Birth Control Rule Clarified

[Rence]

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration took another step on Friday to enforce a federal mandate for health insurance coverage of contraceptives, announcing how the new requirement would apply to the many Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies that insure themselves.

In such cases, the administration said, female employees and students will still have access to free coverage of contraceptives.

The coverage will be provided by the companies that review and pay claims — “third-party administrators” — or by “some other independent entity,” it said.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the government would guarantee women access to contraceptives “while accommodating religious liberty interests.”

nytimes.com/2012/03/17/health/policy/obama-administration-says-birth-control-mandate-applies-to-religious-groups-that-insure-themselves.html?_r=2

So it looks like he’s letting those who work for religious-entities get a rider from 'third party administrators" or “some other independent entity”. I have no clue why this is so unacceptable to some people. It’s clear that this isn’t a conscience issue at all because employers have been taken completely out of the loop. They just don’t want their employees to have access to free ABCs at all, no matter where it comes from. It’s going to make matters more difficult when people have a true conscience protection issue. But then, we bring it on ourselves by being petty sometimes, and this is one of the times.

 

[Rence]

**If he was smart, Obama would just give the full exemption, and then either have a separate, government-funded coverage, or allow insurance companies to sell such additional coverage directly to individuals. **As long as you have the religious institutions involved in offering such coverage, even if they don’t directly pay for it, then you are still causing a problem of religious conscience.

Disclaimer: I’m not in favor of above proposed solutions…just saying it would be the smart way to go for Obama and all of the liberals who support him, Catholic or otherwise…

**

That’s exactly what he’s trying to do. Even if one works for a religious entitity now, they can often pay for a separate rider to be added to their insurance for other coverage that they want, especially if they pay for all of it. The only difference here is that the administration worked it out so that the insurance company is offering this particular rider for free to match the coverage opportunity with those who don’t work for religious employers. This is only an issue for those who have decided to make it an issue. This is a separate rider that has nothing to do with the employer. What more do these folks want? Well, I know what they want, they don’t want the coverage offered to their employees at all, even if it was handed to them by the President himself.

 

[seekerz]

So it looks like he’s letting those who work for religious-entities get a rider from 'third party administrators" or “some other independent entity”. I have no clue why this is so unacceptable to some people. It’s clear that this isn’t a conscience issue at all because employers have been taken completely out of the loop. They just don’t want their employees to have access to free ABCs at all, no matter where it comes from. It’s going to make matters more difficult when people have a true conscience protection issue. But then, we bring it on ourselves by being petty sometimes, and this is one of the times.

That’s the conclusion I’m coming to as well: the only acceptable placation will be ‘no free contraception for Catholic employees’ regardless of which entity provides it. A little late to want to limit access to ABCs now in my opinion…let each live according to his/her conscience.

 

[Rence]

Not unless the federal gubbermint is promising to pay the employer premiums for the self-insured universities and hospitals.

Hey, we have to protect that “right” to free contraception! It’s been our birthright for 2 1/2 months!

That doesn’t even make sense. I don’t think they should get a discount for not following the rules due to a religious exemption. But then again, I don’t think people should be getting vouchers for sending their children to private schools so that they don’t have to contribute to the tax funding that pays for the community schools that the State provides. If people got “breaks” for opting out of things, they could do the same for any old thing. I should ask my insurance company for a premium rate adjustment because I only use certain parts of my coverage, but not all of it. I don’t think I should I pay for someone else’s diabetes medication or hip replacement surgery.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s exactly what he’s trying to do. Even if one works for a religious entitity now, they can often pay for a separate rider to be added to their insurance for other coverage that they want, especially if they pay for all of it. The only difference here is that the administration worked it out so that the insurance company is offering this particular rider for free to match the coverage opportunity with those who don’t work for religious employers. This is only an issue for those who have decided to make it an issue. This is a separate rider that has nothing to do with the employer. What more do these folks want? Well, I know what they want, they don’t want the coverage offered to their employees at all, even if it was handed to them by the President himself.

Nope. It’s still an issue because the employer is still involved in offering the insurance provider who is offering the rider. It would be like saying we will pay for the planned parenthood shuttle bus to take you to the abortionary, but we won’t actually pay for the abortion.

I realize this is very, very difficult for some people to follow…

Bottom line, give a complete exemption to religious institutions and complete freedom to private insurance companies on whether or not they cover contraception and/or abortion. Freedom is a good thing.

 

[Rence]

Guess I don’t get it then. How are the employer premiums going to pay for coverage that is not included in the employer’s insurance plan?

They’re not All the premiums pay for all the services. There isn’t a fair way to give these religious employers a premium rate reduction just because they don’t use the birth control coverage, because then other employers should be able to get premium reductions for services that their own employees don’t use. No one uses all the benefits in a policy. Everyone contributes just the same. That’s part of being in a network. I can see how a big part of this is about getting a premium reduction.

I don’t see how people can get a ‘religious opt out premium reduction’ when we can’t get a ‘religous opt out tax reduction’ for services religious people don’t approve of but the governement pays for in our taxes. Next thing you’ll see is the Jewish and Muslim leaders calling for a ban in pork accessibility in food stamp allowances.

