It begins: Catholic university drops all health-insurance coverage in response to HHS mandate

posted at 12:41 pm on May 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Actually, it’s not just the mandate, but also the costs that will drive Franciscan University to bail out of the health-insurance business.  Before now, the Catholic institution required all students to carry health insurance; those who did not have them were required to buy insurance through the school.  That’s not entirely dissimilar to the ObamaCare mandate, although of course attendance at the school is entirely voluntary.

Franciscan University put the HHS contraception mandate as its first justification, however:

“The Obama Administration has mandated that all health insurance plans must cover “women’s health services” including contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing medications as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),” the university says in a new post on its website. “Up to this time, Franciscan University has specifically excluded these services and products from its student health insurance policy, and we will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.”

“Additionally, the PPACA increased the mandated maximum coverage amount for student policies to $100,000 for the 2012-13 school year, which would effectively double your premium cost for the policy in fall 2012, with the expectation of further increases in the future,” FUS continues.

“Due to these changes in regulation by the federal government, beginning with the 2012-13 school year, the University 1) will no longer require that all full-time undergraduate students carry health insurance, 2) will no longer offer a student health insurance plan, and 3) will no longer bill those not covered under a parent/guardian plan or personal plan for student health insurance,” the college said.

A Franciscan University employee blasted the Obama administration and the HHS mandate in an essay at Catholic Vote:

In short: We. Will. Not. Comply. And our students are the first one who will feel the pinch.

Those who are left high and dry by the administration’s intrusion into our freedom to practice our faith are our students. Who knows how many will have insurance, how many will not, how many will have insurance of the quality we offered before, how many will be able to stay on their parents’ insurance through the extended adolescence provision of Obamacare, etc.

But there you have it: thanks to the government’s firm desire to make sure the one or two women left in the country who did not have easy and cheap access to contraceptives, abortofacients [sic], and sterilization procedures, our 2,500 students will no longer have an insurance plan ready and waiting for them.

As LifeNews points out, Franciscan warned of this outcome in September, while the Obama administration contemplated how to structure the religious exemption to the contraception/sterilization mandate.  Dozens of Catholic colleges and universities insisted that they would not comply with a government mandate to provide products and services that violate religious doctrine.  As a result, in just this one case, hundreds if not thousands of students will have to get their coverage from the government, subsidized by taxpayers, unless they can get coverage from Mom & Dad.

The cost issue shows that the problem won’t end with the religious exemption.  Franciscan is a relatively small school, one that cannot self-insure and save costs through managing their own premiums.  Many small businesses will have the same problems meeting the new coverage mandates even apart from contraception and sterilization, making it easier to pay the penalties for not providing the insurance and throwing employees onto public subsidies instead.  That will cause an explosion in the overall cost of ObamaCare, and a much higher burden for taxpayers.

Franciscan’s refusal to comply with the HHS edict shows that this issue will not go away quietly for Obama among Catholics and members of other faiths less inclined to vote Democrat.  As more Catholic institutions opt out, the issue will get more and more acute for Obama as bishops press hard for freedom of religious conscience.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Obey the laws or shut your doors. If it’s good enough for a tax-paying enterprise it’s certainly good enough for these tax freeloaders.

plewis on May 15, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Fortunately for you plewis, religious bigotry is a curable condition.

Happy Nomad on May 15, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Here, plewis. This one’s for you.

” If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams

Cleombrotus on May 15, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Sebelius needs to be excommunicated solely on the basis that she was trying to sell the mandate as government’s way of helping religious institutions do what they want to (but can’t because of doctrine) by forcing them to comply.

Happy Nomad on May 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Sebelius is already an excommunicated Catholic.

Trafalgar on May 15, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Alternatively, a $37 plan could be laughed at as being an unrealistic and ineffective option. Speaking generally, an insurance plan should enable you to get healthy if you’re sick. We can disagree on what ‘sick’ is, but i think we agree that insurance should at least do that. If we do agree that they should enable the purchaser to get healthy when they’re sick, we’re agreeing to force private business to do something.

segasagez on May 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM

That’s an example of a very wrong perception of what “insurance” generally is. Health insurance is no more supposed to be covering family doctor visits and other mundane expenses than car insurance is supposed to cover gas, tires, and windshield washer liquid. Like any other insurance, it was originally designed to protect people against unexpected liabilities – a trauma, a hospitalization, or an onset of a catastrophic illness. As usual, the government has decided to mess in and married insurance coverage to employment through tax deduction. It suddenly became beneficial to stuff as much coverage into insurance as possible to make the expense tax-deductible. The rest, you likely know.

