The fines begin for Obamacare abortifacient mandate

I remember when the issue was babies dying, and not the idea that we have to pay for something that we don’t want.

Is there little outrage over this because employers can also provide monies for their employees to pick their own health insurance plans (my wife’s workplace is doing this)? In which case, I wonder how many insurance plans there are that don’t cover theses “services”.

Also – regarding Concordia Health Plan – does anyone know who they all work with. Here in MN., I am on the plan and they work with Blue Cross Blue Shield, and I don’t think this group for example, refuses to cover these services.

I think all of this “working together” might be part of the reason there is so little outrage. People, like myself, are confused.

Which is the way to get things done I guess. Somehow, though it all, a bunch of people have started paying for abortions through their health care plans. Hyde ammendment violation avoided, but rendered superfulous nonetheless.

+Nathan

Cruel and unusual punishment?

I mean, seriously, $100/day. That is more than the daily cost of insurance. It is maliciously punitive. It certainly is not usual. Heck Wall Street companies are routinely assessed fines for fraud or cheating the public that literally amount to a fraction of a percent of their profits, a mere cost of doing business and hardly a deterrent. This fine is excessively punitive given that it punishes an act that doesn’t injure anyone. It is a much higher fine than is assess for other labor law violations. It is way out of line. No contraceptive or abortion drug costs that even 1/100th so much.

Norman @ 4: “Inflame the groundlings”? How is Dr. Veith is misrepresenting things? Who are the “groundlings”?

Try substantive argument, for a change.

@2 “Where is the outrage over this?” I have it. I sure wish there was something I could do. I only have one vote. I use it as best as I can. “Be angry and sin not.” Anger has a place.

Nathan @ 3: Dropping healthcare coverage for your employees, entirely, is a tough alternative to avoid this massive governmental intrusion. Starting in 2014, employers will be fined for not providing coverage, if they exceed 49 employees. Dropping coverage also places them at a competitive disadvantage. Employees on their own can’t obtain the type of coverage available through employers’ group plans, and if you give them money to pay for coverage instead of coverage, that money is taxable, whereas providing health coverage is a tax-free benefit.

There is plenty of outrage over this issue, as witnessed by the number of suits ongoing to try to stop the mandates. Of course, the media isn’t providing very comprehensive news coverage, because it is not an issue most press people are in sympathy with.

People find it easier to argue a theory than to practice it.

One of the reasons objections are muted is that when it gets down to their own “late 30′s” baby and the OB-GYN says, “This one worked, you have the baby you wanted; what do you want to do with the dozen embryos still on ice?” Christian people as well as others will agree to “disposal”.
Or, if it worked, but the prediction is Downes Syndrome, Christian people may also ‘eliminate’ that one, in hope of a “more perfect” baby.

Also, there is very mixed legal action in the case of dedicated Christian employers (lay) who do not want to fund recreational sex at their and other employees’ expense. Our church leaders may think the problem is solved if Concordia Plan is exempt, but the laity get the impression that they are behaving just like Congress: “one law for us, another for the rest of you.”

Finally, these “medications” up to and including late term abortions are already in many insurance plans, including those of most religious organizations, e.g., elca. (Have been, for a long time, with co-pays.)

Why do these relatively cheap pills now have to be “free”!?
That’s the part that galls those who have large pharmacy bills for “necessary to life” medications.

@14 Careful, you’ll be called a “groundling”