Trouble In Paradise

[UPDATE:  HHS Secretary Sebelius addressed this very point with reporters with what sounds like a major concession to the no-contraception coverage crowd; see UPDATE below.]

Back in the Business section Katie Thomas of the Ministry of Truth discovers and covers a  problem with Obama's previously brilliant contraception compromise:

Self-Insured Complicate Health Deal

Yeah they do.  Last Saturday the Times had noted that many large Catholic institutions had slipped out of state regulation and under the Federal ERISA umbrella by self-insuring after states such as New York and California had adopted strict rules about the provision of contraception coverage to employees.  However, there was no mention of that issue in their reporting on Obama's "compromise" (or by Obama himself).

Nontheless, we now get this (my emphasis):

The Obama administration thought it had found a way to ease mounting objections to a requirement in the new health care act that all employers — including religiously affiliated hospitals and universities — offer coverage for birth control to women free of charge.

It would make the insurers cover the costs, rather than the organizations themselves.

But the administration announced the compromise plan before it had figured out how to address one conspicuous point: Like most large employers, many religiously affiliated organizations choose to insure themselves rather than hire an outside company to assume the risk.

Now, the organizations are trying to determine how to reconcile their objections to offering birth control on religious grounds with their role as insurers — or whether there can be any reconciliation at all. And the administration still cannot put the thorny issue to rest.

Uh huh - that point is so conspicuous that the Times has taken nearly a week to cover the Administration's lack of clarity on that subject.  My goodness, the bishops were making that very point on the Friday Obama announced his "compromise", but I guess the bishops don't have the Times fax number the way the White House press office does.

The administration has remained mostly silent on how self-insured institutions will be treated, other than to say that the details will be worked out in meetings with religious leaders in the days and weeks to come.

“This policy will be developed collaboratively so that the ultimate outcome works for religious employers, their workers and the public,” an administration official said Wednesday.

I have become a broken record saying the current deal as widely reported is not final and may yet change.  But the InstaPundit gets results!

Nicholas P. Cafardi, dean emeritus and professor of law at Duquesne University, a Catholic institution, said that President Obama gave the bishops exactly what they asked for.

“The only serious issue left is self-insurance,” he said Wednesday on a conference call with reporters. “But the Obama administration has said it wants to work with these organizations so they’re not required to violate their conscience. I’m sure they mean that in good faith.”

The conference call was arranged by Faith in Public Life in support of the contraception deal, so even supporters are saying that the current ground needs to be revised "in good faith".

Let's close with thoughts from Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.

“There’s been a promise to have a conversation, but we haven’t heard about when it’s going to be,” he said. “We’re waiting for that.”

UPDATE:  HHS Secretary Sebelius was asked about this by reporters today.  From the Washington Times:

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday that self-insuring religious employers will be exempted from a contraception coverage mandate, clearing up a question raised by Catholic groups and other opponents who continued protesting the rule this week.

“Yes, I think that we will apply it to both,” Mrs. Sebelius told reporters, saying a new rule the administration offered last week to quell criticism will apply both to religious employers who buy plans for their workers and to those who self-insure.

“Whether it’s an insured plan or self-insured plan, that the employer who has a religious objection doesn’t have to directly offer or pay for contraception,” she said as reporters gathered around her Wednesday after a hearing on President Obama’s proposed budget before the Senate Finance Committee.

No one knows what that means, since the rules have not been finalized.  For a religious employer who buys coverage from an insurance company, the Obama game was "Let's Pretend" - the employer pays a premium for health coverage other than contraception services and the insurer provides the contraception coverage "for free", presumably paid for by the premiums collected from the company.

Just how that accountung chicanery could be applied when the employer is also the insurer remains utterly mysterious, but Ms. Sebelius says it is all taken care of.

If the national result is similar to the outcome in New York and California, this new rule will further divide the opposition.  Large Catholic institutions went the self-insurance route; small institutions felt they could not afford the liability.

That means Notre Dame is safe.

DECLARING VICTORY WHILE CONCEDING DEFEAT: Here is how Politico covered Ms. Sebilius' remarks:

But Sebelius reiterated that the administration is committed to respecting the beliefs of religious employers, including those that self-insure.

“Whether it’s an insured plan or a self-insured plan, [the rule will mean] that the employer who has the religious objection doesn’t have to directly offer or pay for contraception,” Sebelius said.

“At the end of the day,” Sebelius said, the policy “is a big triumph for women.”

