Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Mr. Matthews: (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One of his guests, John Heilemann, (15+ / 0-)

    said that the experts he's read say the mandate doesn't have anything to do with religious freedom, its a matter of employment law.  He argued that the Obama admin handled it poorly, but that the opponents of their mandate are wrong.  Matthews let him speak and didn't argue it with him.

    I changed by not changing at all, small town predicts my fate, perhaps that's what no one wants to see. -6.38, -4.15

    by James Allen on Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 11:07:19 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Matthews did argue with Heilemann (8+ / 0-)

      on the specific point of the 28 states who have similiar rules on the books.  Matthews insisted quite emphatically that they were not the same, but he did not explain how they were different.  And Heilemann did not have a counter-argument.

      •  Matthews was right on this one.... (0+ / 0-)

        "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

        by justmy2 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 03:53:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Entirely possible, I don't know the (4+ / 0-)

          specifics. But if this is a serious discussion, Matthews should cite specifically how they are different, not just proclaim that they are.  And Heilemann should know the specifics before he makes the argument.
          It's easy to resolve the question of how similar/different the regulations are, that's just research. Then the question becomes how relevant are the differences, which would seem like the argument we need to win.
           

          •  Lawrence O'Donnell did it last night (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gramofsam1

            I will send a link if you like...

            "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

            by justmy2 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 05:34:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks, I'll check it out- (0+ / 0-)

              you might want to post the link in this thread-- I can find it but have no idea how to post it here.

              •  here you go... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gramofsam1, Amber6541, collardgreens

                Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

                "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

                by justmy2 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 06:03:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks! I think it's so important (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Amber6541, I love OCD

                  that we base our arguments on facts.  If it's not true that the state plans are the same as the Obama proposal, we win nothing by continuing to insist that they are the same.

                  If they're different (which seems to be the case if O'Donnell's reporting is accurate), then we make the argument that those differences do not outweigh a woman's right to contraceptive health care.

                  •  Don't be fooled (5+ / 0-)

                    The distinctions they are trying to point between the state and federal laws either don't exist or are meaningless.  In Colorado, Catholic Charities tells O'Donnell they aren't required to cover birth control. Well, sure, if they want to drop their health coverage rather than cover birth control, they can do that.   That's the same as federal law.  The suggestion in the video that it's different is highly misleading.

                    In the Georgia example, the exemption O'Donnell cites is that the law only applies to employers who offer Rx coverage.  So if a Catholic hospital doesn't want to cover birth control, they can opt out by not covering any Rx for their employers.  Under the proposed Obama rule, there is no employer mandate -- so if the Catholic church still doesn't want to cover Rx, they can still opt out by not providing health coverage for their employees.  

                    That's a distinction, but it's really not a difference.  It's just misleading spin from the Catholic Church.

                    "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

                    by dcg2 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 08:14:11 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Don't be mislead by spin (6+ / 0-)

                  He is saying the difference is that there is no mandate to provide prescription drug coverage in Georgia (but that if you do provide Rx coverage, it has to include birth control), whereas he says the Federal law makes no such exemption.

                  However, the Federal law makes no mandate that employers cover insurance. So just as Georgia employers could choose to drop their Rx coverage if they don't want to cover birth control, so too could any American employer drop their health coverage if they don't want to cover birth control.

                  Then, let's take Colorado.  He gets a highly misleading statement from "Catholic Charities" in Colorado and he takes it as gospel. The statement says "Under Colorado law, Catholic Charities is not required to provide contraception and sterilization coverage to its employees."  Well, ok then.

                  But under Federal law there is no requirement to that any employer cover it either. The rule only applies if Catholic charity chooses to provide health coverage, just like in Colorado.    Seems to be like very slippery wording from Catholic Charities to make it seem like there is a difference.

                  In fact, best as I can tell, both examples O'Donnell cites are, at best, distinctions without differences.  

                  "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

                  by dcg2 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 08:10:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am not sure I understand your case... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    I love OCD
                    However, the Federal law makes no mandate that employers cover insurance.
                    That is ACA itself?  There is a mandate for employers with over 50 employees.  So with the new law, the Georgia loophole wouldn't apply.

                    Can you clarify?

                    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

                    by justmy2 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 08:14:44 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There's no mandate (4+ / 0-)

                      Large employers don't have to cover health care, though if they choose not to they would pay a $2,000 fee per employee (excluding the first 30) to help offset the cost of the government subsidizing care for employees who would be forced into the individual market.  

                      So technically, if a Catholic Hospital in Georgia doesn't want to cover birth control for their employees, there is absolutely nothing in the new rule that can require them to do so - basically the same as Georgia.

                      This is from the White House, so feel free to take with a grain of salt

                      The Affordable Care Act does not include an employer
                      mandate. In 2014, as a matter of fairness, the Affordable
                      Care Act requires large employers to pay a shared
                      responsibility fee only if they don’t provide affordable
                      coverage and taxpayers are supporting the cost of health
                      insurance for their workers through premium tax credits
                      for middle to low income families.

                      • The law specifically exempts all firms that have fewer
                      than 50 employees – 96 percent of all firms in the United
                      States or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms – from
                      any employer responsibility requirements. These 5.8
                      million firms employ nearly 34 million workers. More
                      than 96 percent of firms with 50 or more employees
                      already offer health insurance to their workers. Less
                      than 0.2 percent of all firms (about 10,000 out of 6
                      million) may face employer responsibility requirements.
                      Many firms that do not currently offer coverage will be
                      more likely to do so because of lower premiums and
                      wider choices in the Exchange.
                      > For more information, please visit:
                      www.healthreform.gov/about/answers.html.

                      "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

                      by dcg2 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 08:26:09 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  that was always the case...it was part of the (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        I love OCD

                        complaint...they were concerned about the fines...that still constitutes a mandate....it is just the penalty for not following it...

                        as the rule was written, this was still the case...whereas in GA, if the company chose not to provide prescription drugs, they would not be fined.

                        that is the difference....

                        "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

                        by justmy2 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 08:47:01 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You are grasping here. (0+ / 0-)

                          Under the federal law, like the Georgia law, they do not have to cover birth control if they don't want.  All they have to do is drop their insurance coverage.  

                          Now if their problem is that they want to be able to drop health coverage without having to contribute one nickel to solve our national health care crisis -- then that's what they should be complaining about.

                          This is a false issue, and the Georgia example proves it -- because neither the Georgia law or the Federal law one forces them to provide coverage.

                          "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

                          by dcg2 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 01:14:29 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  if you are arguing about the word mandate (0+ / 0-)

                            feel free, but I didn't realize that was your intent.

                            All I know is that at the federal level, you will be fined if you provide no coverage AND that coverage MUST provide prescription drugs coverage including contraception.  

                            In Georgia,  you will be fined if you provide no coverage AND that coverage AND CAN CHOOSE to provide prescription drugs thus not providing contraception.

                            That is a very specific difference that O'Donnell was correct to point out.

                            "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

                            by justmy2 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 01:30:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  btw - just right click and select copy embed code (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Amber6541

                and then paste it here....easy peasy

                "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

                by justmy2 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 06:04:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Matthews thinks it's all about (5+ / 0-)

        the co-pay, as if the church being forced to pay extra for zero co-pays on their insurance would violate their religious freedoms.
        Which is kind of stupid if you think about it, what's the difference between getting discounted contraception and getting it free? You're still getting it.

        If you can separate sex from procreation, you have given women the ability to participate in society on an equal basis with men. -Gloria Feldt

        by skohayes on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 04:26:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site