Catholic Online Forum

I have a catalog from a religious supply company on my desk which reminds me of Obama's compromise. They are having a special on Bronze and Marble statuary. As an introductory offer they are giving free shipping. Now how do you suppose they can they afford that?

I've been involved throughout my years at my former, former company, with choosing insurance for the company and they do specify exactly what the coverage is for prescriptions and we've never had contraception listed as free though some plans offer flu vaccines for free and that would be listed in the plan. We happen to never have offered any plans with $0 co-pays for even lowest tier drugs so I believe I would know if there were some exception with contraception. Also, I have a very long history, on pretty much every insurance plan (though admittedly, I never chose HMO options for myself so I'm speaking of our highest priced plans that would be offered) of getting contraception for a medical problem and filling the prescription and never taking it. It's sort of a tradition between me and my OB/GYN...it's never been free.

I have a catalog from a religious supply company on my desk which reminds me of Obama's compromise. They are having a special on Bronze and Marble statuary. As an introductory offer they are giving free shipping. Now how do you suppose they can they afford that?

I think that Joe is trying to say that they can afford free shipping by increasing the price of the item by the price of the shipping (more or less). So the bottom line is that nothing is free.

Actually it is possible that they could be willing to take a loss on the first order in hopes that you will become a regular customer.

And I get that. But as Jeff said, now the government is giving the Church an option...

That is possible.

How many full size bronze and marble statues am I apt to order?

Obviously this doesn't change the morality of the situation. But my hopes that this will galvanize Catholics to fight this are dimmed, frankly.

Do not worry.

I myself practice individual liberty individually. When it comes to freedom and the unalienable, polls e.g. mob rules, mean nothing to me.

What are you prepared to do?

So do you suppose free birth control is intended by its proponents to be a "loss leader?"

I'm not sure I understand the point of the example of the statuary supply company -- they're offsetting the cost of shipping as an incentive to a voluntary purchase, while the HHS is mandating that non-consumers purchase something that they would not voluntarily buy...

I think the point was that the "free" shipping was not really free, they are probably just playing games with the numbers.

I have already stated here several times that I would not purchase the mandated insurance.

That definite deed would be the beginning of my resistance. As to anything else; I am not going to elaborate upon any conjecture as to what may or may not happen and what I may or may not do relative to it.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college's challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.

The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama's health care law violates the school's religious freedoms.

The court's action at this point means only that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals must now pass judgment on issues it previously declined to rule on.

A federal district judge rejected Liberty's claims, and a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit voted 2-1 that the lawsuit was premature and never dealt with the substance of the school's arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June.

The justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health care law by a 5-4 vote, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty's.

The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty's request.

Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.

Liberty law school dean Mathew Staver said, "This case now will go back to the federal court of appeals where we will address the undecided issues that the Supreme Court did not address."

Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.

Liberty law school dean Mathew Staver said, "This case now will go back to the federal court of appeals where we will address the undecided issues that the Supreme Court did not address."

I don't understand the lawsuit. How can they challenge the requirement that individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty when that was decided by the court already? Exactly what is their reasoning?

I suppose it would be a new issue to challenge the requirement that employers provide insurance or pay a penalty. I don't think that was addressed though since the penalty has been ruled a tax, even that would seem to be covered under the ruling.