FOR THE LEGAL EAGLES:  The Times and the WSJ offer varying views on the law behind the contracption "compromise".  Just how will the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act apply?

LIFE'S MYSTERIES:  Amidst some info on the self-insurance market the Times includes this:

In a curious twist, several Catholic organizations have chosen to self-insure in recent years to avoid the requirements of the state mandates, said Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.

Curiouser and curiouser.

NANCY PELOSI: Make 'em pay!  Where is the liberal respect for a diversity of viewpoints?

Comments

[A Casual Observation]

First

[Not Sara]

I know I am in the minority, but I still think the Catholic Church will cave.

[LibertyAtStake]

And I'm self-employed. The employee is demanding the owner open his books to explain the lack of a pay raise this year. The owner is offering the employee a compromise - he'll have the accountant do an independent 3rd party audit. I'm really good at compartmentalizing like that.

d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

[MarkO]

By the way, the regs have been finalized. Without any change.

[Not Sara]

Minority here at JOM.

[Giddyap Go!]

Heh, MarkO, that's like 'collaboration without conversation'. Sounds like a pair of horses missing one of them. Or a horse without a carriage.
=======

[Not Sara]

I think the Obama administration is so delighted with the way the Republican candidates are "shaping up" (ie Rick Santorum being in the lead) that they will forge ahead knowing that the majority of the people will follow with whatever they decide.

[Marriage without Love.]

Whoa, Hoss!
======

[MarkO]

Wise sayings?

http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/caddyshack/basho.wav

[MarkO]

Bad link, sorry: "The Zen philosopher Basho once wrote, 'A flute with no holes is not a flute. And a doughnut with no hole is a danish.'" - [Chevy Chase]

[Appalled]

Look, the administration had a spiraling problem on their hands, and they came up with a quickie solution to stamp out the fire. I'm not sure whether anyone in the administration -- which is not well stocked with benefit experts, to the best of my knowledge -- had a clue about self-insured plans or not. If somebody did, I bet he was argued oput of any objections by being told that what mattered was not whether a proposed solution worked, but whether a proposed solution was proposed.

It is going to take candidates focusing on the bogosity of the Presidential solution to get this issue any traction. Problem is -- Santorum just objects regardless -- and probably could care less about the logistics. Romney does not liker making these sort of arguments -- though, as a technocrat at heart, he's ideally situated to make this point.

[maryrose]

Not Sara;
You are in the minority on this because you fail to realize the all out assault on religion and the Catholic Church that this obammy administration has launched. This will not stand. As a practicing Catholic I can tell you no amount of spin is going to transform this HHS mandate into an acceptable edict. My hope is that the Senate votes it down and then the ball is in Obama's court. He doesn't have the balls to veto it so case closed. Catholic Church 1 Obama-Zero

[Not Sara]

Maryrose, It might not be acceptable, but, IMO, it will pass.

[Ms. Trish]

The first three paragraphs from the local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News:

"The University of Dayton [a Catholic university run by the Marianists] is sticking to its employee health insurance plan that covers contraceptive care, coverage that has become a hot-button issue as conservative politicians and Catholic bishops decry a federal health care edict they say infringes upon religious freedom.

“Our Catholic identity is at the heart of our institution’s mission, but, in light of the importance of the health of our employees and the prevention of disease, we entered into these plans,” said Teri Rizvi, UD’s associate vice president for communications. “We are not changing our employee health care insurance coverage.”

UD’s employee insurance plan doesn’t cover abortion or abortion-inducing drugs, but does cover contraceptive measures including birth control pills, vasectomies and tubal ligations."

[maryrose]

Paging Klobuchar, Tester, McCaskill Nelson. It will cost them their re-election if they vote the wrong way on this.

[Jack is Back!]

Not Sara,

Are you a Catholic? If you are do you regularly attend mass, take sacrements and participate in parish ministries? Reason I ask, is that if you do then you must know that the Bishop's and the priests cannot in good conscience allow the idea of violating the basic tenet of the church by allowing the government to dictate what they can believe and what antithetical thinking they must accept. By accepting the current regulation (with the Obama accommodation) they lose any credibility amongst their faithful.

At our parish we start every mass with a prayer for the unborn which is pasted inside the front cover of the hymnal/missal in every pew. Imagine, "caving" in on this issue and then asking your faithful to continue to say this prayer. Not. Going. To. Happen.

[maryrose]

Marianists are like the Jesuits- they do what they want. My 3 brothers were taught by Marianists at Saint Joseph High School. Thankfully they are all conservatives.

