Skip to comments.‘ObamaCare Catch-22': Crushing Fines for Religious Institutions Under Mandate
Posted on 07/16/2012 2:57:55 PM PDT by jazusamo
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) talks to PJM about his new bill to counter provisions that could "tax religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, universities and soup kitchens right out of existence."
Before the House repealed ObamaCare once more last week, another bill was introduced to stop the Department of Health and Human Services from charging religious institutions steep fines for noncompliance with the mandate to provide birth control without an insurance co-payment.
Under President Obamas healthcare law, the HHS can levy $100 per employee, per day against institutions that wont comply with the mandate.
Therefore, religious employers with hundreds of employees could be fined millions of dollars each year. A 50-employee institution, for example, would face a penalty of $1,825,000 each year.
ObamaCare gives the federal government the tools to tax religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, universities and soup kitchens right out of existence, said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), sponsor of the Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act.
Using the language that the Supreme Court recently decided covered the penalties in ObamaCare, Sensenbrenner cites a February report by the Congressional Research Service that adds up the noncompliance tax to $36,500 annually per employee. Any group health plan and health insurance issuer subject to insurance market reforms in Title I of the Affordable Care Act that objects to coverage requirements based on religious and moral convictions does not qualify for an exemption.
The Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act would exempt such employers from any excise tax and certain lawsuits and penalties for refusing to provide objectionable coverage.
The bill has 67 co-sponsors, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
Another co-sponsor who was standing with Sensenbrenner at the press conference announcing the bills introduction was Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), whose Respect for Rights of Conscience Act to strike down the mandate was brought to the Senate floor by Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) as an amendment to a highway bill.
The Blunt amendment failed 51-48.
Sensenbrenner told PJM on Friday that he thought that was a premature way to battle the mandate.
Ive said very plainly to all of the participants they need to build some kind of a grass-roots support for this kind of legislation in order to get the kind of vote we need to impress upon the administration that theyre wrong on this issue, the Wisconsin Republican said.
He added that though he hears some criticism from conservative Catholics who want to stop at nothing less than full repeal, Well, we cant do that now.
Fortenberry, said Sensenbrenner, recognizes where were at on this.
The introduction of the bill during ObamaCare repeal week was not that coincidental, Sensenbrenner said. When asked if the goal of the fine was to put religious employers out of business, he said, I dont know if the goal is, but thats what the effect is.
The congressman notes that hes not Catholic, but even in his home state there are Lutheran institutions that would fall under the penalty if they chose not to provide certain services.
Any religious institution that does any outreach whatsoever is going to fall under this tax unless they knuckle under to the Sebelius mandate, he said.
The wall between church and state ought to go both ways, he added.
Sensenbrenner said he hasnt gotten any reaction from the administration to his bill, and hopes that if it emerges from committee and clears the House it could eke out a majority in the Senate.
Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) all voted for the Blunt amendment. Retiring Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has also talked about the value of religion in life, and could conceivably vote against the fines even if he didnt vote against striking down the mandate.
Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said before the ObamaCare repeal vote that he wanted to get members on the record about the law; in the name of religious freedom, Sensenbrenner would like to do the same.
If somebody votes against this bill I dont know how they go home and campaign. That isnt going to win very many votes, he said. Its the principle of religious liberty.
While there is solid conservative backing in Congress to end these harsh penalties against religious institutions, Sensenbrenner said a groundswell is going to be needed in the form of very vocal support of the religious community to get a bill such as his to Obamas desk or otherwise force a repeal of the fines.
They are the people who are hurt the most as the religious community, and theyre going to have to step up to the plate and say this is not fair, Sensenbrenner said.
Its like, he said, when Southern Baptist preacher and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, outraged over the mandate, got in front of CPAC and said, Thanks to President Obama, we are all Catholics now.
Sensenbrenner said his bill protects employers from Obamacares Catch-22.
Our religious liberties are not bartering chips, he said. Lets not treat them that way.
Are the Muzzies exempt for Obamacare?
I’ve read comments that they are but don’t know it for a fact.
With The One we have in the WH I’d bet it’s true.
I’ve heard commercials for medical sharing ministries as being cheaper than insurance AND legal under Obamacare. Couldn’t something similar be set up for Catholics?
Ditto’s I don’t know all the facts either but the copy I did read also included any religion that is opposed to insurance.
Of course, but you and I will pay for them. They deserve it for being the guiding light of of civilization and morality.
Think of the ones of inventions and scientific discoveries they’ve been responsible for throughout history.
Truly the only greater privilege is the care and feeding of millions of illegals.
The Catholic institutions could stay in operation if they declared that they will employ and serve only sacramentally initiated Catholics. There could be no claim of discrimination and by limiting their mission to initiated Catholics the secular activities will fall totally under the mantle of religious belief.
