Notre Dame Files Lawsuit Over Obamacare

[aaronb]

People have the right to choose which companies they work for or which organizations they choose to be affiliated with, those businesses and organizations should have the right to offer compensation or beneits of their choosing. We are slowly becoming what we are suppose to be against.

I do however think its a very interesting debate how religious organizations, on one hand want to fight to maintain their religious freedom, but on the other hand continually lobby lawmakers and try to presuade voters to enforce their beliefs upon everyone.

Honest question:

If religious institutions are going to try and lobby lawmakers for their interests. Should they also continue to enjoy tax exempt status? Do you feel comfortable with Notre Dame spending millions of dollars in Donor contributions to fight a political fight with the Gov't?

 

[NDBoiler]

So if the CIA stuffs you in a van tomorrow and water boards you under suspicion of supporting domestic terrorist activity, and you sue for your release, then you're engaged in a "political stunt"? Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, so by your definition, any attempt by an individual or an organization to prevent its enforcement against them would be a "political stunt", no?

This pisses you off because you're a liberal who supports the policy being opposed. Your inability to understand the religious liberty concerns at stake here is really saddening, but not surprising.

Edit: And if you think ND is doing this to make a political statement, reread Jenkin's statement on the first page. The man went out of his way to emphasize that ND is simply trying to protect it's own right of conscience, and that it doesn't oppose the government's provision of such services.

Reps Whiskey. IMO, that is a great point because if you are Christian and a compassionate follower of Jesus Christ, you believe in caring for and giving to those less fortunate than yourself. Essentially, that is "welfare" in some form or another, in this case with gov't instituted healthcare. Whether you agree with the welfare concept or not, it does in fact follow with Christian teaching if you look at it from that perspective. I'm not saying I agree with it one way or another, but I think that may be what Fr. Jenkins was ultimately alluding to.

 

[Rhode Irish]

This is the most ridiculous, and offensive government intrusion into the lives of its citizens the US has ever seen. It is a step towards socialized medicine.

This is the kind of nonsense that makes me want to tune out the other side in this whole debate. How would socialized medicine be an intrusion? I hope we're heading towards socialized medicine. I'm all for capitalism and open markets, but healthcare should be a fundamental right and health care insurance providers should not have the right to profit (I do not have an issue with service providers profiting).

Aside from the argument that the government is not capable of running an efficient system (which is just dumb political rhetoric and not at all true), I see no argument against eliminating the middleman that is the insurance industry. The only differences between a single-payer system where everyone paid in and everyone was covered and the system that we have now is that the former would cover everyone and cost everyone less money. Seems like a win-win for me.

Again, just to reiterate, I agree with what Notre Dame is doing here, but in the bigger picture I think the right-wing perspective on healthcare reform will ultimately prove to be on the wrong side of history.

 

[Downinthebend]

Honest question:

If religious institutions are going to try and lobby lawmakers for their interests. Should they also continue to enjoy tax exempt status? Do you feel comfortable with Notre Dame spending millions of dollars in Donor contributions to fight a political fight with the Gov't?

I don't think that is the question that is begging to be asked. Isn't the question that is begged to be asked whether the government should be so big that lobbying it can affect serious issues, and whether the government should be so big that it interferes with religion?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If religious institutions are going to try and lobby lawmakers for their interests. Should they also continue to enjoy tax exempt status?

Those are separate issues. When the government regulates everything, you have to lobby to survive. Those who don't lobby get crushed by regulations and competitive disadvantages created by the lobbying efforts of their competitors.

Do you feel comfortable with Notre Dame spending millions of dollars in Donor contributions to fight a political fight with the Gov't?

I wouldn't be comfortable with ND expending significant resources on political battle that wasn't related to its vital interests. For instance, if ND started donating heavily to or publicly supporting an Indiana PAC with the aim of continuing legal discrimination against homosexual couples, I'd be upset. But I'm proud they're standing up for their right of conscience on this issue, as it has serious implications for every American's religious liberty.

