Third Party & Independents: Archives

California is one of 20 states to require that all company-provided health plans must include contraception coverage if the plans have prescription drug benefits.

The high court said that Catholic Charities is no different from other businesses in California, where “religious employers” such as churches are exempt from the requirement. Catholic Charities argued that it, too, should be exempt.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the charity is not a religious employer because it offers such secular services as counseling, low-income housing and immigration services to people of all faiths, without directly preaching Catholic values.

In fact, Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote that a “significant majority” of the people served by the charity are not Catholic. The court also noted that the charity employs workers of differing religions.

Now if one were a conspiracy nut, one might say that this could be an attempt to put pressure on the Catholic Church for supporting non-Christians. But in all likelihood it is exactly as its been heralded: ruling the catholic charity a non-religious employer. Under California law, contraceptive coverage must be included with company health plans.

I guess some people feel that unless your preaching your values, your not a religious organization. Is this their way of forcing religious indocrination? Who knows? Probably. If not, then maybe Schwarzennegar should step in! Surely he’ll defend the church!!

Catholic Charities is not a “religious organization”, in that they accept government money, and run independently of the Catholic Church. They are a 501(c)(3) organization.

You can’t have it both ways. The Bush faith-based initiative ignores the fact that ANY religion could do what Catholic Charities does, and run their Charity as a distinct, organization that does charitable works, but does not prosetylize. But, if you choose to be separate, you are choosing to play by the rules. Catholic Charities has to remember, by being a 501(c)3, they are “giving to caeser what is caesers”. When in Rome…

You still do not answer the point that this is stupid social policy- all CC have to do is get rid of perscription drug coverage for its employees and then it will not have to provide birth control- is that what you want?

The government should not be seting up laws that discourage employers from giving their employees drug coverage. I love how people complain about the so-called healthcare crisis in our country, but when organizations try to give their employees drug coverage, they are subjected to ever-more requirements, including requirements that they violate their own faith (disclaimer, I think this entire law is ridiculous- but this application especially offended me). Even if this is a law of general applicability like you guys contend, it is stupid social policy at least.

[A]ll CC have to do is get rid of perscription drug coverage for its employees and then it will not have to provide birth control- is that what you want?

Would an organization really make such a reckless move to prove its point? And what does that say about an organization whose goals are to improve people’s well being. Even if they’re right on moral grounds, the bad PR will hurt the organization. Seeing as how it’s not an exclusively Catholic organization as mentioned in postings above, I don’t see why is shouldn’t have to abide by the laws governing other employers. As the Catholic Church is simply providing for a secular service organization, how would it be any different than say if some Rockefeller-endowed charity had a similar charter? Would you say that the Rockefeller charity is above the law?

I love how people complain about the so-called healthcare crisis in our country, but when organizations try to give their employees drug coverage, they are subjected to ever-more requirements, including requirements that they violate their own faith.

While I know you probably are absolutely against this idea, Misha, such a situation is an excellent argument for having a single payer, national health care system. Why is it that healthcare and jobs are tied anyway? This seems to be an entirely arbitrary linking in the first place, and why should one’s employment determine which drugs they have access to? With the tenuous connection to ones job that most have these days it seems that some institution more stable should be connected to ones healthcare.

Blip- I am not religious, but if i were and the government required me to do something against my faith it would not being trying to “prove its point” for me to resist. You have to understand that this is something they deaply believe in- so i dont see it as unrealistic that they wouldnt pull perscription drug coverage to avoid paying for birth control (and i DEFINETLY think they would if government later required them to provide abortion coverage).

As for your single-payer point, you are correct that I couldnt disagree more with the plan. There is no inherint “right” to medical care and drugs (for adults at least- kids that the right to be taken care of by their parents, and should the parents fail, then the government might be justified in stepping in). People (at least in America) are supposed to be responsible for their own lives- which includes getting themselves a job, buying food, securing housing, and, yes, securing medical care for themselves. A single payer treats everyone as only children (or others that cannot be trusted to take care of their own lives) should be treated. But i doubt you will agree with me on that :)

a) Some Catholics use birth control, even though they are forbidden by the Pope. Some such may be employees of this charity. Other employees might not be Catholic at all.

b) It’s my understanding that Catholics are forbidden from using contraceptives, but not from providing them to others. A Catholic who owns a drug store can sell condoms just as a Mormon who works at a gas station can sell cigarettes.

c) Even think tanks who oppose taxes must pay tax.

This sounds like a thorougly justified ruling, and it supports the civil liberties of employees.