[Ignatz]

--I'm not sure whether anyone in the administration -- which is not well stocked with benefit experts, to the best of my knowledge -- had a clue about self-insured plans or not.--

They need only go to the head man if they have any questions, appalled.
As he has explicitly told us he knows more about these issues than the experts.
One need only listen to his dissertations on the nuances of auto insurance, what constitutes health insurance industry overhead and the old profit and earnings ratio.

[matt]

From the LA Times:

"Addressing a crowd of about 1,000 at an outdoor reception, Obama needled Angelenos about the weather — "You're all cold. This is balmy, people" — then talked about the change he promised in the 2008 campaign, and the depth of the nation's economic troubles when he took office."

Blame Bush.....It's not my fault.

[matt]

Let's put some more lipstick on that pig. Yahoo news reports:

"Home buying: Most affordable in decades"

Of course if other sources are saying rentals are at an all time high that might conflict slightly with the media hype.

[psmithez]

If you refuse to hand out drugs (or abortion pills) but tell the teenager to get it from your associate out in the back lot, how does that change your involvement?

[matt]

that is the archetypical leftist/abortionist response.

Back alley contraceptives. What a moronic analogy.

Either you stand for something or you'll stand for anything. That's what the Left is attacking.

[Danube of Thought]

I think the administration will stick to its guns on this issue because they can, and because they know they simply cannot lose to either Santorum or Romney regardless. This regulation will stand until it gets to the courts. And that won't be until 2013.

[Stan]

Fox News was reporting this on Friday morning.

[Appalled]

Ms TRish:

That Dayton Daily News article has a certain bias to it -- enough so, that I wonder if the quotation was not selective. Here are the concluding paragraphs:

The compromise hasn’t mollified U.S. bishops who, after initially showing support for it, have renewed efforts to mount legislative and court challenges. The bishops support legislation that would exempt all employers, not just religiously affiliated ones, from covering contraceptives. They say Catholic-owned businesses shouldn’t have to pay for services that violate their owners’ consciences. Abortion, sterilization and the use of contraceptives are contrary to Catholic teachings.

The bishops have found support among GOP leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner, R-West Chester Twp., who has called the federal edict an attack on religious liberty.

But the bishops’ position isn’t universally echoed by Catholic organizations.

“The bishops’ blanket opposition appears to serve the interests of a political agenda, not the needs of the American people,” according to a statement by Catholics United, a nonpartisan social justice group. The group said the bishops are becoming isolated from the institutions most affected by the rule.

The Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities said it is “encouraged” by Obama’s compromise, but withheld further comment until “critical details” of the federal regulations emerge. The Catholic Health Association said it was “very pleased” with the compromise and looks forward to reviewing the specifics. Catholic Charities USA called it “a step in the right direction.”

Also, once Obamacare is fully in place -- Catholic employers will have an option comporting with their mission -- drop the plans. Their employees will remain covered, and their money will not be going to pay for birth control, except in the most indirect sense via the "penalties".

[Not Sara]

Well, The University of Dayton--see Ms. Trish's post-- is a Catholic university, and they are complying--granted run by Marianists, but who is to say that other Catholic universities will not do the same?
And JiB, I am not a Catholic, but I can see many, many Catholics (who are only hearing the contraception part), accepting this--most of the Catholics I know use many forms of birth control--only the most, most devout practice the two acceptable forms (to the Church). I just think the Dems are framing this as birth control and not mentioning (nor are the Republicans!) the abortion pill in the bill.

[Rocco]

The Society of Mary aka Marianists venerate Mary in their worship of our Lord. Isn't Our Lady of Guadalupe also The Patroness of the Unborn?

[Jack is Back!]

DoT,

But there is an earlier court case that could decide this in June, right?

I believe that is why the Regime will do nothing more and neither will the Bishop's (except for extensive legislative initiatives and PR). 6 Catholics on the SCOTUS but one of them is Sotomayor and I wonder how her wise Latina personna and intellect will react.

Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy - and you have to wonder if there is a little "emotive" justice at play here?

[Danube of Thought]

Well, yes, JiB--if the SCt voids the entire law then this regulation evaporates.

"Home buying: Most affordable in decades"

Dog bites man. Just another way of saying "home values at lowest level in decades."

[Jane]

If it is accepted it will be a direct result of the repubs failure to frame the narrative correctly. They can talk about contraception or they can talk about the constitution. The former is a loser, the latter not so much.

Romney and Santorum should take a week off, sit back and figure out what is going on in this country. Their talking points are ridiculous. both need to develop a theme and stick to it.

