.

If the democratic government says that sterilization and contraception should be paid for under employer health insurance plans, no one should get to have an exemption simply because they disagree with the government.

[Endless Mike]

Alabama takes a fucklot of federal money, and I...I'm morally opposed to alabama. Seriously, fuck that place. How do I get an exemption?

Next time the south secedes, we let them. All XKCD'ers in the south are invited up here.

I'm non-ironically hoping my portion of Virginia secedes from the remainder of the state.

[quantumcat42]

I believe that I don't get to pick and choose. If we all decide that we're going to war in Iraq, once that decision is made, I don't get to choose not to fund it. I can vote against the war, or the people who decided the war was a good idea, but if I start demanding an opt-out of war funding I don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Would you rather religious institutions push for an exception, or push to have the requirement dropped for everyone? One seems like a territory where a compromise could be found, the other gets in the realm of imposing their morality on those who don't choose to associate with them.

[DSenette]

I believe that I don't get to pick and choose. If we all decide that we're going to war in Iraq, once that decision is made, I don't get to choose not to fund it. I can vote against the war, or the people who decided the war was a good idea, but if I start demanding an opt-out of war funding I don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Would you rather religious institutions push for an exception, or push to have the requirement dropped for everyone? One seems like a territory where a compromise could be found, the other gets in the realm of imposing their morality on those who don't choose to associate with them.

uh they're already imposing their morality on people who don't choose to share their morality otherwise this wouldn't be an issue at all. they're telling their employees that their morals are wrong and imposing their own morality in it's place

[Meem1029]

(Speaking as a Christian to put what I'm saying into perspective:)
At first I read the thread and was getting kind of annoyed that the hospitals were being forced into doing things that they didn't support. I was starting to get worried that people thought it was ok to force hospitals to provide services they disagree with.

Then, I went through and reread the article and found out that it's entirely about providing insurance for workers. That is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

[quantumcat42]

I believe that I don't get to pick and choose. If we all decide that we're going to war in Iraq, once that decision is made, I don't get to choose not to fund it. I can vote against the war, or the people who decided the war was a good idea, but if I start demanding an opt-out of war funding I don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Would you rather religious institutions push for an exception, or push to have the requirement dropped for everyone? One seems like a territory where a compromise could be found, the other gets in the realm of imposing their morality on those who don't choose to associate with them.

uh they're already imposing their morality on people who don't choose to share their morality otherwise this wouldn't be an issue at all. they're telling their employees that their morals are wrong and imposing their own morality in it's place

First -- their employees chose to work for a religious institution. Only about 12% of hospitals in the US are Catholic, and less than 10% of schools are, so we're really not talking about a situation they were forced into.
Second -- they aren't actively imposing their morality, they're just not directly supplying their employees with something they do not morally support. They are not actively blocking their employees from making choices opposed to the morality of the religious institution, whereas imposing a blanket requirement on their benefits package actively impose someone else's morality on them.

[EsotericWombat]

One thing that seems to be lost in all of this (and in all of the bullshitting about how this is supposedly going to imperil the Catholic vote for Obama) is that American Catholics aren't morally opposed to birth control. It's the cadre of celibate males who control church policy-- a group who couldn't possibly be more personally distant from the issue-- who oppose birth control. That same group of people are adamant about preserving the state of affairs where only celibate men make the decisions about Church policy, even though that state of affairs has been injurious to their parishioners (does anyone think for a minute that the Vatican would have ordered the shuffling around of pedophile priests if any of the people making the decisions were parents?)

The people who fund these organizations are not opposed to birth control. The people who work at these organizations are not opposed to birth control. Only the Church royalty is opposed to birth control. Fuck those guys.

[Dark567]

American Catholics aren't morally opposed to birth control.
...
The people who fund these organizations are not opposed to birth control. The people who work at these organizations are not opposed to birth control. Only the Church royalty is opposed to birth control. Fuck those guys.

Off-topic: I believe that many religious people, particularly Catholics, aren't really that religious at all, but just won't get over the social inertia to say so.

[Belial]

Would you rather religious institutions push for an exception, or push to have the requirement dropped for everyone?

I reject your dilemma. They're only doing the former because they don't like their chances of succeeding at the latter. If they thought they could get it thrown out for everyone, they'd be doing that. They don't think they can do that, so they're doing this instead.

[quantumcat42]

Would you rather religious institutions push for an exception, or push to have the requirement dropped for everyone?

I reject your dilemma. They're only doing the former because they don't like their chances of succeeding at the latter. If they thought they could get it thrown out for everyone, they'd be doing that. They don't think they can do that, so they're doing this instead.

Were they trying for the latter, I'd oppose them vehemently. But I don't think the former is unreasonable, and generally consider it a better idea to deal with people reasonably. If you have an alternative that doesn't run roughshod over the constitutional rights of a significant minority of the population, great.

American Catholics aren't morally opposed to birth control.
...
The people who fund these organizations are not opposed to birth control. The people who work at these organizations are not opposed to birth control. Only the Church royalty is opposed to birth control. Fuck those guys.

That sounds like an issue to be worked out internally, rather than imposed externally. We're talking about removing a legal requirement imposed on church-run organizations, not imposing a legal prohibition from providing the coverage in question. If a church-run organization wants to provide benefits in opposition to the wishes of church leadership, that's between them.

[Belial]

If you have an alternative that doesn't run roughshod over the constitutional rights of a significant minority of the population, great.

Ooo, I know: the one we're talking about! It still doesn't violate their constitutional rights! Any more than requiring a christian bookstore to follow minimum wage laws or pay business taxes does!

[quantumcat42]

If you have an alternative that doesn't run roughshod over the constitutional rights of a significant minority of the population, great.

Ooo, I know: the one we're talking about! It still doesn't violate their constitutional rights! Any more than requiring a christian bookstore to follow minimum wage laws or pay business taxes does!

Minimum wage laws and business taxes don't conflict at all with Christian morality. When someone actually makes the claim that they do, I'm totally behind you. As it happens, this situation does conflict.