Archivarix on May 15, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I agree that insurance plans can be incredibly misleading, and ultimately may not really insure purchasers for anything. But isn’t that where requiring insurance providers to do certain things come in?

segasagez on May 15, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Not really, no, because the part that you’re missing here is that the insurance mandate is not just to “have insurance”, full stop, there is a certain minimum required level of insurance you need to have. I’m going to go out on a limb and take a stab that the $37/mo plans a). don’t have the same level of coverage as the university plans, and b). probably don’t meet the minimum coverage for the mandate.

And what happens if you buy that cheapo plan, aside from having substantially less coverage? You also will be penalized by the federal government for not having “enough” insurance. And that fine will be assessed to YOUR tax form, not the university, not your cut-rate insurer, but YOU.

The government is pushing these people out of the provider pool (violating by default the “you can keep your doctor” sham of a promise), and essentially forcing you to enroll in one of the new exchanges, in order to get a non-penalizing level of insurance at a rate you as an individual can afford. YOU are the one being made subject to a requirement in such a case, not an insurer.

The Schaef on May 15, 2012 at 2:01 PM

The last time I was a university student, we were required to have health insurance and there was a plan offered by the university. I don’t recall the premiums, but I took it because it came with a deal where if you used the university’s student health center and hospital all copays and deductibles were waived. I had my oldest child while I was in school and paid a total of $200 out of pocket for all my prenatal care and the delivery.

toby11 on May 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM

The best use for high-deductible plans is to use them for catastrophic coverage and tax write-offs – thanks [to] God and Bush for HSA accounts!

Archivarix on May 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM

My preferred insurance is a high-deductible plan and I take care of anything under whatever that floor is. (I’ve never made enough or had the right amount of expenses to use anything other than the standards deductions on my taxes.) It seems to me that that is what insurance is for: to pay for the unexpected expenses, not for predictable and routine stuff. That way I cover my obligations to pay for what I receive should I need care, but don’t have to go through a “Mother, may I?” gave with everything.

Kevin K. on May 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Sorry, “game”, not “gave” in my last sentence above.

Kevin K. on May 15, 2012 at 2:06 PM

By the way, there are “administrative fees” that get paid to the university for the coverage. So the university makes you purchase the insurance through the insurance provider, than gets an “administrative fee”. How that’s not just a kickback, I have no idea.

segasagez on May 15, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Most “administrative fees” are a bogus way to pad the bill. It doesn’t matter who does the padding, be it a university, a cell phone company, or a car salesman.

Archivarix on May 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM

There are administrative costs to the university, as they have to handle enrollment and they would typically handle the premium payments, not to mention they have to go out and get the plan in the first place. I have no idea if the fees they get back are more or less comparable, or not. And if it’s a self-funded plan, the university handles all of the administration, except what they pay the third-party administrator to take over.

toby11 on May 15, 2012 at 2:07 PM

My preferred insurance is a high-deductible plan and I take care of anything under whatever that floor is. (I’ve never made enough or had the right amount of expenses to use anything other than the standards deductions on my taxes.) It seems to me that that is what insurance is for: to pay for the unexpected expenses, not for predictable and routine stuff.

Kevin K. on May 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM

HSA plans are God-sent when it comes to pay for unavoidable healthcare expenses such as glasses, dental procedures, and maintenance prescription meds. They are inevitably incurred every year, and yet very few people are so sick as to reliably itemize them. The HSA savings also create a buffer for those expenses; not everyone has a couple grands spare when a dental implant is called for.

Archivarix on May 15, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Obey the laws or shut your doors. If it’s good enough for a tax-paying enterprise it’s certainly good enough for these tax freeloaders.

plewis on May 15, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Who’s not obeying the law here plewis? It is perfectly lawful to not offer coverage at all. If the Constitution as amended is the ultimate law of the land (and it is), isn’t the federal government disobeying the law?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I bolded that part to help your comprehension.

JeffWeimer on May 15, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Sebelius is already an excommunicated Catholic.