Otherwise I agree with DOT and I'm off to the island.

[Not Sara]

Exactly, Jane! The Repubs have NOT framed the narrative correctly. If I had an island, I would go. DOOM is what I think.

[AliceH]

I might possibly be in agreement w/ Not Sara (it's nuanced...).

I welcome and embrace the strong leadership by the USCCB being shown these last few weeks regarding the contraception mandate. I am especially pleased by the expansion of the statements of principle to cover all individuals of conscience. I am, however, not forgetting that before the ARA, the same USCCB supported nationalizing health care, and raised no objections to imposing a mandate for all to buy health insurance or pay a tax/fine. The objections they did have were limited to the details on what exemptions Catholic Institutions would retain or be granted.

I'd hope they see now that once the government is the health-care decider, we all lose our rights to decide. I hope they maintain seeing that this is not about contraception but freedom. Nonetheless, given the history of support for federal programs mandating "social justice", I will not be surprised if some further compromise is reached, worded just carefully enough to address the specific and immediate concerns of the Catholic Church, and leaving the rest of us suffering the same imposition but with no recourse.

[Janet]

I just got a call & I've got some Cuccinelli volunteers coming over. I think I'm gonna be a delegate for my district's Republican convention. Just the local group that votes on who gets to go to the state convention.
Yikes!

[Kevin Spires]

What about the individual health insurance market?

Will I have to buy a policy that covers these things and a hundred other mandates?

[Danube of Thought]

"Romney and Santorum should take a week off, sit back and figure out what is going on in this country. Their talking points are ridiculous. both need to develop a theme and stick to it."

Bingo. Both these guys are unimaginably hapless. Two unattractive losers slugging it out.

[Captain Hate]

then talked about the change he promised in the 2008 campaign, and the depth of the nation's economic troubles when he took office."

He had access to data which communicated to anybody with a functioning cortex the depth of the problems and campaigned that he, and only he, would be able to overcome it. Too bad we don't have an opposition party with candidates who are willing to point this out.

[Sandy Daze]

There is no way possible for Conservatives and Republicans and others to frame the debate. Come on. Haven't we just seen the latest iteration of journolist just within the last few days?

We, readers here and elsewhere, must not succumb to the latest polls and such. The media is controlled. The polls are if not controlled, certainly influenced. We know that.

Stay true and you will get through the storm.

I am disappointed to read some of the comments on earlier threads that somehow or another, the only way to fight Voldemort is on the economy.

I say, and I think I am correct, that he needs to be fought on every front possible.

So, the USCCB has drawn a line over the insurance mandates--and rightly so. That line was NOT drawn by the Republican Party, it was drawn by the Bishops.

You know what, the Bishops are perfectly entitled to speak their voice, speak their belief, speak their conscience.

Economic conservatives should raise their voice similarly.

"What this is about for $1000, Alex"
(next post)

OWG,
Sandy

[Ignatz]

--and because they know they simply cannot lose to either Santorum or Romney regardless--

I have come to the conclusion these ever more numerous and pessimistic opinions are merely a cynical ploy for more and better pics of lovely young lasses.

[Porchlight]

Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy - and you have to wonder if there is a little "emotive" justice at play here?

When do the Obamacare oral arguments begin? Next month? This is quite the stretch of history in the making we're in right now.

[Ben Franklin]

Academics......don't they know this is Jihad?

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/ud-to-keep-birth-control-coverage-for-employees-1329319.html

[Captain Hate]

Tammy Bruce is whaling on Willard for saying "Obama loves the country; just differently than I do". Jerry Sandusky loves children; just differently than I do.

Please take the gloves off in dealing with this punk.

[Ms. Trish]

Yes, Appalled @ 12:48, I did quote selectively and pointed that out when I mentioned it was the first three paragraphs.

My intention was to highlight that our local Catholic university is not in compliance with the bishops/Church as they already offer the HHS mandated services, except for the abortion or abortion-inducing drugs. That's in those paragraphs I quoted.

Sorry if you were confused.

[Porchlight]

Nonetheless, given the history of support for federal programs mandating "social justice", I will not be surprised if some further compromise is reached, worded just carefully enough to address the specific and immediate concerns of the Catholic Church, and leaving the rest of us suffering the same imposition but with no recourse.

Well stated. I can't add anything to it. This is what I worry, as well.

[Rick Ballard]

"a cynical ploy for more and better pics of lovely young lasses"

You've got an extra 'l' too many in there, Ignatz.

