On December 01, a Federal judge in Virginia ruled that the healthcare law supported by President Obama and passed by Congress is legal as it stands. Let me quote from Bloomberg Businessweek, but I urge you to go read the entire article:
Nov. 30 (Bloomberg) — The Obama administration’s health- care overhaul survived a federal court challenge in Virginia by a Christian college.
The suit, brought by Liberty University and five individuals, claimed the health-care reform law didn’t protect against mandatory insurance payments being used to fund abortion coverage. Their claim that the law is unconstitutional was rejected yesterday by a judge in Lynchburg.
“Plaintiffs fail to allege how any payments required under the act, whether fines, fees, taxes, or the cost of the policy, would be used to fund abortion,” U.S. District Judge Norman Moon wrote in his ruling. “The challenged provisions of the act are well within Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, he said in a 54-page decision. …
“The individual coverage requirement is a valid exercise of federal power,” Moon said yesterday. Requiring employers to offer a minimum level of health insurance is similar to laws mandating a minimum wage, he said.
“The judge’s ruling today only underscores the importance of the law’s individual responsibility provision,” Cutter said yesterday. “In order to make health care affordable and available for all, the Act regulates how to pay for medical services.”
The case is Liberty University v. Geithner, 6:10-cv-00015, U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia (Lynchburg).
This law became a political hotpoint among many politically-conservative Christians during the last two years. Certainly, most politically-conservative anti-abortion organizations have claimed over and over again during the last two years that this is Federal funding of abortion. Those of us who claimed that the law did no such thing, were labeled liberals and were called false anti-abortion people, and probably not really Christian. There was no listening. No amount of argument, that there was no direct funding of abortion in the bill, would satisfy the politically-conservative anti-abortion groups. And that was because of the argument that was used.
In order to support their argument, those groups had to use a “six-degrees of separation” type of argument. What made that argument so effective among conservative Christians is that many of them already make that argument for relationships among Christians. There are self-described fundamentalists who are happy to argue about being a third-degree separation fundamentalist. What does that mean? Well, there are Christian folk who do not believe that you ought to fellowship in any way with people who hold some heretical doctrines. This is first-degree separation. It means that many old-time fundamentalists would not go to a prayer meeting that included non-fundamentalists, since almost any disagreement with fundamentalist doctrine was considered a heresy. Thus, some had serious questions about whether they could pray with a Methodist or a Lutheran. A second-degree separation fundamentalist will not fellowship with a fundamentalist who fellowships with people outside the camp. A third-degree fundamentalist will not fellowship with any fundamentalist who fellowships with someone who fellowships with “heretics.” It carries separation out to almost its ultimate conclusion.
This was the type of argument that was used. If you look back, the argument was that the government would give money to a state who would give money to a clinic that would possibly have a some nurses and physicians who would counsel abortion. Or, the federal government would help subsidize insurance for those who could not pay, but it would be insurance from a private insurance company who also offered abortion coverage for those who wished it, at an extra cost (which is what the plans requires in order to keep federal funds out of abortion funding). Actually, I pointed out over a year ago that with that argument, the majority of Christians should immediately withdraw from their company’s health insurance plan, because doubtlessly it offered partial abortion coverage, maybe not of the procedure itself, but of the medications, clinic stay, etc. Not surprisingly, there was no movement of Christians withdrawing from their company’s healthcare. There was no movement to require an incredibly absolute firewall between the money they directly give the insurance companies and any type of abortion coverage, even if it were for the non-abortion parts of the medical treatment. I am convinced that the issue was not really abortion (or else they would have withdrawn in mass from various insurance companies) but rather a political opposition couched in Christian terms.
Other equally tendentious legal arguments were used to try to prove that because the law was not worded just so that it inevitable meant that abortion could be funded. Since you can always find a lawyer to argue that black is white, these arguments sounded good, but had not been tested in either court or practice. Nevertheless, the prevailing view among many politically-conservative Christians was that the law openly supported abortion and would pay for it, even if the wording appeared to say otherwise.
Finally, the case has been taken to court, and a judge has ruled on the law as written. And his ruling was that in spite of the many and various arguments used by Liberty University lawyers, and people who filed friend-of-the-court briefs, that they were unable to show in any reasonable way how the payments, fines, etc., etc., required by the law would be used to fund abortion. In other words, as many of us have known for a while, this is not a pro-abortion law. He also ruled that it no more violates our constitutional rights than laws regulating the minimum wage as an interstate commerce issue.