Trafalgar on May 15, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I’m sorry I meant that the Pope should make it official complete with a suitable-for-framing Papal certificate!

Happy Nomad on May 15, 2012 at 2:14 PM

One wonders what will happen when (I hope, as many of us do) The SCOTUS strikes down Obamacare? But give props to the administration at Franciscan University.

Is there an insurance company interested in talking to Franciscan University?

CiLH1 on May 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Obey the laws or shut your doors. If it’s good enough for a tax-paying enterprise it’s certainly good enough for these tax freeloaders.

plewis on May 15, 2012 at 1:47 PM

The law is unconstitutional in a couple key ways, and this is one of them.

dogsoldier on May 15, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Health insurance is no more supposed to be covering family doctor visits and other mundane expenses than car insurance is supposed to cover gas, tires, and windshield washer liquid. Like any other insurance, it was originally designed to protect people against unexpected liabilities – a trauma, a hospitalization, or an onset of a catastrophic illness.

That’s certainly a perception of what insurance should be, but health insurance is simply pre-paid care. You can draw a line of what care is, but that’s a subjective decision. When we insure objects, we tend to call it a warranty rather than insurance, but the same logic applies. What’s covered is what’s covered.

By the way, you can buy “gas, tires, and windshield washer liquid” insurance for your car if you so choose.

segasagez on May 15, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Yes, I think that students will be negatively impacted by the fact that they won’t have the university’s insurance plan as an option.

Why would they be negatively impacted though? The only reason the university’s insurance plan was an option was because the university mandated students to have health insurance?

segasagez on May 15, 2012 at 2:33 PM

But this is what Obama wants, right? Since the “private” market is clearly not meeting the public’s needs, we’ll have to step in and create a government plan. :-/

Violina23 on May 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Happy Nomad on May 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Google: Kathleen Sebelius excommunicated and see what comes up. There are claims that she isn’t allowed to take holy communion.

From her wikipedia page.
Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Fred Naumann asked that Sebelius no longer receive Holy Communion because of her position on abortion. Naumann criticized Sebelius for vetoing HS SB 389. The action received mixed reviews in the Catholic press.

Dr Evil on May 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM

This is such an easy problem to solve. All Franciscan University, and all other Catholic and other Christian schools and churches, have to do is simply convert to Islam, the Great Religion of Peace, as Islam is exempt from Obamacare. Obviously they are only refusing to make this conversion because they are racist against Obama and Muslims.

VorDaj on May 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Sandra Fluke…hit hardest…

Electrongod on May 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM

This is Franciscan University in Steubenville, a faithful Catholic university. Fluke attends Georgetown, which is Catholic in name only. It remains to be seen what they’ll do.

Ward Cleaver on May 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM

I’m sorry I meant that the Pope should make it official complete with a suitable-for-framing Papal certificate!

Happy Nomad on May 15, 2012 at 2:14 PM

That would be a nice touch, but it’s totally unnecessary for the Church to take any further action. Same for Biden, Pelosi and other excommunicated Catholics. And each time they receive communion at Mass they place their souls in deeper peril by degrading and demeaning the Host. Jusdgement Day is not going to be pretty for these folks and I don’t think they’ve thought the whole thing through.

Trafalgar on May 15, 2012 at 2:54 PM

This was absolutely baked into the solution.

All your religion are belong to socialism.

Just remember, Nancy is a devout Catholic and Bark is a Christian of some denomination, kkay?

CorporatePiggy on May 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Google: Kathleen Sebelius excommunicated and see what comes up. There are claims that she isn’t allowed to take holy communion.

From her wikipedia page.
Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Fred Naumann asked that Sebelius no longer receive Holy Communion because of her position on abortion. Naumann criticized Sebelius for vetoing HS SB 389. The action received mixed reviews in the Catholic press.

Dr Evil on May 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM

People don’t take communion, they receive it. She can present herself for communion, then it’s up to the priest at whatever Mass she’s attending (a priest might not know who she is, or recognize her, for that matter) to give it to her, or deny it.

If she presents herself for communion, and receives it, it’s all on her, as she’s receiving it unworthily, and condemning herself. Excommunication isn’t meant as a punishment – it’s intended to be medicinal (ironic, huh?), to make the person change their ways, and to come back into line with Church teaching.

Ward Cleaver on May 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

“It begins”

…how can two little words be so darn ominous?

