Blunt Amendment DefeatedFollow

Gbaji is simply wrong. The executive branch has considerable latitude to set regulations and exemptions under the law.

But it's still "covered". It is the former case. Every insurance policy must cover contraceptives. Whether the customer uses that coverage or not, it's still there and you (and/or your employer) are paying for it. That's the point here. If the Catholic buys insurance for their employees, it *must* buy an insurance policy which includes contraception. It's against the law for the insurance policy to not provide it, thus they have no choice. That's the mandate in the law.

The law doesn't explicitly say "the Catholic Church must pay for contraceptives for anyone working for it within the US", but what it does say is that the Catholic church must provide health insurance for its employees in the US, and all health insurers must cover contraception as part of their coverage. Ergo, for the Church to meet the legal requirement to provide health care for their employees, they must buy health insurance which includes contraception. They have no choice.

And even the proposed exemption (by Obama, which still isn't legally binding at all) doesn't really change anything. They're still paying for the insurance. Choosing not to use something you paid for, doesn't change the fact that you're being charged for it. So now, their health insurance dollars are paying to provide contraception for someone else. Yeah. That's such an improvement!




No one's debating this, and no one is denying anyone else the right to obtain contraceptives. The issue is requiring someone to pay for something they don't want. What matters is the free will to not have to buy something you don't want to buy.




Again. That's not how insurance works. It's either covered or not. If it's covered, you can get that service paid for. If it's not, you can't. There is no middle ground here. It's not just covered if you choose to buy some contraception and charge it to your insurer. You were covered the whole time. Just like you're covered if you break your arm and need a cast, even if you don't actually break your arm and need a cast.


That's the whole point of insurance. That's how it works. It's also an incredibly moronic way to pay for people's birth control, but that's yet another reason why this whole thing is silly.

Here, I'm too lazy to go chasing all the strings here but this is what I'm talking about...

If regulatory bodies couldn't create and enforce (or waive) their own regulations, they would be pretty pointless.

Way to backpedal from "It doesn't matter what Obama says because he can't change this at all ever!" I guess "naively points out" was your way of admitting you were wrong.

The exemptions are based on tax filing status. If your building is considered to be a church by the IRS, you're exempt. you don't need to beg for it or hope you'll be blessed with an exemption. If it's not a church but considered by the IRS to be a religiously-affiliated nonprofit then you have the compromise regulations (not directly offered by employer, accessible via insurance company direct).

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 8:46pm by Jophiel

Hahaha... sure. As always, your understanding of legislation and how government works is sterling.

I should have remembered your repeated proclamations of how repealing DADT would force the military to ban all homosexuals and not even tried once again explaining stuff to you.

Who "quoted it" was the federal register. I took that section from the government PDF scintillatingly titled "Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

A document most likely written with hopes that low-reading-comprehension people would seek it out at every opportunity


Yeah, here's the thing: the "mandate" in the law itself is rather vague, consisting largely of talking about "women's health". Go look up the full text of the law, do a word search for "contraceptives" (or just "contracep" so you can include variants) and tell me how many hits there are. Or I can save you the trouble... there's four and all are related to discussions about educational programs. There isn't a line saying "And everyone has to give contraceptives to women". It's a regulation based off the authority of the DHHS and the goals stated in the law.


It's a "mandate" exclusively because the DHHS made it one. The next president can, by fiat, direct his Sec. of Health & Human Services to change it and remove contraceptives from the list. Or not change it. Whatever. In any event, it's not Congress.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 9:06pm by Jophiel

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Ok, have fun just ranting and screaming about how the government is gonna trick ya and getcha

It should go without mentioning, but Lord knows it'll need to be mentioned, that the tax status granted in (4) already requires 1-3 as a prerequisite. If you have a church tax status, you qualify.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 9:19pm by Jophiel

Ah, you.


Yes, they have the ability to set exemptions. Which they did. At the department level, without needing special authorization, etc from Congress.


Sure, sport. Sure.

Yes. Yes, we are.

Woah, woah woah, too much moon magic.

Even more to the point, Gbaji was trying to paint a picture where the DHHS was going to make ten thousand individual cases, dragging its feet on each, etc. This is ignoring his instance that this was a solid legislative mandate (it's not) and Obama has no authority to override it (he does).

The regulation is done. The exemption is made. Get your tax papers out to prove you qualify and rock on. I do love how the argument has gone from "Obama can't block this set-in-stone mandate that Congress made" to "Well, you were right about everything except... umm... I bet they won't!"

Typing it out, this sounds a lot like his argument about Obama and nuclear power. I assume the root of it is his lack of understanding how government works beyond the 6th grade "Congress makes laws" level and can't grasp the idea of department level regulation that occurs across the government at the consent of Congress.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2012 6:31am by Jophiel

This bill really should have been about legalizing pot.