That is two judges that have now ruled the law legal, one in Michigan and one in Virginia. More legal challenges will come, but so far, so good. And, yes, I am against abortion, but as the judge said, the healthcare bill is not a pro-abortion bill.
This “first, second, third-degree separation” terminology is actually used by the fundamentalists themselves? I did not know about this. I’m afraid the first thing it reminds me of is that Simpsons episode in which Lisa’s friend claims to be “a level-five vegan” who won’t “eat anything that casts a shadow.”
Seriously, though, thank you for this post and your clarifying treatment of this matter.
Yes, the terminology actually is. For instance:
R. Bruce Compton, “Is Second Degree Separation Biblical?”, Regular Baptist Review (Winter 1989): 3, 7-8.
Curtis Hutson, “What Is Secondary Separation and Do You Practice It?” The Sword of the Lord (June 17, 1983)
John Rice, “Shall We Fight God’s People or Satan’s? Detailed Bible Exposition Showing That ‘Secondary Separation and Tertiary Separation’ Are Not Taught in the Bible.” The Sword of the Lord (Sep 3, 1971).
And this quote, “But a Christian who knowingly extends recognition and fellowship to an apostate imperils the gospel itself. Such a Christian is guilty of doctrinal indifference, of spiritual apathy, of disobedience to Christ, and of grave unfaithfulness to the gospel.”
Interesting. Reminds me of the canon which prohibits “praying with heretics.” Haven’t seen the name John R. Rice in a long time, BTW.
Yikes. And I thought I was fairly familiar with most fundamentalist lingo.
I am glad that the court has found that the health care bill doesn’t fund abortion. I fear this won’t satisfy those who are determined to fight against the bill anyway, though.
As much as I’d love to attain some kind of purity in where my tax dollars go (meaning, I wouldn’t fund the Iraq war any more than I’d fun abortion, and the list would go on), I think that even though some people will use federal funds for what I consider evil, it is wrong to deny health care to the many, many more who need it just to keep from seeing some of the money go for what I don’t want it to go for. Better for us to work on changing conditions so that abortion is less desirable, seems less necessary to women in crisis pregnancies.
Oops, typo – that should be “any more than I’d fund abortion.”
All I know is that Obamacare gave me a 25% increase on my personal health insurance that I pay myself from $673 per month to $866 a month with a $5000 deductible. I wouldn’t care about it if I had a parish or employer paying it for me. One option might be to divorce my wife and become poor and then get it for free. It’s a difficult dilemma.
No, JD. Your insurance company chose to raise your rates, “Obamacare” or no “Obamacare.” I wonder what their profits are? You should check into that.
Free, huh? Here in South Carolina, it is virtually impossible to get Medicaid.
As soon as Obamacare passed, I got spammed by all these Hot Investment Tips about “Invest In Health Insurance Companies NOW! $$$$$! Health Insurance Profits and Stocks and Dividends will be Astronomically High for the foreseeable future! $$$$$! Get in NOW at the beginning of the boom! $$$$$!” Spam-mail, junk-mail, radio commercials, radio talk shows. Need I say more?
Yes, the reality is that all the news media reported that as soon as the healthcare bill got close to passing, the insurance companies promptly began raising rates, based on no information since the final version had not passed and since the Congressional Budget Office had said that some prices should fall and/or even out. I would agree with Fr. Greg’s suggestion that you check on the profits being made by your insurance company.
BTW, before the healthcare bill passed, the Antiochian insurance plan with a certain large insurance company cost around $1500 per month for family coverage, so your costs are actually reasonably accurate for pre-healthcare costs for a single person, and if that is family coverage then you got a deal. So, I would not blame it on the healthcare bill.
Yes they raised the rates in response to the new goverment mandated benefits, i.e. no maximum limitation. If you choose to destroy your body via drugs, tobacco, motorcycle, fill in the blank the rest of us get to pay for it up to an unlimited dollar amount. I was working in South Carolina several weeks ago interviewing folks receiving employer benefits. I encountered a good number on Medicaid, typically unmarried women with several children and more on the way. They were in no hurry to try to return to work and getting off Medicaid.
Again I am sure your parishoners are picking up the tab for your health insurance. Profit is not a bad word. Remember profits provide jobs and those with productive jobs build churches and pay the salaries of priests, preachers etc. I served on a church staff once in my life and hated to leave because clergy have great benefits and pay very little income tax. If you are paying for your health insurance yourself after taxes accept my apology.