It has indeed begun. This is only the first round.

MelonCollie on May 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Here, plewis. This one’s for you.

” If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams

Cleombrotus on May 15, 2012 at 1:57 PM

.
Yeeeouch. That’ll leave a mark.

Great quote.

listens2glenn on May 15, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Sebelius is already an excommunicated Catholic.

Trafalgar on May 15, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Not by formal decree, but “latae sententiae,” which is Latin for “sentence (already) passed,” which is to say by virtue of the offending act by itself. Canon 915 defines one who “persists in manifest grave sin” as being unable to receive the sacraments. There are three operative words here. “Grave,” that is, a mortal sin; “manifest,” that is, the act was and is public; “persists,” upon being corrected publicly, the offender persists publicly.

In addition, Canon 1398 says that “a person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” This can also happen, not only through the actual procurement, but through cooperation or facilitation.

I am told that she already refrains from receiving Communion. I have no way to verify this, nor do I care to.

manwithblackhat on May 15, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Ward Cleaver on May 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Georgetown invited Kathleen Sebelius to speak.

It states she was invited by Jesuits – I don’t know any practicing Catholic clergy that supports aborting human beings or giving a speaking honor to a high profile abortion proponent.

Father Morris said on Fox News that the Catholic leadership was supposed to handle things like this at the local level. Bill O’Reilly said that the Vatican has to get involved. I agree with with Bill O’Reilly we need Pope Benedict XVI to send us reinforcements.

Dr Evil on May 15, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Not by formal decree, but “latae sententiae,” which is Latin for “sentence (already) passed,” which is to say by virtue of the offending act by itself.

I am told that she already refrains from receiving Communion. I have no way to verify this, nor do I care to.

manwithblackhat on May 15, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Fully agree, and there is no need or requirement for a formal decree of excommunication from the Vatican…she’s already brought in on herself. I will give her some respect for no longer receiving Communion, at least she’s not giving the finger to the Church by doing so. Now, if we could just get the excommunicated Catholics Pelosi and Biden to give the Church and the Host the same respect.

Trafalgar on May 15, 2012 at 3:14 PM

“It begins”
…how can two little words be so darn ominous?
It has indeed begun. This is only the first round.
MelonCollie on May 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Nah, Collie, they’re invigorating; encouraging. A call to arms. It’s the only thing that will stop this madness; civil non-compliance by a large enough percentage of the population.

Cleombrotus on May 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM

No, this isn’t true. It would be prepaid care if you were making prepayments to a clinic.

There really isn’t anything to argue here. I think we may even disagree on how commerce works. Just because you don’t pay the person that ultimately provides the service for the service doesn’t mean you aren’t paying for the service. If I pay a lawn-care service to do my lawn, and they hire someone else to plant the flowers, aren’t I paying for those flowers to be planted even though I haven’t directly paid the person planting them?

Why on earth would you make this claim? A warranty is something that is received or purchased via a seller. Insurance is something purchased from a third party.

Umm, that’s not true. But ok.

By the way, you can buy “gas, tires, and windshield washer liquid” insurance for your car if you so choose

.

And it’s stupid to do so. It’s not the point of auto-insurance at all.

You’re begging the question. The point of auto-insurance is to provide the services that the auto-insurance covers. That’s the point of auto insurance and the point of any insurance. Insurance should cover what you purchase it to cover.

Options have value. Anytime value is taken away from someone, that someone is negatively impacted.

Options inherently do not have value. If I were at a fork in the road, and I could go left or right, the fact that I can choose which direction to go has no more value than if there was no choice at all.

I’m sure many students purchased the university health insurance for reasons other than the requirement to be insured.

Why are you so sure? How are you coming to this conclusion? Anecdotally, I know don’t know of anyone who has ever purchased a university’s health insurance plan for any reason other than the fact that they were required to by the school. Do you?

segasagez on May 15, 2012 at 3:27 PM

segasagez…the thread is getting confusing! but I agree with you about university plans…poor coverage and I think a big “kick-back” to the university (same as the book stores before the internet).

but I think the bigger issue is what gov’t intervention brings to the health care market…some hints in this story that will tell you what to expect if/when Obamacare gets enacted…I expect many private plans will get the ax and we’ll have Medicare III.

teejk on May 15, 2012 at 3:37 PM

teejk on May 15, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Yeah, I’m not very good at staying on topic. I go where the conversation takes me.