 

[Black Irish]

This is the kind of nonsense that makes me want to tune out the other side in this whole debate. How would socialized medicine be an intrusion? I hope we're heading towards socialized medicine. I'm all for capitalism and open markets, but healthcare should be a fundamental right and health care insurance providers should not have the right to profit (I do not have an issue with service providers profiting).

Aside from the argument that the government is not capable of running an efficient system (which is just dumb political rhetoric and not at all true), I see no argument against eliminating the middleman that is the insurance industry. The only differences between a single-payer system where everyone paid in and everyone was covered and the system that we have now is that the former would cover everyone and cost everyone less money. Seems like a win-win for me.

Again, just to reiterate, I agree with what Notre Dame is doing here, but in the bigger picture I think the right-wing perspective on healthcare reform will ultimately prove to be on the wrong side of history.

Oh no, not the "wrong side of history" routine. If you eliminate the profit-seeking insurance companies it doesn't change the fact that medicine & medical procedures still cost money. Single-payer just turns the government into the insurance agent. Maybe they won't make a profit, but it won't change the fact that abuse and fraud will still occur and costs will skyrocket unless rationing takes place. But instead of the evil insurance companies being the villains who deny expensive treatments to dying patients, it will be Uncle Sam. Same result, different avenue.

Providing all of our citizens with "free" healthcare sounds great and noble, but what should be included in this fundamental right? Cancer treatment? Sure who would be against that? How about hair restoration treatment for people who've lost their hair due to chemotherapy? Well, okay, I suppose. How about breast reconstruction surgery for women who've had their breast amputated because of breast cancer? Well, maybe, I guess. What if she wants some stripper double D's, because, hey, it's not her money? Well I don't agree with that. WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN?

There's your slippery slope. Giving someone something because it's a fundamental right and then watching it spiral out of control because people's idea of their rights grows all the time. Then the people who think they are taking a stand for sanity are demonized as backwards cavemen.

 

[Downinthebend]

Wouldn't this not be an issue if the taxes were low enough that people could sufficiently pay for their own health benefits and whatnot?

 

[mgriff]

This is the kind of nonsense that makes me want to tune out the other side in this whole debate. How would socialized medicine be an intrusion? I hope we're heading towards socialized medicine. I'm all for capitalism and open markets, but healthcare should be a fundamental right and health care insurance providers should not have the right to profit (I do not have an issue with service providers profiting).

Aside from the argument that the government is not capable of running an efficient system (which is just dumb political rhetoric and not at all true), I see no argument against eliminating the middleman that is the insurance industry. The only differences between a single-payer system where everyone paid in and everyone was covered and the system that we have now is that the former would cover everyone and cost everyone less money. Seems like a win-win for me.

Again, just to reiterate, I agree with what Notre Dame is doing here, but in the bigger picture I think the right-wing perspective on healthcare reform will ultimately prove to be on the wrong side of history.

I think that history may be hundreds of years in the future though. The government has not been able to effectively provide services because they are too far up their asses to make any sort of meaningful, lasting legislation. While I think that in the future the government may be the solution to a lot of ills the world and our country is facing, we are growing government too large, too fast. Social security, medicare, medicaid, I mean just keep the list going and every program the government has made is ****ing broke. We are fifteen trillion dollars in debt, and anytime the government sponsors anything it leads to waste and increased costs, and everyone wants the free money gravy train to never stop. It is ultimately our faults as citizens, so until the rest of the population wakes up enough to police their elected officials, I want the government to stay as ****ing far away from my personal life as possible. I am capable enough to take care of myself and my family, I don't need to government to tell me where to **** and where to sleep. It's becoming ridiculous. Not being hostile at all, just offering a viewpoint. As a libertarian, I think I can appreciate both sides of the argument here. Self-reliance is my solution.