????????????????????
“There is no inherint “right” to medical care and drugs… …People (at least in America) are supposed to be responsible for their own lives- which includes getting themselves a job, buying food, securing housing, and, yes, securing medical care for themselves”

who says that misha? where did you get that? Are people just out of luck if they have a desiese? I had brain cancer, I had to have brain surgery, I can’t live with out insurence. I NEED it to survive. I think that I have the “inherent right” to live.

For me health Insurense is a pain! An expensive one at that. I can’t beleave that a country as well off as America can’t provide care to sick people!

Now I don’t think that the government should tell private organazations how they should distribute healthcare, I think the government should do it for them!

I want to know why helthcare should remain privatized. Even if it isn’t an “inherent right” that doesn’t stop the government from providing tax write offs or huge surpluses of weapons for our armed forces or anything else the government spends its money on.

Shouldn’t saving the lives of amerecan citizens be at least a priority for the government?

further, I have to have insurence or my care falls under previous condition, so if I am out of work, or I am employed where insurance is not available, I have 1 and 1/2 year to stay on Cobra and then… I am screwed. this greatly limits my choices in life. I would happily pay more taxes to have the freedom to travel for a extending period of time, or to take a break from work and enjoy my savings, but I can’t because I have to have insurense to live.:(

The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world. Advanced U.S. medical technology has not translated into better health statistics for its citizens; indeed, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in list after list of international comparisons. Part of the problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Another part of the problem is that America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality among all rich nations, and poverty affects one’s health much more than the limited ministrations of a formal health care system.

1. civil liberties? I hate people abuse this term to suit whatever end they want. Civil liberties are about protecting citizens from government encroachment, they are not about telling charitable organizations that they must provide a particular type of coverage that they do not want to provide. The government mandating that the an employer MUST provide a particular type of coverage does nothing to enhanse civil liberties- it takes away the liberties of contracting parties to come to terms they wish to. You can say this is good for another reason, but it has nothing to do with protecting “civil liberties”, it is about taking them away.

2. Who says that america is a country based upon individual rights rather than collectivism in which every man must take care of every other person’s health at the coersive behest of the government? Well i have several answers to that:

(1) the founders- i will expound more about this if you really want- but it is clear that they did not intend a government that would force citizens to pay into these sorts of programs. This is a national concieved in liberty, not concieved in socialism;

(2) most americans today- when Bill Clinton attempted to force socialized medicine on america in 1993, it cost the democrats control of the House for the first time in 40 years;

(3) any moral theory that respects individual rights- of course, one need more subscribe to these sorts of theories- you could go with “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, but luckly this great country has not decided to sink to those depths.

you said:
“For me health Insurense is a pain! An expensive one at that. I can’t beleave that a country as well off as America can’t provide care to sick people!”

Yep, that why government is there- to be your daddy every time something is a “pain” so that you do not need to provide for yourself. Thats what your fellow citizens are here for- they are like your parents that whenever something is an expensive pain, they should just pony up the money simply because you want them to.

As an adult person, you are responsible enough to find a job for yourself, to get yourself a place to live, to buy yourself food- so why is it that you cannot be responsible for providing your own health? You talk in abstractions like this amorphous entity called the “government” will provide everyone with medical coverage- but in reality it is your fellow citizens who will be forced to take care of those who do not take care of themselves.

I know this sounds cold- but freedom is not a free pass to having no worries and no problems. freedom is the right and DUTY to live by the consequences of your own actions- it is a great responsibility and a great burden, no doubt. I will again repeate, this country is an experiment in people living by free relations with each other rather than the coersive relations that have characterized the existance of people throughout history and even throughout most of the world in this century. You are free to try to convince your fellow citizens that we should dispatch with this experiment and create a government that is not for securing individual rights but is rather a forced mutual insurance program among all of its citizens- I am extremely thankfull that I do not think you will be able to succeed in that quest.

lovecraft: our level of poverty compare to other so-called rich nation is largely due to the fact that unlike the irresponsible governments of europe, australia ect, we allow in a huge number of immigrants, most of whom come in poor (like my family and I did). America lets in more immigrants than the rest of the world’s nations combined, and our reward for that is people attacking us for our income gap and poverty- nice.

Many welfare critics believe that anyone who wants a job can find one. The fact that so many millions are on welfare, they believe, is a sure sign of a poor work ethic, laziness, immorality, sloth, etc.

However, Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of the “natural rate of unemployment” — which is the unemployment rate that inevitably results when inflation is what the markets expect it to be. Today, most economists calculate that the natural rate of unemployment is about 6 percent. When the unemployment rate starts dropping below this, the economy starts “overheating” and developing a bad case of inflation. To combat this, the Federal Reserve tightens the money supply, which brings unemployment back up and inflation back down.

The upshot of all this is that we will always have 6 percent of our workforce unemployed. It is therefore wrong-headed to demonize these temporary unfortunates for not having jobs, or accuse them of lacking a work ethic. Even if we could put them all to work, the result would be runaway inflation — a prospect which sends shivers down the backs of markets. Furthermore, a small reserve pool of labor is healthy for the market, because it keeps the economy flexible and capable of change. It means that there is always a percentage of workers who are moving between jobs, finding a better match between their skills and the jobs available. It also means there is a percentage of the workforce leaving obsolete jobs and now training for more modern ones. Because a reserve pool of labor is a benefit for business, it should be a cost of doing business — hence, the rational for social benefits and public job training.

Calling for the unemployment rate to be reduced to zero is terrible economics. Yet this is precisely what many welfare critics are trying to do by chasing everyone off the welfare rolls and into jobs.

We should also keep in mind that because there are more workers than jobs, there is a bit of competition for those jobs. This means that those workers who do not compete as well as others might find themselves unemployed more often. (This trend is slight to moderate, and should not be overestimated.) In any society of unequal talents, we should probably accept this as inevitable. However, let’s suppose for a moment that society becomes outraged over this state of affairs, and accuses these unfortunates of all manner of moral shortcomings. And suppose that the unemployed, chagrined by these criticisms, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, retraining themselves and successfully landing jobs. In that case, another group of workers will take their place in the ranks of the unemployed, and they will become the objects of society’s scorn. What, then, should we do about this persistent underclass? Apply the Final Solution? (But then someone else will become the 6 percent unemployed. Sigh…)

Of course, this opens up the debate on whether inequality is natural or socially caused. Ironically enough, if it’s natural, then conservatives can’t criticize those who remain on welfare longer than others - it’s completely unavoidable, at least in a meritocracy that must keep a 6 percent unemployment rate. Most thinking persons will realize that inequality has a large social component, which provides a rationale for social programs to help unemployed workers become even more competitive.

The best society can do is rotate more workers in and out of the reserve pool of labor, as obsolete or temporary jobs close down and new, more modern jobs arise. And the only economically sound way to do that is to provide training and personal development opportunities for the unemployed, so they are qualified when the labor market rotates them into those newly-created jobs.

The 6-percent natural rate of unemployment should dramatically tone down, or at least qualify, the debate on welfare. Critics are faced with a surprisingly difficult question: what alternatives are better? -S.K

I agree with everything that was written above- i never called people who do not have a job for a temporary time lazy- heck, i am having a bit of trouble finding a job for this summer at the moment. My solution to this “problem” is that when a worker is in a job, he should put some of his salary into a private employment ensurance company, which will provide him and his family with money while he looks for work (which will likely happen at some point). That is what a responsible adult would do (note: they could use the money the government currently takes out of their paycheck to put into forced employment insurance programs to pay into such a private employment insurance company).

Finally, I would like to note that the 6% number quoted in the above article would be a problem for all the democrats who are demonizing the current level of unemployment in america, which I believe is actually less than 6% (i could be wrong).

Misha,

The 6% Unemployment Rate cited in my post is based on 1991 Data. That rate adjust according to population and total number of jobs available…naturally. The article was written in 1993 By Steve Kangas, writer of the Liberal FAQ site who was found dead in 1999 from multiple gunshots(?) in an “apparent” suicide. I have used several of his arguments recently, but I forgot to give the author credit! I will, in the future, provide the initials “SK” at the end of an argument by Mr.Kangas that I use.

“We the People in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and prosperity…”

Correct me if I am wrong, but “basic Health care” most certainly qualities as serving the general welfare of society. I personally do not advocate a health care system vis-à-vis the European of Canadian model, but I do think that the government and society has a responsibility to lend a hand to the less fortunate among us. To continue to do otherwise is a gross violation of the “Judeo-Christian” values this nation was allegedly founded on.

As for California Supreme Court: here here.

“…but in reality it is your fellow citizens who will be forced to take care of those who do not take care of themselves.”

In return for the insurence that if the time came when you needed help you could count on it. Misha people would be better off if everyone helped each other, with the understanding that we all will enevidably need help.
The “government” is my generic term for our soceity. I wish our soceity would be more willing to help each other.