[Not Sara]

"Two unattractive losers slugging it out"--EXACTLY DoT!! Now, what do we do? DOOM, again I say.

[AliceH]

Kevin Spires: The law as written gives the HHS total power to define and require anything and everything. It applies to all insurers, as well as offerings on the proposed 'exchanges'.

I can add 2 data points for you:
1) I just signed up for an individual health insurance plan. The application included asking if I objected to certain items (included contraception) and noted that my premiums would not be affected by my answer. I anticipate that question will be dropped in near term as irrelevant.

2) My premiums for my new individual plan are based on MY state's insurance regulations, and consequently I'll be saving nearly $4K/year by dropping my company's retirement package, which complies with the most demanding states' regulations (we blame California but I really don't know). I assume the Federal regulations being rolled out will rapidly render the difference (and my costs) meaningless - and not by lowering my old plan's costs.

[Sandy Daze]

"What is Power, Alex?"

In any left revolution, be it progressive, bolshevik, socialist, fascist, maoist, or bolivaran, it is necessary to knock down organized religion. The Catholic Church competes for the hearts and minds of people and does so effectively, as do the evangelical Protestant churches, etc. Further, the Church is organized and so can put out a message of opposition.

So at some point the revolution has to take the Church on, or lose. Socialists today understand the power the Church had in Poland in the 1970s, in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s, and in Venezuela today. The current revolution will not make the mistake of allowing the Church to survive long-term.

If the revolution is strong enough to take out the Church directly, it does so. But if not, it has to take on the Church in ways that compromise the Church’s moral authority and organization. It’s rather Alinsky-like, eh?

(continued)

[bgates]

psmithez didn't deserve that, matt. He was saying that Obama's "compromise" of having abortifacients distributed by the insurance company as something they do for their customers instead of as something that's part of the coverage they offer their customers is as transparent a charade as a drug dealer who distributes out his back door instead of his front.

[matt]

already, the administration has taken steps to try to drive private charities to the fringes. This is simply one more part of their statist plan.

Marginalize them. Force them to compromise their ideals. Force them to live up to their ideals while undermining them.

This is Alinsky 101.

Now the papers are running stories on Debbie Wasserman Schultz and how wonderful she is. The response should be to televise some of her vituperative rantings in contrast with say, a speaker at a Tea Party event.

When maxine Waters is calling her political opponents names like demons and Satan, the only appropriate response is to expose the fraud.

[Not Sara]

On brokered convention--Sarah Palin says "I would do whatever I could to help." Yikes!

[HeatherRadish]

"but, in light of the importance of the health of our employees and the prevention of disease"

What disease do birth control pills prevent? The ads all say flat out they do not prevent STDs or AIDS.

[Not Sara]

Well, Heather, Obama did say he did not want his girls "punished with a baby," so, I guess the Dems and Obama consider pregnancy a disease.

[Sandy Daze]

Hence contraception today. This is no mistake on the part of the revolutionary left employed within the Obama administration. They understand that contraception is a popular issue, that most people either favor widespread availability or are libertarian enough to say that it isn’t their personal business what others do. Many Catholics use contraceptives despite Church teaching. Combine it with the health-care issue and it’s a two-fer, since it now shows the ‘popularity’ of ObamaCare.

So the contraception issue is the wedge used to loosen the grip of the Church. By forcing the Church to back down it shows the Church to be impotent and unable to defend its moral authority. That pays off when the revolution takes its next step to knock the Church back further (e.g., forcing Catholic hospitals to allow abortions to be done at their facilities. Think that isn’t coming? Think again.)

And if the Church pushes back? How can it? Yes, it can publish and talk, but the compliant news media will dilute that voice and push back with op-eds. The Church can preach from the pulpit, but that’s a limited voice these days of low Sunday attendance. It can work levers of power, but government officials, even at the local level, are not as amenable and accessible as they used to be to Church power.

(continued)

[Sandy Daze]

The Church could take action. But the laws are murky and court actions take forever. And what if a federal court says that yes, the government does indeed have the right to order the Church to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees? Then the Church is really in the public relations and legal soup.

What action is left? Civil disobedience, of course, but that pits one master against another (the progressive, Alinsky left). Imagine the Church saying (for example) fine, we’ll shut down our secular operations. How long would it take Obama, Holder, Sebelius, etc to push back — for example, seize a closed Catholic hospital, or get a court order, etc.

