The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Degrading Our Health Care

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I explain you can't have it all.
For John, BLUFI guess this is OK, and consequences shouldn't drive decisions (except in the case of Prohibition), but do we really want to stop elder care over the issue of abortion.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

With a dateline of 14 July, from Washington, DC, Reporter Steven Ertelt, writes for Life News, "Court Rules Obama Admin Can Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Obey HHS Mandate".  The lede is:
In a surprising decision, a federal appeals court has determined that a Catholic religious order, the Little Sisters of the Poor, must comply with Obamacare’s abortion mandate.  The mandate compels religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.

Without relief, the Little Sisters face millions of dollars in IRS fines because they cannot comply with the government’s mandate that they give their employees free access to contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

The thing is, we may not wish to put the Little Sisters of the Poor out of business.  And others like them.  That is the kind of thing that happened in the throes of the French Revolution (yesterday was Bastille Day) and it seriously degraded the French health care system for some time.  In the liberation that followed the overthrow of the Monarchy (a good thing), the convents and religious orders were abolished, the ones that had provided French medical care (a bad thing).

On the other hand, three days ago The New York Post announced that "death panels" are back.

Regards  —  Cliff


lance said...

We must be missing something in this story. How can Hobby Lobby not have to do this but the Sisters do? In fact the law gives you an out and Hobby Lobby was suing not to have to use the out, so what it is it that the Federal Court is ruling?

The second thing is that there are already paying for health care for the employees and it would seem that paying for cancer, heart attacks, etc would be the bigger expenses and that birth control pills and simple procedures would be a lot less expensive, on the margins.

I think this should be fought out on the bigger issue and not some statement that they can choose to serve the poor or comply with the law.

lance said...

In fact the legal expenses likely wash out the expense of providing the care.