-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Bishop William Lori, a representative of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that mandating insurance companies cover contraception is like mandating kosher delis serve ham sandwiches. Lori likens the obvious health benefits of not getting pregnant to the claim that “pork is good for you.” Lori calls this the Parable of the Kosher Deli.
The beauty of Lori’s Parable is that it can be used to argue against any health insurance coverage mandate.
If an employer is a Jehovah’s Witness and insists that any employee health insurance plan not cover blood transfusions then any employee who wants that coverage could have to find another policy and pay its entire cost out-of-pocket. Any employees who do not share the employer’s worldview are penalized for those different beliefs.
While Lori makes much of the employer’s freedom of conscience, does not the employee possess that same freedom of conscience? If an employer insists on an employee health insurance plan that covers abortion in cases of rape or incest, and a Catholic employee objects to paying even part of the cost of the insurance, would Lori still support the employer’s freedom of conscience? Or would he suddenly discover that employees deserve the same freedom of conscience?
While many consider an employer’s place of business to be private property wherein the employer rules as king, that business makes use of roads, bridges, infrastructure, law enforcement, etc., paid for by the government. Without this government support, businesses wouldn’t survive. In return for the services provided, the government gets to set standards of behavior toward competitors, customers, employees, and the environment.
This is not a new issue, as evidenced by the Supreme Court case of Reynolds v. United States in 1878. For a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Waite wrote:
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.
The freedom of religious expression requires the freedom from control of that religious expression from those holding different religious beliefs. If one demands freedom of religious expression for oneself, then one must give up control over the religious expression of those holding different religious beliefs. If one demands freedom of conscience for oneself, then one must give up control over the conscientious beliefs of those holding different conscientious beliefs. One cannot reasonably complain about the denial of freedom of conscience when one’s denying that freedom to others.
H/T: Jonathan D. Sarna, Sarah Posner, Adam Lee, Kashif J. Powell (pdf).
Bdaman,
Up to your usual thread jacking this fine Saturday. Just why is it that you are incapable of replying with your own thoughts on the topic at hand? I’m sure you have some.
@bdaman, not everyone is as “hip” as you, nor is it your place to demand people use the same technologies you do. The post office isn’t going anywhere, and neither is government. Deal.
David, nice catch and the addition of the Reynolds case puts this in context. The analogy, though carefully crafted, is false and dishonest. To compare a kosher restaurant to a Catholic Hospital must have seemed on the surface a good analogy, since both are pertinent to a particular religion. However, kosher restaurants are enterprises catering to a particular religious belief but essentially private enterprises, whereas Catholic Hospitals represent themselves as providing health care to all under normal medical standards and receive financial support from government. No pregnant woman suffering from a serious malady such as an ectopic pregnancy is warned before hand that if she is taken to a Catholic Hospital the life of the unborn will take precedence over her own life. Many communities are exclusively served by Catholic Hospitals, receiving money from government and yet Catholics reserve the right to treat women with their religion’s version of medicine. The simplest, most moral solution to this is for Catholic Hospitals to receive no government subsidies, take no government insurance programs and to post warning signs prominently that women will only be treated commensurate with Catholic approved medical care.
The other point I’d make is that isn’t it telling that the Bishop compares women’s health issues to a ham sandwich? Perhaps if he had delved more into comparative religion he might understand that in Judaic belief most commandments can be overridden by the need to save a life, be it one’s own or another life. An Orthodox Jew who is starving to death can eat pork if that is all that is available to keep them alive. The stricture against driving on the Sabbath can be overridden if one in medical need requires an ambulance. Indeed, the phone which is not used on the Sabbath by religious Jews, can be used to call that ambulance. The Orthodox Jewish surgeon will operate on the Sabbath if needed to save a life. The analogy fails out of trivialization and ignorance.
Jeff don’t pay attention to Frankie Baby you can tell in his post he’s blinded by hatred.
Raff what you need to do is to tell your buddy in the Whitehouse to tell GE and Buffet to pay up. GE paid no taxes because of why even though the tax rate is already how high?
One of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway holdings, NetJets (a private aircraft company), is being countersued by the U.S. government for at least $302 million in taxes and penalties, Bloomberg reports.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-09/wall_street/31138695_1_ticket-tax-excise-netjets
Rafflaw 1, March 10, 2012 at 9:25 am
We need to tax U.S. corporations more,
are you kidding me, it’s either close the loop holes are get rid of the current system and go to a fair tax.
On April 1, our ally Japan is playing a cruel little April Fools’ Day joke on us: The country is lowering its corporate tax rate from 39.5% to 35%.
More from Chris Markowski
This will give the United States the dubious and awkward distinction of having, at 39.2%, the highest integrated federal/state tax rate among the developed countries of the world. In the world of politics, where nothing is without nuance and message, I wonder what our friends in Japan are trying to tell us?
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11450667/1/us-corporate-taxes-need-to-go-to-zero.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN
@Frankly
Any links to support that $8 billion over-payment figure?