That this is being done in an election year is important to rally the hard Left base to Obama, but it’s also being done as part of a longer-term strategy to harass and eventually neuter the Church. It’s a sign that Obama and the progressives in his administration are increasingly confident that they’re going to have a second term to finish their ‘transformation’ (revolution!) of America, and so they want to make progress where they can.

This is no mistake, no misguided policy, and no one went off the reservation. It’s deliberate, careful, and far-reaching.

It’s about power.

[Jane]

Janet,

I was a delegate in 2010 - to the state convention. I thought it was a blast and completely non-threatening. I even dragged Caro as the press. Go for it. And go to the state convention if you get a chance.

[Jane]

There is no way possible for Conservatives and Republicans and others to frame the debate. Come on. Haven't we just seen the latest iteration of journolist just within the last few days?

There is no one in a better position to frame our side's debate than the candidates. They are on TV as much as Obama. You are falling into the trap they want you to fall into. And as your daughter says, you have to fight for her.

[Danube of Thought]

"There is no way possible for Conservatives and Republicans and others to frame the debate. "

They sure won't do it unless they try. Has either of these doofuse talked about the constitutional aspect of this thing?

[Jack is Back!]

Sandy,

Exactly as to the 1:46.

And the comments above on how the Republicans are responding are correct. This needs to be framed as a constitutional argument of infringing on religious liberty. But they are getting sucked in to talking about contraception and abortion and women's health. The Left are already pounding on pedophilia as a reason the Bishop's have no credibility, blah, blah, blah.

Also, with Dolan in Rome until Sunday, the most visible and recognized leader of the Bishops (and the guy who got snookered) not much can go forward to futher that argument. The conscience argument is part of the total and I think it has to be "Its the Constitution, Freedom and Liberty, stupid" kind of push from the Church. Avoid the pitfall of arguing in pastels - its a black and white issue as far as I am concerned.

[Neo]

Christina Romer Advised Obama To Push $1.8 Trillion Stimulus

The $1.8 trillion figure was included in a December 2008 memo authored by Christina Romer (the incoming head of the Council of Economic Advisers) and obtained by Scheiber in the course of researching his book.

"When Romer showed [Larry] Summers her $1.8 trillion figure late in the week before the memo was due, he dismissed it as impractical. So Romer spent the next few days coming up with a reasonable compromise: roughly $1.2 trillion," Scheiber writes.

As has now become the stuff of Obama administration lore, when the final document was ultimately laid out for the president, even the $1.2 trillion figure wasn't included. Summers thought it was still politically impractical. Moreover, if Obama had proposed $1.2 trillion but only obtained $800 billion, it would have been categorized as a failure.

[Sandy Daze]

Jane -

You and I are in violent agreement, re the candidates and their potentialities to frame what it is they say. I was unclear in my statement. . .what I was referencing, was the endless stream of "news" stories etc which are now framing the HHS mandate on religious institutions as a Republican issue and the various polls suggesting doom, Doom, and DOOM.

I disagree. Stay focused and we'll come through fine.

OWG !
Sandy

[Voldemort]

"Antiquated Amendments for $1000, Alex."

[Not Sara]

The problem is, Sandy Daze, our two top candidates are not focused!

[Captain Hate]

ace has really lost it today.

[Voldemort]

“I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

1st, 2nd
which one's next?

[Extraneus]

Has either of these doofuse talked about the constitutional aspect of this thing?

Anyone else pining for Mrs. Palin these days?

She could have been kicking Obama's ass by now.

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska -- (cheers, applause) -- I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. (Cheers, applause.) I guess -- (interrupted by chants of "Sarah! Sarah!") -- I guess a small-town mayor if sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities. (Cheers, applause.)

I might add -- I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they're listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. (Cheers, applause.) No, we tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco. (Cheers, applause.)

[matt]

I attend a parish with @ 3,600 families. Most masses have @ 400-600 in attendance, which would be @3,000 - 3,600 people/week. I'm not sure where the decline of the Church may be, but overall in our region it's pretty good.

We also have to remember that Obama has had to face no scrutiny so far. The Republican primaries are an incredible echo chamber where the candidates must differentiate themselves with a media that is in the tank for the Left.

The Left has held the agenda for the past 50 years and it has bankrupted the country. Entitlements and free Viagra and mobility carts and all of the additional entitlements may be desirable, but there is simply no money left to pay for them no matter how good the economy gets.

We spend more on education than ever before, and our children are dumbing down. It has been the Left's agenda that got us there.