Man, are you full of stereotypes! You are still buying into the welfare queen and undeserving recipient arguments. And, you most certainly have it in for what you appear to consider as “undeserving” pastors. Just so you understand, because it might help you to hear me better, I work full-time. I donate my time to the Church. I pay full taxes and have employer-provided healthcare for which my share is over $400 a month. I work a second part-time job as adjunct faculty at an university because I enjoy teaching a religion course. And, yes, I am upset.
First, any small business under 50 employees is not required to offer any health benefits and many do not. And, many of the employees of those companies are good, healthy, and sound citizens. Since many small companies do not pay high wages, it means that those employees are on their own for healthcare, and many cannot afford it.
Second, employers are not required to provide benefits for part-time employees. So, several major companies specialize in running their retail businesses on few full-time and many part-time employees. In passing, most community colleges today, and quite a few universities, run on part-time faculty with just a couple of full-time faculty. Guess what? No benefits are offered to adjunct faculty. These people are certainly not drug-addled folks taking your money, but folks with Master’s, and some with Doctorate degrees. And, they are teaching your children.
So, now you have several categories of people who cannot afford healthcare. What happens when they need healthcare? They go to the emergency room. Who pays for their healthcare? Well, guess what? There is a federal law that has wide support by both conservatives, moderates, and liberals, that prohibits hospitals from turning people away from the emergency room even if they cannot pay, because it is just wrong to do so. The hospital must swallow the cost. They try to pass it on to the insurance companies, but there is only so much they will accept. If I were you, I would check out the number of hospitals that have gone bankrupt.
This is why the healthcare law was passed. It was passed because we exempted small businesses from healthcare because they “need to make a profit.” We exempted large companies who managed to run on high numbers of part-time employees because they “need to make a profit.” Our excuse about “profits” left us with a large number of people who have no healthcare and cannot afford it. And, not, they are not mostly drug-addled lazy people.
We passed the hospital bill because we were sickened by the sight of people dying outside hospital doors (and yes, that did happen more than once, check your history). We passed the bills that allow children to receive free immunizations and primary healthcare (even in conservative states) because we were sickened by children who received no immunizations and primary healthcare and sickened. That is, we were sickened by the result of our social policies. Sadly, there is a new generation of people who never lived in those days and, in their ignorance, think that the result of undoing our safety nets will lead to a different result.
insurance of any kind is a luxury item if you don’t have a job and can’t collect unemployment because you were laid off by a 501(c)3 (a church, recession hurt giving) and have been job hunting for a year.
Sure, it seems like churches have great benefits and less of a tax burden but they also don’t have to pay into unemployment if they don’t choose to. That means if you get cut loose because of a recession or because you made the lead pastor angry you’re in a bad way, especially if you have kids and that pastoral job was your livelihood. The first case is me and the second case is a friend of mine who was fired from being pastor at the church he served at for years. I get why people have anxieties about insurance but these days it seems that in light of those anxieties he who marries does well but he who refrains from marrying does better. 🙂
That means if you get cut loose because of a recession or because you made the lead pastor angry you’re in a bad way, especially if you have kids and that pastoral job was your livelihood. The first case is me and the second case is a friend of mine who was fired from being pastor at the church he served at for years.
My writing partner says that in his denomination pastors’ widows routinely have to eat out of dumpsters.
“Be warm and well-fed; We’ll Pray For You (TM)” (while being careful to always pass on the other side of the street…)
Fortunately my former employer and I stay in touch and they have tried, though unfortunately without success, to help me line up other work possibilities. They also set me up by filling out paperwork to make sure I’m eligible for the retirement pension employees get. They figured I spent so many years working for them the least they could do was give me the biggest severance package they could afford and set me up for a pension when I’m finally old enough for it. The denomination I worked for, though, is much better known as a social service organization than a church if you get my meaning. My pastor friend had it much rougher because the church told members to avoid him unless they were talking to him about repenting of opposing the leaders. My old bosses have been helping me by discussing job leads in the non-profit sector when I ask them what they know about organizations.
A third-degree fundamentalist will not fellowship with any fundamentalist who fellowships with someone who fellowships with “heretics.” It carries separation out to almost its ultimate conclusion.
