And now it's time for some Santorum...

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by Tempest

I'd prefer that you explained your " Catholic first, American second" comment 1st .

It means simply that their religion is more important to them than their country - in any conflict between the two, their religion would come first.

To put it another way - if you asked them to define themselves, they would call themselves Catholic before they called themselves American;

As in: "I am a Catholic, white, male, American, husband and father of 5."

I've known & worked with native born Canadians of Chinese ancestry who thought of themselves as Chinese first and then Canadian. Just as wrong IMO.

Over to you.

[Tempest]

Honestly, That's a breed of individual that I'm not sure I have ever knowingly encountered...

Could be my age, where I grew up and live- NY metropolitan area, that I'm the son of immigrants, or the people I associate with.

The people I know believe, they live in a country that would not put them in a situation to that would force them to choose between their religion and their country anymore than they would impose their beliefs on anyone else.

To use your example... that same guy..in my world..would say:

I'm a husband and proud father of 5, an American of Catholic faith who happens to be a white, male.

I'm sure there are those that fit your description, I just honestly don't know any of them. You think it's a large number?

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by Tempest

Not everyone who works in a Catholic Hospital is even Catholic. So the government is essentially telling the church they must pay for something that, they, by the doctines of their faith are opposed to.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The Catholic hospitals are forcing their beliefs on their employees, paid for by (according to your numbers) ~85% government money.

Again, I fail to see what is wrong with a government mandating requirements on money they give to an institution, be it Catholic hospitals or road contractors. If the hospitals don't want to take the money - they are free not to.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by Tempest

You think it's a large number?

In the case of practicing Catholics? Yes, a very large number. I have known MANY to whom it is the central aspect of their lives - mass three times a week, minimum. Some have been so extreme that, in a conflict, the church would take precedence over their children - they would disown a child that had an abortion or used birth control - that sort of fanaticism.

You can find them by counting the number of children they have - if it's a litter, they probably qualify.

[Tempest]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

I think you hit the nail on the head. The Catholic hospitals are forcing their beliefs on their employees, paid for by (according to your numbers) ~85% government money.

Again, I fail to see what is wrong with a government mandating requirements on money they give to an institution, be it Catholic hospitals or road contractors. If the hospitals don't want to take the money - they are free not to.

I think the Churches argument might be that people can choose where they work, the The Catholic hospital can't choose not to be Catholic. The employees are provided with health care benefits, they just don't cover contraception and certain procedures, like abortion. The employees like any other employee knew that when they accepted the job.

It's the government that mandated that All hospitals ( other than a few like the veterans hospitals etc) had to provide care to everyone regardless of the ability to pay. A mandate that is largely unfunded.

Looking at it as the government pays a percent..so the government can dictate the care...ignores the fact that it has forced many hospitals to close because they couldn't sustain the losses they were forced to absorb.

It's the government programs like medicaid that have grown so large that make it a difficult scenario and the problem will only get larger.

So there's a couple of options...Government can get out of the Health care business...or the Catholic church can get out of the Hospital/Heath care business...or they reach a compromise where they can cooexist.

15% + or - of the Hospitals in the US are Catholic...so that's a big vacuum to fill if they fold up their tents and go away. This seems like a strange fight to pick for an administration looking to be re-elected. Especially when they have no solutions. And weren't prepared for the fallout...

All over condoms and birth control pills?

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

In the case of practicing Catholics? Yes, a very large number. I have known MANY to whom it is the central aspect of their lives - mass three times a week, minimum. Some have been so extreme that, in a conflict, the church would take precedence over their children - they would disown a child that had an abortion or used birth control - that sort of fanaticism.

I'd have to say there are two "makes" of religious adherent (Catholic or otherwise). There are those where their religion is an ingredient in their lives that is important, but not overpowering to flavour of it's entirety. Then there are those that build their life around their religion with the other ingredients their to support it and tossed it they do not.

The type of person that makes the religion the centre-piece of their life seems to depend on the religion itself. In my experience, Catholicism and old people tend to be the sweet spot for this behaviour. Evangelists and those that value highly their social status (young, old, or otherwise). Mormons and those that seek to belong. Baptists and those that like to be right (my mother always thought I'd make a good Baptist ).

These pairings are purely personal experience and I would not be surprised in the slightest if they are quite different outside the circles I have travelled. The point is, however, that I don't find them to be the majority of any major religion - Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, or Jew (walk into a bar...).

You can find them by counting the number of children they have - if it's a litter, they probably qualify.

This is something I highly disagree with. I think that the children count simply comes from those that adhere to basic elements of the faith (no birth control, no abortion) and have a healthy sex life. One need not be putting the church before all else to have it adversely affect your life - be it through number of children or financial obligations in tithing, fast offerings, etc).

[BentSailor]

@Tempest: Sure the Catholic hospitals could close. Perhaps, if they feel so strongly about it, they should do so. It would force a real-world view of healthcare in the US rather than the current glib phrases tossed about.

Thing is, the Catholic institutions are using government money to enforce a religious tenant on their employees. So long as they are accepting that money, I see no issues with there being mandates on it's use. Using your loose approximation and a loose 1-to-1 ratio on how it is spent - 85% of the staff are hired by the government. The government isn't "forcing" the Catholic church to pay for birth control, they are saying that some of the money the government gives the church should. It's not like health insurance is 85c on the dollar of costs

Saying that the employees could go somewhere else ignores the fact that doing so would be discriminating based on religion. The job is to administer healthcare, not to administer healthcare and live one's life by the strictures of Catholicism.

Quite simply put, until the Catholic Church refuses the government's money, I cannot support their claim they should be able force their views on their employees, through health insurance or otherwise. If that forces a closure of Catholic hospitals, I can see it being a short-term crisis with the long-term benefit of real healthcare costs being brought to the public's attention.

[Tempest]

Bent,

Let me try to clear up the fuzzy math, that perhaps I created. The Government doesn't fund catholic hospitals to an 85 % level. They fail to cover..15% of the costs of the care that all hospitals are by law required to give. The exact percentage of that portion of the business would probably vary from location to location

But the government isn't funding the hospital.

There are plenty of people who have private health insurance or employer health insurance that go to catholic hospitals.

I think we take an entirely opposite view..of the same issue.

You say that catholic hospitals are forcing their views on their employees...
When all they are doing is not agreeing to pay for condoms, pills and abortions.
I'm not aware of a constitutional right to a condom.

The Church would say that the government is forcing it's views on them...

The government did it in two steps..1st it forced all hospitals to give care regardless of their religious beliefs and it's status as a private institution, and the patients ability to pay, and you must accept ..our government sponsored heath-care and our unfunded mandate to do so. Many hospitals went out of business as a result. Some merged services.

Now comes these mandates....which are in not the law..it's an administrative ruling as I understand it.

I have no association with Catholic hospitals.. but this is government run amuk. IMO.

I don't disagree that The US healthcare needs a better system. I'm not sure the government can provide it....

It's not like the employees weren't able to obtain their contraceptives from any number of other sources... On this issue, I think Obama has brought a knife to a gunfight.

You and I should probably just agree to disagree on this issue, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Regards,

[BentSailor]

I think agreeing to disagree is probably the best option to come out of this. I still see the Catholic system taking money from the government in a business it is in by choice gives it some say over the conditions of the payments and you still see that government mandating a set of rules on that money is too far. These being value judgements, I don;t thing we're going to agree.

Personally, I think that it'll go against the churches in the courts so long as they are taking the government's money; however it will be a PR nightmare for the administration - the US being where it is in regards to religion and government.

[kcbillb2]

Um, no...