From what I found, the USPS lost $2.8 billion in FY 2008, $3.8 billion in FY 2009, $8 billion in FY 2010, and over $5.1 billion in FY 2011.
Lets see,
Use to pay my bills by putting a stamp on an envelope.
Use to send a friend a note by putting a stamp on an envelope.
Use to send my wife a love letter while deployed.
Now I use automatic bill pay
Now I instant message my friend
Now I skype.
Get the picture.
Sure Frankie thats why they are closing post offices, very profitable.
Postal officials were blunt in December when they stood before 120 residents in Dedham, Iowa, to tell them why their town’s post office has to close. The Internet, officials said, was killing the U.S. Postal Service.
Today, with 32,000 retail locations and 150 million delivery points, the Postal Service has a larger footprint in the U.S. than McDonald’s, Starbucks and Wal-Mart combined, according to its website.
Even so, the rise of email, a drop-off in first-class mail, onerous labor costs and the growth of shippers such as UPS and FedEx have left the Postal Service hemorrhaging money. By fall, postal officials have warned, they may not be able to borrow money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/us-usa-usps-idUSTRE81D0M620120214
Having our mail delivered at a low cost is, at the very least, a convenience we citizens choose to provide for ourselves and our neighbors. It’s part of “the commons’ of our nation. It’s not supposed to turn a profit. To suggest delivering our mail should be a profitable venture is insanity. All one has to do is look at the cost of having FedEx deliver a piece of mail for you and you can see where the requirement of producing a profit would cost us a bloody fortune to send Mom a birthday card. And yet, as frankly pointed out, they might have actually been able to do that were it not for the outrageous burden the GOP-held Congress and GWB’s laid on them. They were given 10 years to fully fund their retirement program through 2075. The money is required to be in place for employees who have not yet been born. The GOP, driven by their Fascist desires to unite government and business obviously is trying to break the Postal Service so they can claim it’s broken and needs to be replaced by one of their for-profit cronies.
In Georgia, smokers are forced to payer a higher premium for government employee insurance. Many large companies are choosing to not provide insurance benefits to smokers, or forcing them to pay higher premiums than other employees.
Should smokers have to pay higher premiums? Should employers who provide insurance benefits also have to absorb the higher cost of insuring their employees who smoke?
like so many of the ‘facts’ that leak out of Bdeman’s comments his ‘thoughts’ on the postal service is a fantasy. For years the postal service has paid money INTO the federal government. In addition they have OVERPAID $8billion over the last few years to the federal retirement program that Congress has used to hide their own underfunding of the program. Now, because of the economic down turn & subsequent reduction in mailing the post office has borrowed money – not been given, borrowed, Oh, and Congress has refused to allow the rate increase requested that would have reduced the amount borrowed
This is why its pointless to debate Bdeman – his ‘facts’ have as much to do with reality as wings do to a frog.
Oh, and no I am not a government employee nor an employee of the post office.
I think we should revert back to sterilization programs and a few forced abortions along the way. This will help control the population.
Forced sterilization worth $50,000, North Carolina panel says
At least seven of 33 states that carried out eugenics programs have acknowledged or apologized for the policies, but North Carolina is the first to propose paying compensation. The state’s forced-sterilization program, designed to weed out the mentally disabled, criminals and other “undesirables,” was in effect from 1929 to 1974. North Carolina formally shut down its discredited Eugenics Board in 1977.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/north-carolina-sterilization-compensation.html
Seems to me the provision of health insurance is part of an employee’s compensation package and the church is “demanding” the right to tell employees how to spend their own money. I used the quotes around the word “demanding” because Catholic hospitals and other of their non-faith related secular businesses have been providing this coverage and have for years accepted all the other terms of federal and individual states’ employment laws in 28 states. Not only is the Bishop’s argument weak, it’s completely compromised by the reality of the church’s own acceptence of their role as an ecumenical employer.
Oh and don’t forget the post office government pays for that too.
that business makes use of roads, bridges, infrastructure, law enforcement, etc., paid for by the government.
And exactly where does the government get the money? Oh yeah thats right, they are borrowing it in record numbers and when they are not doing that they are printing it.
We need to tax U.S. corporations more, and use the incremental revenue to provide health insurance for everyone. That will solve the healthcare crisis. Why is that so hard for the Republicans to understand?
Nal,
Great post! As some have said before me–this issue is not about freedom OF religion. It’s is about freedom FROM religion.
It was definitely a bad analogy.
For the love of God I wish the discussion would move to removing the link between employers and health insurance. That would make much of this moot.
We’re allowing this very important issue to be driven by an anachronistic practice that evolved due to, yes, unintended consequences of government meddling. Instead of dealing with that, we’re putting policies into place that just serve to further cement this practice into our lives. Aaaaargh!
Wonderful….. I had forgotten the Reynolds case…. That is very appropriate in today’s hubris…..