 

[Downinthebend]

And how exactly is the government incentivized to care long term? The longest term for anyone that can really affect anything is six years. If you want the government to solve your problems, create a government that doesn't have term limits, doesn't make its policies known, censors information for you, owns your house, control your population, and indoctrinates your children.

 

[Kak7304]

This is the kind of nonsense that makes me want to tune out the other side in this whole debate. How would socialized medicine be an intrusion? I hope we're heading towards socialized medicine. I'm all for capitalism and open markets, but healthcare should be a fundamental right and health care insurance providers should not have the right to profit (I do not have an issue with service providers profiting).

I definitely support some kind of health care reform and/or overhaul in order to expand healthcare to more people, however, I do not support socialized medicine because of some potentially disastrous consequences. Socialized medicine would greatly diminish the advances of medical and pharmaceutical technologies. A majority of new treatments, meds, devices, etc. are developed (unfortunately) by corporations that operate for a profit. If we are to eliminate capitalism from medicine, there is no incentive for these companies to invest time, money, and resources into research and development of new, potentially life-saving treatments.

A current model often talked about for the movement to socialized medicine is the Canadian model. This model is wonderful for allowing everyone to see a primary care physician regularly for check-ups and preventative measures, but if you need a MRI, X-Ray, CT, or some type of non-emergency procedure, good luck. These medical machines are everywhere and readily available in the US but in Canada, are mostly at larger medical centers. To get a scan, you need to make an appointment and also travel. Canada also has a large amount of primary care physicians but a relative scarcity of specialists. Many Canadians needing to see a specialist for an elective surgery or consult actually come to the US because the wait to see specialists up north can be very long.

I would love to see some minimum baseline standard of care for all Americans instituted in the US with the option to purchase more expensive treatments, doctors, etc. This would cut down on the abuse of ER visits by the uninsured, which are vastly more expensive than a regular doctor visit (you already pay for them when you go to the ER and get charged an exorbitant amount), allow everyone some access to health care, and preserve the advancement of medicine in the future by allowing people to purchase better care who can afford to do so.

Also, I strongly agree on your comment about the insurers profiting off us. These middle men make ridiculous sums of money for driving up our healthcare costs.

 

[Kak7304]

Wouldn't this not be an issue if the taxes were low enough that people could sufficiently pay for their own health benefits and whatnot?

No, those who cannot afford healthcare pay little to none in taxes already because of their lack of sufficient income.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I definitely support some kind of health care reform and/or overhaul in order to expand healthcare to more people, however, I do not support socialized medicine because of some potentially disastrous consequences. Socialized medicine would greatly diminish the advances of medical and pharmaceutical technologies. A majority of new treatments, meds, devices, etc. are developed (unfortunately) by corporations that operate for a profit. If we are to eliminate capitalism from medicine, there is no incentive for these companies to invest time, money, and resources into research and development of new, potentially life-saving treatments.

Exactly.

A current model often talked about for the movement to socialized medicine is the Canadian model. This model is wonderful for allowing everyone to see a primary care physician regularly for check-ups and preventative measures, but if you need a MRI, X-Ray, CT, or some type of non-emergency procedure, good luck. These medical machines are everywhere and readily available in the US but in Canada, are mostly at larger medical centers. To get a scan, you need to make an appointment and also travel. Canada also has a large amount of primary care physicians but a relative scarcity of specialists. Many Canadians needing to see a specialist for an elective surgery or consult actually come to the US because the wait to see specialists up north can be very long.

There are more MRI machines in Pittsburgh than there are in all of Canada. Fun fact.

I would love to see some minimum baseline standard of care for all Americans instituted in the US with the option to purchase more expensive treatments, doctors, etc. This would cut down on the abuse of ER visits by the uninsured, which are vastly more expensive than a regular doctor visit (you already pay for them when you go to the ER and get charged an exorbitant amount), allow everyone some access to health care, and preserve the advancement of medicine in the future by allowing people to purchase better care who can afford to do so.

