Congratulations To Pope Francis

Congratulations to Pope Francis (Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J., Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina) on his election to the Papacy.

Many may have forgotten that he was supposedly a contender in 2005.  I had dismissed him as being too old to be considered this time.  Either this was not an issue for the Cardinal Electors or they believe him to be in good health.

Others may be wondering why a Latin American was elected to be Pope.  About 42% of the Catholic Church is in Latin America and his election reflects this.

Yesterday I was discussing possible Pope names with my wife.  I mentioned that it had been a while since we had a Pope take a name that had not yet been used by a Pope.  My research shows that the last Pope to take an original name was Pope Lando in 913.  I later recalled that John Paul I in 1978 took an original name.  Considering that John Paul I chose the two names together to honor both of his predecessors, so it is not as original as taking a name like Francis that had not been used as a Pope's name.

Pope Francis looks like a Pope to me.  A few days ago I had an image of John XXIII appear to me.  This image appeared to me when looking at an image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  Although Francis is not as large as John XXIII, the image that appeared to me reminds me more of Francis that John XXIII.

Finally, I am certain the Holy Spirit guided the College of Cardinals in selecting Pope Francis and I am sure he will guide the Church well.

Congratulations to Pope Francis, our new Pope!

Reply from Senator Sherrod Brown and My Response (2/17/2012)

This is my first post in this blog.  The name "Les Expos" comes from my long time love of the Montreal Expos.  Most of my posts will have little to do with the Expos and I do not intend to claim that my views are those of the former team or their fans.  It is a name I have used elsewhere and rather than coming up with a catchy name that may eventually lose its meaning, I went with a name that likely has no meaning to the content I post.

Anyway, I recently sent an email to our Senator, Sherrod Brown, regarding the mandate imposed on religious employers through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding health insurance.  What follows is his form letter email response and the questions I sent to him in reply in red.

Dear Mr. Gissel:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me regarding health insurance and contraception coverage.  Like most Ohioans, I believe we must respect both religious institutions and the interests of women in receiving affordable health care.

Through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), young adults under 26 can remain on their parents’ insurance plan while in college or looking for their first job.  Seniors who reach the Medicare “donut hole” receive discounts on their prescription medication and have improved access to preventive care screenings.  In Ohio, that meant that 185,000 seniors saved $95 million in prescription drug costs last year.  And in 2014, small businesses and individuals will be able to purchase affordable insurance on the new health insurance exchanges.

Another goal of the act was to eliminate insurance coverage discrimination against women.  Prior to the passage of the ACA, it was legal in nine states for insurance companies to deny coverage to women who were victims of domestic violence because it was considered a pre-existing condition.  For the 14 million women who purchased health insurance in the individual market, pregnancy could have been considered a pre-existing condition, thus excluding maternity coverage.   And in most states, women were charged higher premiums — sometimes 150 percent more than men — especially during their reproductive years.  

In light of the discrimination women face in the health insurance market, the ACA requires all health plans to cover comprehensive women’s preventive care [This comment is being added for the blog.  From what are the women being prevented with this care?  Women's preventive care keeps them from being women] and screenings at no additional cost to women.  The preventive care covered by the ACA is based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a panel of 15 medical experts, and includes domestic violence screening and counseling, gestational diabetes screening for at-risk women, postpartum counseling, lactation counseling, HIV- and sexually-transmitted infection testing and counseling, contraception coverage, and an annual well-women visit.

In keeping with the IOM’s recommendations, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation requiring most employers to provide these services in their health insurance plans.  Under the department’s initial criteria, a church or other house of worship that is opposed to contraception on religious grounds would not have been required to provide contraception coverage under its insurance policy.   Because they educate students, treat patients, and hire individuals regardless of their religious beliefs, universities and hospitals affiliated with a religious order would need to provide this coverage.

However, after hearing from interested stakeholders, President Obama announced an expansion of the religious exemption.  Under the new rule, religiously affiliated institutions — such as universities, charities, and hospitals — will not be required to cover contraception services in their health plans. [Did the law actually change?  If so how?  Secondly, what about businesses that are not religious, but who are morally against providing such coverage?  What about employees of non-religious companies being forced to pay for a coverage to which they are morally opposed?] Instead, women working for these institutions will be able to access contraception coverage directly from their insurance companies.  The insurance company, not the employer or employee, will be responsible for the costs associated with this coverage.  Insurance companies should not need to raise premiums due to this new rule.  For example, insurance premiums did not increase after contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit system.

[Were any insurance companies contacted for input on this?  How do they feel about providing coverage for free?  If the cost of providing contraception coverage is that minimal, why not have the manufacturers of contraception provide this for free?

Secondly, insurance is regulated by the states.  Is the Federal Government going to step into the regulatory process and insist that the State Departments of Insurance allow companies to provide a coverage for free?]

The Catholic Health Association supports the revised policy [Are you aware that the Catholic Health Association does not speak for the Catholic Church?  The bishops of the Catholic Church speak for the Catholic Church and every one of the bishops of the United States has spoken out against the mandate from the HHS and the so-called compromise.  Why have they been excluded from conversations?] — stating that a “resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.”  By requiring insurance companies, rather than religiously affiliated employers, to provide contraception coverage, the exemption protects both the interests of religiously affiliated employers and the right to access to health care of employees.  More than half of women between ages 18-34 struggle to afford contraception, which they often need for medical purposes not related to contraception.  As such, all women — regardless of their place of employment — should enjoy full access to preventive health care.

Some Ohioans have told me that the IOM’s recommendations require that abortion services must be included in insurance policies and that Catholic hospitals must perform abortions.  This is incorrect.  The IOM recommendations do not require any health insurance plan to cover abortion services.  Additionally, the IOM recommendations regarding contraception coverage only apply to insurance plans; they do not require hospitals or health care professionals to provide such services.

I appreciate your taking the time to voice your thoughts on this important matter.  Thank you again for getting in touch with me.

                         Sincerely,

              

                         Sherrod Brown

                         United States Senator