Pipe dreams and unicorns and Solyndra failures and Obama's horrible track record on green energy are the issues of the day. In a time of great want, he has been the prodigal with his spending programs that did little or nothing to better our welfare.

We now have extended unemployment repeatedly so that we have a brand new class of unemployables. Instead of fostering small businesses, Obama has hindered them.

Doctors are fleeing health care and Medicare.Hospital costs are still out of control. In 3 1/2 years he has done exactly nothing.

We can go right down the list with his record.

[Janet]

Here is something - Dozens of pro-life organizations across the nation are teaming up for a rally termed Stand Up for Religious Freedom

"On March 23 at Noon, concerned citizens will gather outside federal buildings in cities across the United States to rally in defense of religious freedom and stand up against the HHS Mandate."
and
"“The message is simple: The Obama administration’s HHS mandate violates our First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by forcing employers to pay for medications that violate their beliefs,” he said."

[BarrySanders20]

If you want to frame the debate, stop saying "self-insured." If there is no insurance involved, then it cannot be "insured" in any sense.

Entities that do not insure benefits offer SELF FUNDED benefits. They pay all claims directly from their own funds. That highlights the fact that the Catholic institutions have a legitimate point when they continue to object to the "compromise."

[Rick Ballard]

I have to agree with DoT. Very sophisticated polling, conducted in late January, show the President holding an insurmountable lead. It's time to throw in the towel and head for the locker room.

[cathyf]

What disease do birth control pills prevent?

Endometriosis, for one. Heavy menstrual bleeding, for another. Just like Viagra was -- and still is -- an effective blood pressure medication with some interesting side effects.

The conscience argument is a little more subtle than some would have you believe. This is not just about the freedom of conscience of the bishops or administrators of Catholic institutions. It's also about the freedom of conscience of individual Catholics for whom the financial responsibility of paying for their choices goes along with moral responsibility for the choices that they make.

[Ben Franklin]

I continually hear from you folks, indirectly through comments, about Saul Alinsky, and his 'radicalism'. If you read his 'Rules for Radicals'
you find there is nothing radical about it. You probably are influenced more by the Hive Mentality which drives you from terminology like 'Community Organizer' for obvious reasons, having nothing to do with rascism, but more about the fear of change..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

"Outlining his strategy in organizing, Alinsky writes:
There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoyevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.[3]"

Nor are you anti-semites for dismissing his social ordering, but your slow approval of racial equality in the South, makes the case that your ideology is caked with the red soil of Antebellum conservativism.

[Jack is Back!]

Ex,

You betcha. And in a way she is playing an intriguing game - sort of like Limbaugh's 08 Operation Chaos. Is she saving money and tiring travel time by letting the contest keep going to the convention? And she is the one insisting the candidates (especially Romney) identify more clearly their conservative credentials by doing what she has been doing - comparing their plans against the Obama realities.

I think deep down in her gut she wants to run but is just too protective of her family.

[Danube of Thought]

It's not the polling, Rick, it's the candidates. The more people saw of Reagan, the more they liked him. Try that with Romney or Santorum.

[Neo]

The news from the Daily Caller website is surprising: David Brock, the founder of Media Matters, had a personal assistant illegally publicly carry a concealed handgun in the District of Columbia in order "to protect Brock from threats.” Few organizations have declared their opposition to gun ownership or concealed carry laws as strongly as Media Matters.

The group's opposition to guns has largely been a “scorched earth” approach, demonizing supporters of gun ownership and concealed handgun laws.

[MarkO]

Obamacare is not being "offered." It is coercion. Mandate is the least offensive word for it. Compel, force, demand, command, order, decree or, my favorite, dictate.

This reminds me ever so much of the insurance defense lawyer calling a massive death scene an "incident."

A "cram down" is not a "compromise."

The three stooges aren't doing this because they are busy knifing each other. (Did you see that Sara green lighted her candidacy if the "brokered convention" wanted her? Said all bets were off, then. Who'd have thought?)

[Not Sara]

Well, Rick, I am not throwing in the towel, but I get very frustrated with the Republican candidates not saying anything against Obama and just "beating each other up." Gingrich could do it, but he has been quashed by the MSM and also by some conservatives.(I know, I know, lots of baggage--but remember Bill Clinton's baggage which was sorta covered up.) It just amazes me that Republicans can support someone like Santorum. He is so far from what most believe in ie his social mores (people simply do not want a president who preaches as to what everyone should do in the bedroom, etc.), that I predict a massive loss in November if he is the nominee. Romney is better, but only just a "wee bit."