Also, I strongly agree on your comment about the insurers profiting off us. These middle men make ridiculous sums of money for driving up our healthcare costs.

That's really tough to accomplish.

 

[Kak7304]

That's really tough to accomplish.

That's my ideal and nearly impossible dream.

 

[gkIrish]

I would bet 99.999% of Americans who support socialized medicine have never lived in a country with that system. Like someone said, it's a nightmare if you need anything more than a checkup.

 

[Downinthebend]

No, those who cannot afford healthcare pay little to none in taxes already because of their lack of sufficient income.

And if those people weren't forced to enroll in the government's (terrible) education plan, but instead could have used their parent's own money that went into various taxes to pay for a good education who could tell where'd they'd be.

 

[Buster Bluth]

And if those people weren't forced to enroll in the government's (terrible) education plan, but instead could have used their parent's own money that went into various taxes to pay for a good education who could tell where'd they'd be.

An interesting solution, to be sure.

 

[gkIrish]

Also, the decreased incentive for smart people to go through years of med school with a substantially lower expected income is a serious issue

 

[Rhode Irish]

If we kept the same amount of money in the system but eliminated insurance companies, we'd eliminate all of the money that is spent by insurance companies that does not benefit the insured: marketing, dividends to shareholders, etc. I don't see how that would cause us to have less MRI machines or X-ray machines. If Canada's system is not sufficiently funded, they aren't collecting enough revenues. Fortunately, we are not Canada. We are obviously already paying enough collectively to fund the most robust medical system in the world, so if we just redirected the funds to a central entity and eliminated the profiteering then we'd have enough to cover everyone.

I'm not proposing a government takeover of the entire industry. Pharmaceutical companies, medical device producers, doctors who perform elective surgeries, etc. should all be free to pursue profits. But access to basic and emergency medical services should be funded from a centralized, single-payer entity to ensure that everyone is covered and to lower the average per-person cost of medical care.

 

[BobD]

I'd be fine if Kaiser Permanente took over everything. My wife disagrees.

 

[aaronb]

If we kept the same amount of money in the system but eliminated insurance companies, we'd eliminate all of the money that is spent by insurance companies that does not benefit the insured: marketing, dividends to shareholders, etc. I don't see how that would cause us to have less MRI machines or X-ray machines. If Canada's system is not sufficiently funded, they aren't collecting enough revenues. Fortunately, we are not Canada. We are obviously already paying enough collectively to fund the most robust medical system in the world, so if we just redirected the funds to a central entity and eliminated the profiteering then we'd have enough to cover everyone.

I'm not proposing a government takeover of the entire industry. Pharmaceutical companies, medical device producers, doctors who perform elective surgeries, etc. should all be free to pursue profits. But access to basic and emergency medical services should be funded from a centralized, single-payer entity to ensure that everyone is covered and to lower the average per-person cost of medical care.

BINGO!

Every other industrialized nation has some kind of universal health care system. Every other county covers a higher % of people for less cost to their GDP.

Almost any metric shows that we are in the 30's and 40's in terms of infant mortality rate, life expectancy, physical heath, etc.

The USA might have the best heath care available if money is no object. However that isn't reality for 99% the populace. Unfortunately there is a a misinformation and propaganda campaign that is encouraging people to vote against their best interests.

How does every other country do it better?

 

[Buster Bluth]

If we kept the same amount of money in the system but eliminated insurance companies, we'd eliminate all of the money that is spent by insurance companies that does not benefit the insured: marketing, dividends to shareholders, etc.

How much money do insurance companies spend on marketing?

More competition always lowers costs. The easiest short-term adjustment we could make would be to allow competition over state lines, no?

I'm not proposing a government takeover of the entire industry. Pharmaceutical companies, medical device producers, doctors who perform elective surgeries, etc. should all be free to pursue profits. But access to basic and emergency medical services should be funded from a centralized, single-payer entity to ensure that everyone is covered and to lower the average per-person cost of medical care.