But yes, I agree that we can expect similar things in Obamacare is enacted. Personally, I think something has to be done though. There needs to be some middle group between worthless $37 dollar insurance and forcing insurers to cover something that’s relatively trivial.

segasagez on May 15, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Thank You, Emperor Turdhead – your little plan is working out great!

Pork-Chop on May 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM

You’re begging the question. The point of auto-insurance is to provide the services that the auto-insurance covers. That’s the point of auto insurance and the point of any insurance. Insurance should cover what you purchase it to cover

.
Butt-hurt stupidity. You buy insurance to protect yourself from liabilities at the minimum. You hit a mercedes and send the driver to the hospital and with the proper level of protection, you’re covered, else the driver comes after you for the difference in damages. Full-coverage insurance protects the bank that loaned you the money to buy that car. If the car is totaled, you won’t see a dime until the bank gets their money back. Any other frills like window replacement etc are just that – frills. If you never break your windsheild, you’ll never see a dime from all those years of “pre-payment”. That’s where you have to use the brains God gave you, but all mushed up by your teachers, to figure out your risks vs value options. IOW, “should I pay an extra $100/year in case i break a window, or should I just eat the $500 if it happens?” Don’t forget to add the deductible factor, as in “Is it still worth the extra $100/year if I also have to pay $250 deductible, just to replace the windshield?”

If you’re a reasonably safe driver, all the frills make no sense given the odds. That is in essence what insurance is. the insurance agent calculates the odds to come up with a price. If you live in a certain zip code that puts you on the Southside of Chicago, your insurance will necessarily be high, compared to a farmboy that lives 50 miles south of Chicago.

Options inherently do not have value. If I were at a fork in the road, and I could go left or right, the fact that I can choose which direction to go has no more value than if there was no choice at all.

Another stupid thot process. You assume you’re just aimlessy following the road wherever it might take you. If you need to get to work on time, taking the wrong turn has a cost. Even if both roads could get you there at the same time, there are circumstances that can cause you to reflect and state that you took the wrong turn, because the one you chose, whappended to have a traffic jam causing you to be late.

Why are you so sure? How are you coming to this conclusion? Anecdotally, I know don’t know of anyone who has ever purchased a university’s health insurance plan for any reason other than the fact that they were required to by the school. Do you?

Because over the years, as healthcare/hospitalization cost have escalated, the schools learned to mandate the insurance, so that if you get hurt, you’re not left hanging, nor they on the hook. It’s one thing in the past that a broken arm might cost a couple hundred dollars and nowadays cost thousands.

Given your statements to date, I take it that you’re young and maybe on your first car that your parents are helping to pay for. Sort of like Oboobi a few years back opining on the car insurance business when relating having just moved to Chicago and going about trying to find some personal transport – head full of mush and no understanding whatsoever.

segasagez on May 15, 2012 at 3:27 PM

AH_C on May 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Franciscan’s refusal to comply with the HHS edict shows that this issue will not go away quietly for Obama among Catholics and members of other faiths less inclined to vote Democrat. As more Catholic institutions opt out, the issue will get more and more acute for Obama as bishops press hard for freedom of religious conscience.

Call me a cynic, but I expect that much nearer the election Obama will announce a “freedom of religious conscience” exception and the Bishops will line up lauding Obama and pivot to support Obamacare 100%, as most of the U.S. Catholic Bishops are liberals. So, I am not holding out hope for this issue or the bishops to help us defeat Obama.

Monkeytoe on May 15, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Cleombrotus on May 15, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Hey, Cleo, here’s one for you:

Indulge in whatever absurd fantasies you will, but don’t do it on my dime
plewis

plewis on May 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Hey, Cleo, here’s one for you:

Indulge in whatever absurd fantasies you will, but don’t do it on my dime plewis

plewis on May 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM

You are so incredibly stupid and detatched from reality. It’s likely your dime was given to you after it was confiscated from her. Worthless moron.

tom daschle concerned on May 15, 2012 at 5:04 PM

tom daschle concerned on May 15, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Poor sap actually thinks he’s subsidizing the Catholic Church.

Cleombrotus on May 15, 2012 at 5:12 PM

plewis, the amount of incorrect information you have imbibed that you would have to unlearn before we could have anything approaching a reasonable dialog is staggering.