Of course doing this goes against the mission of the Church. However one way to serve those outside the Church may be the old Salvation Army practice of missionary evangelization before , during, or after the actual service or treatment. No one would be forced use Catholic facilities or programs, but if they chose to do so they would be exposed to Catholic missionary efforts.
Of course they are.
They’re also excempt from criminal status for wanting to destroy every other religion protected by the same First Amendment umbrella they’re hiding under.
Logic has completely abandoned our sense of justice.
I believe they are.
No religious denominations are mentioned by name in the law.
To be exempt, you have to be a member of a denomination which has traditionally opted out of Social Security and Medicare coverage.
The only ones I’ve seen mentioned that currently satisfy this criteria are Amish and Mennonite. For someone looking to “convert” - Mennonite is probably the hot setup since they are allowed to operate machinery and drive vehicles.
ping to #12
CINO democrats need to be voted out of office!
Here’s another “thing” in Obammycare that needs fixing!
Always another surprise around the corner on this health care plan..... just in case you hadn’t heard
When does your home become part of your health care? After 2012!
Your vote counts big time in 2012, make sure you and all your friends and family know about this!
HOME SALES TAX
I thought you might find this interesting.
The National Association of Realtors is all over this and working to get it repealed, — before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we aren’t the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many realtors do you think will vote Democratic in 2012?
Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That’s $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It’s in the health care bill, — and it goes into effect in 2013. Why 2013? Could it be so that it doesnt come to light until after the 2012 elections? So, this is change you can believe in?
Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% sales tax.
If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation, — who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November, 2012 vote more important?
Oh, you weren’t aware that this was in the ObamaCare bill? Guess what; you aren’t alone! There are more than a few members of Congress that weren’t aware of it either.
You can check this out for yourself at:
What you posted is grossly incorrect:
> Are the Muzzies exempt for Obamacare?
As a matter of fact, they are.
So is the Congress and the President and the SCOTUS and the SEIU, and a host of other unions.
By my reading of the bill, there is no mention of this.
> Mennonite is probably the hot setup since they are allowed
> to operate machinery and drive vehicles.
You cannot join the Mennonites if you are divorced-remarried, unless, of course, you leave your current wife and either live celibately or try to reconcile with your former spouse.
You would also have to give up Social Security and Medicare.
"In countries with exhorbitant health care costs, one could argue that compassion for those who are ill takes precedence over a dislike of health insurance. A Muslim has a duty to ensure that people who are ill can access affordable health care. In 2010, for example, several prominent American Muslim organizations supported President Obama's health care reform proposal, under the belief that access to affordable health care is a fundamental human right."
Making care contingent on proselytization is also offensive to our prinmciples, which are based on the Good Samaritan, who cared for the injured Jew and didn't try to make his worship in Samaria.
Doesn’t work for me because I’m old and reaping the “benefits” of my 40 yrs of contributions to SS & Med.
But for young people it looks like an interesting option.
Thanks! My cousin was freaking out. So I did the FR test. Thanks again!
Yeah Obamacare is bad enough as it is.
Every time I read part of it I get a headache.
Muslims are exempt. Christians can’t catch a break with today’s politicians.
It wasn't in the bill but after the bill passed, Obama was handing out exemptions like a whore handing out condoms at a Democrat National Convention. I thought I read that Muslims were exempt but I don't know what that entails. The unions were also given exemptions but that was until 2018.
Just show me a link and I’ll believe it.
Until then what I know is what I posted about Amish and Mennonites.
Here’s the current list of waiver recipients to help your search:
I can’t find it. Everywhere I look, people have linked to the government site and now the site has changed and doesn’t mention the people who are exempt.
Agreed, but the Church is going to have to arrive at a solution. There is every chance that the court will not find for the Bishops and even if they do there is no certainty that a reelected Obama will follow the dictum of the Court. My thought would show the absolute intensity of the Church’s refusal to see its teachings held hostage by the govt.
I just found this....
I just saw what you’ve posted and I’m going to now take a look. sorry about that.
They've been exempted all along, even though some of their clerics have complained about the religious warfare waged on any religion (or person of conscience) that opposes any part of Obamacare on First Amendment grounds.
It's more than just Catholics, but 0bama recognizes the Catholic Church as political low-hanging fruit. Muzzie opposition is recognized as a low-hanging IED, so things get avoided and overlooked.
Members of Congress are not exempt. That is a falsehood that’s been circulating for a long time:
(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.-
(i) REQUIREMENT.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are-
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
(ii) DEFINITIONS.-In this section:
(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.-The term Member of Congress means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.-The term congressional staff means all full-time and parttime employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.
Thanks jazusamo, and g’night all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.