Not really sure I agree with all of that.

 

[pumpdog20]

I just want to say great job ND on leading this charge; lead from the front, not the rear.

Also, if you want to witness what socialized medicine looks like, go visit a VA clinic. Months of paperwork, spend all day to be told you'll hear from them in 6-8 weeks, misdiagnosis that take even longer to get you right. I understand healthcare reform pricing is needed, and I have no idea where to start, but I do know I don't want socialized medicine.

 

[Downinthebend]

If we kept the same amount of money in the system but eliminated insurance companies, we'd eliminate all of the money that is spent by insurance companies that does not benefit the insured: marketing, dividends to shareholders, etc. I don't see how that would cause us to have less MRI machines or X-ray machines. If Canada's system is not sufficiently funded, they aren't collecting enough revenues. Fortunately, we are not Canada. We are obviously already paying enough collectively to fund the most robust medical system in the world, so if we just redirected the funds to a central entity and eliminated the profiteering then we'd have enough to cover everyone.

I'm not proposing a government takeover of the entire industry. Pharmaceutical companies, medical device producers, doctors who perform elective surgeries, etc. should all be free to pursue profits. But access to basic and emergency medical services should be funded from a centralized, single-payer entity to ensure that everyone is covered and to lower the average per-person cost of medical care.

A central (corrupt, or at least wasteful) entity causes the very problem that you are trying to eliminate (money not profiting the insured).

How can you possibly think that the government, which has been running (ruining?) our economy and our budget (Hows that debt?) and countless foreign expeditions (Many rather pointless and expensive wars) could run our health care? Why is the answer more government involvement, if we've already seen where that leads to?

 

[Rhode Irish]

We have debt because we spent money on two wars, and then instead of paying for it by increasing revenues, we went the opposite direction and passed unfunded tax cuts. When Congress was operating under a strict pay-go regime we cut the former deficit and produced a budget surplus in about a decade.

To suggest that the inefficiency of government agencies has caused trillions of dollars worth of debt would be laughable if so many wingnuts didn't believe it.

 

[Kak7304]

Also, the decreased incentive for smart people to go through years of med school with a substantially lower expected income is a serious issue

I don't know you, but I like your opinions. (I'm about to start my 3rd year of medical school and I've surpassed the $200,000 student loan mark with two more full years to pay for and expecting to graduate with a debt in excess of $300,000. I'll need that income to pay off my student loans, let alone make any money.)

 

[IrishLax]

BINGO!

Every other industrialized nation has some kind of universal health care system. Every other county covers a higher % of people for less cost to their GDP.

Almost any metric shows that we are in the 30's and 40's in terms of infant mortality rate, life expectancy, physical heath, etc.

The USA might have the best heath care available if money is no object. However that isn't reality for 99% the populace. Unfortunately there is a a misinformation and propaganda campaign that is encouraging people to vote against their best interests.

How does every other country do it better?

I can't believe you're serious. The funniest thing is I read Rhode Irish's post and totally get his well-reasoned, logical statements even if I disagree with some minutiae of them. But your post, quoting his... is just dribble.

First, you just make up statistics. "Not the case for 99%"... please. That is a joke. More than 1% of the population works directly for the Government OR has substantial wealth... so that's just so flat out wrong it makes me facepalm. The simple fact is the vast majority of people do just fine under the current system; changes to socialized or quasi-socialized healthcare is to help the MINORITY of people who are not covered. I think the general estimate of Americans without full coverage is somewhere around 15%.

Second, infant mortality, etc. etc. are not "far worse" than the rest of the "industrialized world"... we're within ~0.1% in infant mortality rate of Canada, for example... and within ~.3% of every single major country except Japan (I'm not counting Monaco because it's Monaco). Life expectancy? Within roughly 1 year of the European Union. So please stop grossly exaggerating the issues at hand.... and also, it's worth noting that the very slight differences really have nothing at all to do with healthcare.... and have everything to do with the obesity/fast food diet that many Americans live on.