Cleombrotus on May 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM

So…students are no longer forced to buy insurance. But they can get whatever insurance they choose. What exactly is the problem again?

ZippyZ on May 15, 2012 at 6:42 PM

They can no longer purchase university sponsored insurance. That option is gone. Competition has been reduced.

blink on May 15, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Good. It wasn’t much of a competition when they automatically sign you up for the overprotective university health insurance should you be unable to produce proof of insurance. They spend millions on donated money and tuition to make elaborate buildings to then justify the extra costly plans.

Insurance overall, for anything, is a socialist scam anyhow. It is basically a transfer in equity from the healthy to the ill and the insurance companies that enable them.

antisense on May 15, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Wait until the first Catholic hospital is shut down over this issue.

It’ll hit the fan big time, and no MSM coverup will be able to hide it.

No, the MSM won’t cover it up, they’ll just round up the left’s usual suspects to blame: Romney, Buuuuush, Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court, the Pope (“he was a Nazi, don’t you know”), etc.

ugottabekiddingme on May 15, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Obey the laws or shut your doors. If it’s good enough for a tax-paying enterprise it’s certainly good enough for these tax freeloaders.

plewis on May 15, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Oh, good, so we can apply that same logic to the 40+% who pay no taxes? Great!

By the way, there’s this thing called the First Amendment that means churches — which do more and more effective charitable work than any leftists could dream — don’t have to obey unjust laws specifically meant to undermine their teaching.

You are also evidence of why no religious person, anywhere, should ever compromise with leftists. We should laugh in your face and vote people who think like you out of office.

englishqueen01 on May 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Antisense, you have no idea what you are talking about. Insurance, by definition, indemnifies someone, meaning it makes them whole again. Its purpose is to put you back to where you were before an incident that causes you financial harm.

In property and casualty insurance, an incident is probably some kind of accident, whether on your property or caused by your car. Or if you cause property damage or inadvertent harm to others and you are not in your car, your homeowner’s policy or rental policy will cover your liability in that case. The only times the policies won’t pay is when fraud or illegal acts are committed, or if the incident is not covered in the policy. You need to consult with your agent to find exactly what is and is not covered in your home and auto policies.

Most people, and I would say that includes those here at HotGas, are underinsured. I recently got my licenses and opened my own insurance agency. While in training, I learned that about 10 to 12% of most auto accidents result in claims and damages awarded in the 7 figure category. Most people only insure themselves in the 100/300/50 or so range. This means that if you cause an accident, each person in the OTHER car that you hit, is only covered up to $100K each, and $300K total for the liability claims. All property damage you cause to others is only covered for $50K. This would include their car, any building damage if the cars hit a building during the accident, any telephone poles or stop signs you knock over, etc.

What happens once the policies are exceeded? I had always assumed that the insured Underinsured coverage kicks in at that point. Meaning, the driver of the OTHER car that you hit in the accident you caused, would be covered under HIS insurance in the underinsured portion of his premium. While this might be true to pay the immediate bills, I did NOT realize that HIS insurance is going to go after the driver of the car who hit him so their costs are covered.

This means that if you have inadequate insurance, they can come after your assets for all of the costs that exceeded your coverage. If you don’t have enough assets, here in Michigan, they can garnish 25% of your wages for every year you work up until the age of 65.

So if you are trying to save money on your car insurance, the few dollars you may save every 6 months might end up costing you 25% of everything you make for all the years you work up until age 65. I was not aware of this fact until I went through the training courses.

So this weekend I had my nephew look at his policies and it only cost him an extra $50 to change his coverage up to 500/500/250 and he plans to buy an umbrella coverage to cover up to $1 million. He can get one for about $100 a year.

Why did he choose to do this? He will finish his MBA from one of the elite schools next year and will be earning $150K a year right out of the gate and have 35 years ahead of him. He didn’t want his future earnings to be in peril because he wanted to save $50 every 6 months right now.

Everyone needs to do an insurance checkup and contact their agent.

Regarding health insurance, the analogy done here about car maintenance is a pretty good one.

Back in the day before the government got involved in medicare and began to distort the natural market, health insurance used to cover major stuff, huge illnesses and surgeries. Then more and more companies began to add stuff to their coverage as extra benefits for their employees. Since health insurance benefits have been tax free, that was nice.