Most conservatives have a “sink or swim” attitude regarding success, or failure, in America. Its a survival of the fittest attitude which, ironically, is exactly what Darwin and evolutionists prescribe too! Religion, especially Christianity, have no place in a capitalist government. I have yet to see a true, charitable “Christ-like” role model within ANY of the conservative ranks! Name ONE conservative who prescribes to the teachings of Christ? Just one.

I know..I couldn’t think of one either!!

Two responses to lovecraft:

1. Why do you keep arguing against these religious right people who are not on this board? I am not Christian or religious- so how is your argument relevant to what I am saying? I believe in separation of church and state, so to the extent that Christianity requires socialism (which I doubt it does), that argument has no validity as to what our GOVERNMENT ought to do.

2. Now to defend religious right people- they believe in PRIVATE giving, they do not believe in government FORCED giving. This seems completely consistent with Christian ideology (jesus believed in private acts of charity- is there anywhere in the Bible where he says the state should provide all these services?). Here is some evidence to that the religious people in america who vote for conservatives are not hypocrites at all, no matter what rhetoric you want to use to demonize them (this is my blog post a couple of months ago):

“In a recent study by the Catalogue For Philanthropy, People from the States who voted for George Bush in the 2000 election gave more per dollar earned to charitable organizations than people from people from States who voted for Al Gore (http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2003). This study compares each state by where it ranks in pre capita income, and then where it ranks in charitable giving rate. I am not 100% sure of the methodology or bias of this organization, but it seems to be a non-partisan organization that simply tracks where money is coming from and who is getting it. In any case, if you look at the top 20 States in the Generosity Index, ALL of those states (i think) voted for Bush in 2000. Now of course its possible that if one did a study of giving per Bush voter/per dollar and Gore voter/per dollar, you would get different results; but based upon this evidence alone, it backs up a point many conservatives like to make that those who vote for candidates who support more welfare are a lot more generous with other people’s money than they are their own money. In the very least, it shoots down the pet notion of many liberals that people who vote for Republicans are cold-hearted, evil people who could not care less about the needy. “

So the conclusion is that conservatives tend to give their own money on a voluntary, while liberals tend to want to give other people’s money on a forced government basis… I am not surprised at all, are you? :)

Unfortunately, charitable donations seldom have the far-reaching impact of government resources. Most charitable donations go toward the church, which in turn helps the local community. So what you end up having is poor communities being completely ignored by those local charities. Pretty much the same effect as the “sink or swim” No Child Left Behind policy. Its great that principles get rewarded if they get their students to pass the SAT..unfortunate to those that can’t get swept under..underfunded and suspended in failure…

Which is why you will be hearing a lot of positive talk about four-day school weeks in the coming months! The reality is states can’t afford to keep schools open anymore!

If liberals did not oppose Reagan when he wanted to leave all education to local communities, we would not be currently stuck with the unfunded mandate that is No Child Left Behind. better yet, we could allow parents to have some choice where they send their kids through voucher programs- but of course the market’s efficient and ability to provide better services for less money is not something we want, especially when the teacher’s unions own the democratic party. oh well.

You would rather the American education system be built on plurocratic principles, leaving millions of children to disappear in unfunded black holes? Leaving education funding purely in the hands of local communities is TERRIBLE!! Good teachers would gravitate towards wealthier districts motivated strictly by pay..opposed to state-regulated payrolls which ensures equal opportunity for all school districts. Entire school districts would be left to die on the vine with no local wealth to support them, leaving huge voids of poverty and ignorance everywhere. Even smaller rural schools will suffer because with no state aid, they can only depend on the resources of the community..sadly not a lot in most rural areas. Plurocracy does not belong in the schools!

oops..my bad! In the previous post I used the word plurocratic. The word I actually meant was plutocratic. Here’s the definition:

A Plutocracy comprises a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth).

The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government. This control can be exerted positively (by financial “contributions” or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc).

There have not been many examples of a “true” plutocracy in history as such, although they typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anarchy. Plutocracy is closely related to Aristocracy as a form of government, as generally wealth and high social status have been closely associated throughout history.

In the present era, there are numerous cases of wealthy individuals exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favourable legislation. Most western partisan democracies permit the raising of funds by the partisan organisations, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives, however it would be unlikely that no politicians

I am reminded of the GOP recently shooting down their OWN gun legislation on the whim of the NRA. They were all set to go through with it, but at the last second “Don Vito” at the NRA sends an email saying “Whooaaa!! We can’t keep that assault weapons ban and get rid of the gun show loophole too!! Stop it boys!”…and they did.

Just don’t harp too much on Kerry belonging to special interests ok!