[Danube of Thought]

"...your slow approval of racial equality in the South..."

This buffoon is addressing a bunch of 80-year-olds.

[Ben Franklin]

"that I predict a massive loss in November .."

It's Deja Vu (1964) all over, again.........

[daddy]

For lunch break, go over to Althouse for another fine round of haymakers thrown by MayBee and bgates.

[AliceH]

DoT - 80-year old Democrats even.

[MarkO]

I watch this informed group debate the merits of "contraception" and I know Obama is winning. That debate ended nearly 40 years ago. Today's debate is about free versus freedom.

Big government candidates are anathema.

[Sandy Daze]

Extraneus -

I saw her live at CPAC, and she was great!

SP said any run she'd make for the presidency would be unconventional by any measure. Observed elsewhere is the changing nature of the dynamics of this campaign. A protracted primary campaign plays to an outside candidate being named at the convention.

Almost a year ago I read the PALIN Electability Series, a persuasive overview of the electorate, and was convinced that should she run, she will win. I still strongly believe that.

Palin has said nothing / NOTHING with which I disagree.

I believe a sufficient number of Americans would vote for Palin in a Palin<-->Voldemort matchup to make her 45.

OWG !
Sandy

[Ben Franklin]

"This buffoon is addressing a bunch of 80-year-olds."

With the exception of your exceptional buffoonery, it isn't about chronological age. It's more like spiritual fossilization, and a dead language few people use in present day.

[MarkO]

Well, Sandy, that would help explain why she sees no harm in the current candidates continuing to excoriate one another.

[Neo]

RNC spokesman says chances of brokered convention same as 'space alien attack'

[daddy]

I'm Crazy.

[Captain Hate]

For lunch break, go over to Althouse for another fine round of haymakers thrown by MayBee and bgates.

Very entertaining

[Ben Franklin]

Hmmmm. Who said dis ?

"On this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s so inexpensive. You know, back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.'

Not even the rhythm method satisfies these dolts. They want abstinence, because sex is so nasty, dirty.

[Sandy Daze]

Hey RNC, guess you missed it Aliens Attack !

[MarkO]

The RNC is just not that smart.

[sbw]

Daddy, I hesitate to suggest you get a grip on it.

[Sandy Daze]

Say, didn't the esteemed Paul the Krugman call for an Alien Attack to stimulate the economy?

Why yes he did !

Hmmm, RNC and Paul the Krugman in cahoots?

Wazz up wid dat?

OWG !
Sandy

[PaulL]

Interestingly enough, the Weekly Standard just reported that Romney is skipping the debate in Georgia on March 1st.

[AliceH]

BF: Who said this?

"Strawmen are often an effective tool in reframing a topic in such a way as to weasel out of a losing position by imputing some outrageous yet irrelevant motive or argument to the other side. When the other side refuses to deviate from substantiated argument, a variant of the strawman - anecdotal evidence - can be presented and extreme extrapolation of the particular to the general may serve the same deflection purpose."

Answer: I just did.

[MarkO]

If skipping a debate helps him, God help us.

[Rick Ballard]

DoT,

Reagan, Bush and Anderson engaged in a rather spirited primary contest due to the fact that Carter was obviously a Dead Man Walking. Anderson became so incensed that he actually ran as a third party candidate and managed to garner 6.6% of the vote. Bush went on to run a successful Presidential campaign against another pathetic loser.

Obama isn't quite as competent as Carter and will lose by the same margin. The margin might be a little higher for Romney than it will be for Santorum and it would be much higher for Palin - except that too many damned fools declared her to be "unelectable" while drooling at the the thought that Romney was actually a competent politician.

Obama is having no problem beating the hell out of Obama.

FACTOID - The Gallup unemployment average for the week in January measured by the BLS Household Survey to determine the unemployment rate was 8.3% - a perfect match, even though it is not a seasonably adjusted number. This is the survey week for the February unemployment number and the Gallup average so far is 9%. Obama continues to pound Obama into the dust.

[MarkO]

OK. Rick Santorum skipping debate also. Newt to debate Ron. Could be good.

[daddy]

Just a question.

When Obama bought Stupak's vote for ObamaCare, did he buy it by saying they Would Not do what they are doing now with contraception, or that they Could Not do what they are doing now with contraception?

My guess is Would Not. Is that basically correct?

[rhhardin]

For non-catastrophic things, everybody self-insures, by way of the normal premium they pay.

If it's not really insurance in the first place, it's self insurance.

[Janet]

On FB -