However, by introducing a 3rd party payer into the mix, the consumer purchase decisions and price point consciousness is now distorted. Now people have the expectations that all of their doctor visits, prescriptions, everything should be covered. People switched to HMOs to remove the deductible costs from their budgets and thus began to get used to very small copays for services and Rx.

Now, people don’t look at health insurance like a car. People expect to pay for their own car maintenance, servicing, and gasoline costs. For people who worry about their budget, they can also buy extra warranties to shield their budgets from really high repair bills but if you ever look at the costs of those extended warranties, they usually cost about the same as if a person paid out of pocket for the repairs over time. At least that has been my experience.

Obamacare just loaded up the incidentals as a requirement for coverage, regardless of whether or not a particular consumer needs that type of incidental coverage. Why on earth do I need birth control as part of my policy when I am 57 years old? Why on earth should I pay for Viagra when obviously I am not an end use of that pill? The way Obama has executed the Obamacare bill is just as horrible as the way Congress rammed it through.

We need SCOTUS to get this monstrosity overturned ASAP. Then we have to figure out how to repair the damage of all of these mandates that are now going to not be required. I buy my own health care coverage and my bill has almost doubled since they started to debate Obamacare. I, by design, have a “grandfathered” non compliant policy. I made a decision as a consumer that it was probable that SCOTUS was going to overturn the mandates and I wanted the protection I had before Obamacare mucked everything up.

Insurance is NOT a socialist scam. What an ignorant statement to make. Insurance just transfers the RISK from a person to the insurance company. The insurance company has to manage their risks and charge accordingly.

Basically, insurance companies help protect your family if you die too young, or if you live too long (they help you with old age planning, long term care costs, life insurance, annuities, investments, etc) and they help protect you from any unexpected catastrophe that can happen to you as you live your life.

I am in Michigan, if anyone in Michigan wants a very attentive, personal agent that can help you with your family needs, please contact me. My yahoo address is the same as my screen name here. Go ahead and email me.

karenhasfreedom on May 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Where’s Damian?

See, I told you.

Resist We Much on May 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Cleombrotus on May 15, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Hey, Cleo, here’s one for you:

Indulge in whatever absurd fantasies you will, but don’t do it on my dime
plewis

plewis on May 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM

I had such high hopes for you when you planted the ill-informed but concise and snarky comment about laws and money early in the thread. The willfully ignorant have been getting stupider and stupider on this site lately.

Too bad your comeback was so bad… what does that even mean?

Quantus on May 15, 2012 at 8:03 PM

All these little reactions or situations are distractions. The final aim is Federal Health Care. That has been pushed for decades; becoming unrelenting recently. Either argue alternatives, or hop on the band wagon. The Left will continuously do more, while the consequences are irrelevent.

Create problems in order to create solutions. Rinse, repeat.

John Kettlewell on May 15, 2012 at 9:00 PM

That would be a nice touch, but it’s totally unnecessary for the Church to take any further action. Same for Biden, Pelosi and other excommunicated Catholics. And each time they receive communion at Mass they place their souls in deeper peril by degrading and demeaning the Host. Jusdgement Day is not going to be pretty for these folks and I don’t think they’ve thought the whole thing through.

Trafalgar on May 15, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Not by formal decree, but “latae sententiae,” which is Latin for “sentence (already) passed,” which is to say by virtue of the offending act by itself.

I am told that she already refrains from receiving Communion. I have no way to verify this, nor do I care to.

manwithblackhat on May 15, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Fully agree, and there is no need or requirement for a formal decree of excommunication from the Vatican…she’s already brought in on herself. I will give her some respect for no longer receiving Communion, at least she’s not giving the finger to the Church by doing so. Now, if we could just get the excommunicated Catholics Pelosi and Biden to give the Church and the Host the same respect.

Trafalgar on May 15, 2012 at 3:14 PM

thanks for you posts.

That makes me feel better, as well, that she doesn’t present herself for Communion. I pray that by the grace of God one day all of them repent and can, in good conscience, receive Communion.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29:

“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” (KJV)

Elisa on May 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM

God bless Franciscan University (in Steubenville) – I wish more Catholic Schools were truly Catholic, like they are and only about 20 others around the country.