So in short... good post Rhode Irish. Bad post by you. The sky is not falling, the "99%" for the most part do just fine, and the rest of the world does not do significantly better. There are aspects of our healthcare system that could definitely be approved, but in my humble opinion that'd be better accomplished with a fine red pen than the giant black Sharpie our Congress decided to use.

 

[pkt77242]

There are so many issues with the logic of this post and your subsequent posts.... sigh....

1. You hate that ND is going this route, which is fine because you're entitled to your opinion. But you're saying this is a "terrible message" when the majority of America supports the stance ND is taking and has previously taken a similar stance. 28 states total have sued, countless groups both religious and non-religious have sued, and a large majority of the population in polling dislikes the bill for whatever reason. So, by definition of the word "precedent," ND is not setting any kind of precedent at all. If anything, they are following precedent set by others.

2. The concept of imposing religious views on employees of the University is ludicrous. It's a private University, not a publicly traded company or government office or public school. So it can make whatever rules it wants and if you don't like them go work/enroll somewhere else. When you sign up to work at Notre Dame you know exactly what health benefits you are getting in your terms of employment. Don't like it? Cool, it's your choice as a free American to go work somewhere else.

3. The idea that ND should be mandated to endorse something that, as a private Catholic university, they do not religiously approve us is insane. At it's logical conclusion, that's no different than saying Jehovah's witnesses should be forced to take blood transfusions because it will save lives. Or, as a more mild example, it's no different than saying Orthodox Jews running a food bank should have to accept donations of pork products. The 1st amendment fundamentally protects this right.
4. Don't even get me started on how many issues there are with the "IBM doesn't believe in cancer" crap. For starters, IBM isn't religious; is publicly traded; is a corporation; and cancer is a life-threatening disease NOT a completely optional medicine. You can't "not support the use of cancer" like you can "not support the use of birth control." Also, you should know that Notre Dame does support the use of contraceptive for medical reasons (polycystic ovarian syndrome, etc.). There is literally nothing truly "medical" about birth control when it is used just to have sex without creating a baby... which is a whole 'nother can of worms I'd rather not open.

They are not mandated to endorse it. The insurance company will pay for it (and mostly likely they will love to pay for it).

Here is the math on it. A normal birth costs about $8000 (that includes prenatal care but nothing after leaving the hospital). Birth control costs about $50 per month (but can vary widely based on generic vs namebrand or what type is used).

So lets do the math on this.
Lets peg the birth control costs on the high end at $100 a month.

it would take 6 years and 8 months of birth control to cover the one pregnancy (not including and after hospital care). So for an insurance company it is much more cost efficient to cover birth control than to have unintended pregnancies. Plain and simple. The church isn't required to cover the birth control and the insurance is glad to pay for it. Have you noticed that the insurance industry isn't bitching about the rule. Because it will save them money over the long run.

 

[Kak7304]

And if those people weren't forced to enroll in the government's (terrible) education plan, but instead could have used their parent's own money that went into various taxes to pay for a good education who could tell where'd they'd be.

A good majority of the poor have been poor for generations. Their parents didn't have any money either.

 

[Bluto]

All this big government bashing seems a bit ironic considering it was the Federal Government that invented the very medium people are bashing it on. Anyhow, I'm still working on the Louis Nix shirts in case anyone was wondering.

 

[pkt77242]

How much money do insurance companies spend on marketing?

More competition always lowers costs. The easiest short-term adjustment we could make would be to allow competition over state lines, no?



Not really sure I agree with all of that.

Not much money on marketing but they typically only use about 80-85 cents on the dollar on health related items (actually paying claims, etc) and the other 15-20% goes to overhead (which while some overhead is needed, it also pays for people who's sole job is to find ways to deny you coverage). Most single payer systems have a typical overhead of 4-8% for comparison, thus 92-96 cents out of every dollar is going to actual healthcare.