This usually results in an A.W.Pink situation — a One True Church with only ONE member, spending every Sunday worshipping alone in his living room and living like a hermit because ALL other churches and ALL other Christians are Apostates and/or Heretics. Multiply this by millions and you have the theoretical end state of Protestantism.
nd his ruling was that in spite of the many and various arguments used by Liberty University lawyers…
Whose last legal crusade was Outing Tinky Winky and Spongebob…
“…..become poor and then get it for free. It’s a difficult dilemma.”
Might I be allowed to speak up? That was in poor taste.
My family was (and is) one of those who lost pretty much everything because of the economy. Good upstanding citizens who worked hard and honestly, paid our taxes, helped in the community, etc. When we went bankrupt, we applied for benefits until we could get back on our feet. A temporary situation. We were denied.
We ended up moving halfway across the country to live with family. We got there, applied, and got state healthcare and benefits. Just in time to, as I ended up having to undergo surgery.
And now, a little over 2 years later, we are finally picking up the shards.
My story isn’t unique. I could tell you tons of sob stories from people who have gone through the same, if not worse, than we have. Not everybody who is on state benefits and welfare are moochers. Especially during this time. To say it would be easier to become poor to get benefits is pouring salt on an open wound, and tactless.
I admit I am naive about how insurance works- indeed, how much of any budget works. However, I would rather pay higher taxes and know that more people have access to healthcare. You are right- profit is not a bad thing. It is what is DONE with profit that is the issue. For far too long, profit has become the end, instead of a means to an end.
This isn’t about “redistributing wealth” or “punishing the rich”- this is about helping others, and making sure that everybody (hopefully) has access to care that they need. If that makes me a socialist or communist or whatever, so be it.
Sorry for this rant, Father Obregon.
I could tell you tons of sob stories from people who have gone through the same, if not worse, than we have. Not everybody who is on state benefits and welfare are moochers.
But all you need is one “Moocher And Proud Of It!” type getting in-your-face to color your perceptions from then on.
So sad but true, HUG.
We should all help those in need when and where we can. But it seems “unchristian” to use a Christian tenet to forcilby take money from non-Christians to fund a Christian beliefs in a society that is decidely unchristian.
Should dental care be included; should daycare be included; should transportation be included; where does it end. As charitable as one my feel, there is a point where you can’t destroy the system that ultimately provides the services that everyone craves. Is there any room for personal accountability? I marvel at the tv evangelists who show horrific pictures of hungry African children surrounding their mothers and yet refuse the fellows who are throwing all the seed.
Interestingly enough, many who argue for a healthcare package are not arguing from religious principles but from utilitarian principles. That is, the cost to this country from uninsured people who need healthcare and who, by law, must be given it by hospitals is so high that it would be better to invest the money in preventative healthcare and reasonable insurance. This would lower the overall healthcare costs in this country by quite an amount.
There are some very good studies, many from Third World countries, that show that the rate of morbidity and mortality is lowered if preventative healthcare is strongly encouraged and if people have reasonable access to healthcare. Lowered morbidity and mortality rates mean a reduced burden on the healthcare system as well as lower overall expenditures on healthcare.
So, to argue for providing increased access to healthcare through subsidized insurance plans does not mean making a religious argument. It can be a purely secular financial argument. But, as a Christian, I am also in favor of it.
Your second question was where would it stop. Again, it would be a cost/benefit analysis. At some point, overall savings would plateau. That is the point at which you would stop.
The Obama Administration has quietly granted even more waivers to one provision of the new federal health reform law, doubling the number in just the last three weeks to a new total of 222. (as of 12/8/2010)
As relates to Healthcare the above is one of two things I can not get. The other is a place at the Congressional health care plan which is the very best in the country and doesn’t expose them to having to deal with the masses. So they are treating us like they would want us to treat them. That sounds arrogant and un-Christian.
Congress, unfortunately, included in the law the possibility that companies, unions, etc., could request a one year waiver if they were not sure that they would be able to come into compliance in time. Needless to say, now everyone is claiming that they need more time to come into compliance. So, it probably means that the reality is that the full country will not come into full compliance until 2014, which is when the law says that no more waivers can be granted.
And, I ran a post on this about a month ago. There is no separate Congressional healthcare plan. That is an urban legend that has been making the rounds for decades. In 1984 under President Reagan, Congress became part of the social security system and they have the appropriate taxes withdrawn. The healhcare plans available to Congress are the same ones available to your local clerk at the post office or at the social security administration or at the agricultural office, etc. And, no, there is no separate Congressional retirement which they get after just one term. That is another urban legend.