Elisa on May 15, 2012 at 9:28 PM

By the way, there’s this thing called the First Amendment that means churches — which do more and more effective charitable work than any leftists could dream — don’t have to obey unjust laws specifically meant to undermine their teaching.

You are also evidence of why no religious person, anywhere, should ever compromise with leftists. We should laugh in your face and vote people who think like you out of office.

englishqueen01 on May 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Don’t forget the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that is still in effect for federal laws!

Illegal and Unconstitutional…

cptacek on May 15, 2012 at 10:29 PM

The government is requires that health policies cover birth control and abortions.

Medicaid is a government health policy.

Medicaid dose not cover birth control or abortions (except in 15/50 states).

Go figure what the government is thinking.

jpcpt03 on May 15, 2012 at 10:45 PM

I get their point and reasoning. Almost completely.

But I am waiting for the school or church facility that simply refuses to comply with PPPCA/Obamacare and KEEPS their plan as is. That way the federal government can sue them to comply.

Then after a long, drawn out and very public, hopefully front-page fight. The truth will be exposed.

Don’t also forget in the background we have a pending SCOTUS decision.

Marcus Traianus on May 16, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Don’t forget the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that is still in effect for federal laws!

Illegal and Unconstitutional…

cptacek on May 15, 2012 at 10:29 PM

In a sense, oxymoronic. Simply repeal any rules that infringe on the 1st.

AH_C on May 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Call me a cynic, but I expect that much nearer the election Obama will announce a “freedom of religious conscience” exception and the Bishops will line up lauding Obama and pivot to support Obamacare 100%, as most of the U.S. Catholic Bishops are liberals. So, I am not holding out hope for this issue or the bishops to help us defeat Obama.

Monkeytoe on May 15, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Likewise here. However, the Bishops had better learn from the Stupak betrayal. Better yet, they need to get an economic clue and stop expecting the Govt to do anything. What the Govt giveth, they can also take back. Best thing is for them to never get involved with “charity” in the first place.

AH_C on May 16, 2012 at 10:56 AM

AH_C ,

You buy insurance to protect yourself from liabilities at the minimum

Yes, that is a type of insurance. They call it liability insurance. It s one of many types of insurance. Flood insurance is another type of insurance. Buying flood insurance will not protect you from liabilities. Buying liability insurance will not protect you from floods.

How can we be debating something so base?

Another stupid thot process. You assume you’re just aimlessy following the road wherever it might take you. If you need to get to work on time, taking the wrong turn has a cost.

No, you are making, what is the exact definition of, an assumption. You’re assuming that the two choices have different characteristics. You’re assuming that the two options have different values. My point was that simply having options does not have value in of itself. You seem to agree by assuming those options with independent, exclusive characteristics.

Because over the years, as healthcare/hospitalization cost have escalated, the schools learned to mandate the insurance, so that if you get hurt, you’re not left hanging, nor they on the hook.

How does that have anything to do with a student deciding to purchase insurance from the school? I questioned whether any student ever purchased insurance from a school for reasons other than the fact that they were required to, and you responded by stating why schools require students to have insurance.

segasagez on May 16, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Blink,

You have no idea what you’re talking about and I wasn’t even going to respond, but I couldn’t let this stand in good faith. I would hate for someone else to read what you wrote and repeat to someone else.

This is the most ignorant statement I’ve read on here in a long, long time. Please read up on Real Options Valuation techniques.

You can argue that a Real Option isn’t worth much, but it’s pure stupidity for claiming that a Real Option (a health insurance option is most certainly a Real Option) has no inherent value.

Real option valuation states that exact opposite of your understanding of it. A health insurance option is not a real option by nature of it being an health insurance option. Real options valuation says that evaluation items in that way is inefficient and ineffective. It’s incomprehensible that you could come to that conclusion that you’ve come to with even a cursory knowledge of the principles. I mean, why do you think that call it “Real Options Valuation” instead of just “Options Valuation”?

If other people agree with your understanding of insurance, fine. I can see where confusion can arise. But this isn’t that situation. Your understanding of real option valuation is antithetical to the ideas it expresses.

segasagez on May 16, 2012 at 1:24 PM

So proud of my alma mater right now. This has received an overwhelmingly positive response from Franciscan alumni and students, because we recognize that it’s not enough to talk about our faith, we have to live it.

VanPalin on May 16, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2