 

[Rence]

Why would it necessarily be a lie? I would imagine that insurance companies prefer to save the pound by spending the penny. Pregnancy coverage costs way more than birth control/sterilization, so from a purely business perspective it makes perfect sense for them to pay policyholders to not get pregnant.

Yup! Again, no one uses all the benefits offered in a policy…everyone pays for them though. It’s part of being involved in a network. The problem is, too many people current aren’t paying into the network for various reasons, but when they get sick, disabled, or pregnant, rely on the State to pick up the tab. Mandating that everyone pays into the insurance network insures that more money will be there to fund the expenses. Rather than a huge portion of the population not paying into it at all but still having access to the services.

 

[Rence]

It depends, how would that work for organizations that self insure?

Who would that ‘independent entity’ that would provide for free coverage?

The employees would apply either to the government for a voucher, or the insurance company itself, for the rider to add on separately.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s the conclusion I’m coming to as well: the only acceptable placation will be ‘no free contraception for Catholic employees’ regardless of which entity provides it. A little late to want to limit access to ABCs now in my opinion…let each live according to his/her conscience.

The employers are just expecting the right to not have to supply, directly or indirectly, a product or service that is contrary to their beliefs. Why are you opposed to such freedom? If supplying free contraceptives is so important to you, then find a way to supply free contraceptions without an employer’s involvement. Simple.

There can be free contraception for Catholic employees. It’s a free country and contraceptives are legal. If free contraception is available, they can choose to use them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Being a avid student of Saul Alinsky there’s no telling how far the tyranny will go. Between NDAA, Religious Freedom, and now Medicare cuts on Seniors, hard to imagine another 4-years.

 

[Rence]

You don’t know how government regulated health insurance works do you?.

A lot of people don’t realize that a huge bulk of the recipients of medicaid are not, and haven’t ever, paid into the system at all. Because of that, a huge bulk of the recipients are not making a contribution to the big pot from which their services are paid. Because of that, it is a huge financial burden on the State to provide these services, which can’t just disappear. Mandating insurance for all will add more funds to the pot, so that it will ease the burden to pay for our various communities’ needs.

For example, and this is only one example, take the 14 out of 50 girls who got pregnant in the high school in my town last year. they don’t even have jobs yet, and if they do, they haven’t had them for very long. And many of them won’t be offered insurance by their employers. Some will opt out even if they are offered. They have not contributed to the system, but they have applied for medicaid to pay for their pregnancies, and their children will be provided for by the state until the children are 18. By mandating that all employers who meet a certain criteria have to offer insurance, more people will be paying into the system, so that more money will be collected to pay for services. And yes, offering free ABCs will ease that burden because you know people will take advantage of it and use the ABCs. The mandate isn’t just merely to give a money break to those already utilizing ABCs in its various forms. It’s also to entice those who would be using it if it was more accessible. It may be against Catholic teaching to use those services, but you know many people will use that coverage. In the end, it will save the State money in paying for all those pregnancies and each child’s health and food for 18 years. ABCs (whether a pill, tubal ligation, vasectomy, etc.) are cheaper than paying for all those pregnancies and each child’s health and food for 18 years.

Just like people who don’t have children, don’t have diabetes, don’t use blood transfusions, and all pay into the system via their premiums, copays, deductibles, etc, so do those who don’t utilize ABCs. It’s all part of the same pot to pay for various services that not everyone will use.

 

[Rence]

The employers are just expecting the right to not have to supply, directly or indirectly, a product or service that is contrary to their beliefs. Why are you opposed to such freedom? If supplying free contraceptives is so important to you, then find a way to supply free contraceptions without an employer’s involvement. Simple.

There can be free contraception for Catholic employees. It’s a free country and contraceptives are legal. If free contraception is available, they can choose to use them.

The employers have been completely removed from the loop. They’re just being petty. If all employers across the board are affected by the same mandate, it’s not like the religious employers are being singled out. They’re not. Not only are they not being treated unfairly, they’re being absolved of responsibility in any way by having the employee who is interested in such coverege go to someone completely not involved with the employer. It has nothing to do with the employer.

Supplying free contraceptives is not important to me at all. I don’t even use them. And I probably wouldn’t use them even if I wanted to use them due to health reasons that make me a high risk for them. What kind of irritates me in this who melodrama is using God to get out of civil responsibilities and citing “religious conscience” as an excuse to do so, and opening up the door for cheapscate non-religious employers to do the same for all kinds of services. It doesn’t irritate me enough to do anything more than sit back and watch how this all churns out though. When you sit back and watch/listen, you see all sorts of things from both sides.

 

[rlg94086]

The employers have been completely removed from the loop. They’re just being petty. If all employers across the board are affected by the same mandate, it’s not like the religious employers are being singled out. They’re not. Not only are they not being treated unfairly, they’re being absolved of responsibility in any way by having the employee who is interested in such coverege go to someone completely not involved with the employer. It has nothing to do with the employer.

Supplying free contraceptives is not important to me at all. I don’t even use them. And I probably wouldn’t use them even if I wanted to use them due to health reasons that make me a high risk for them. What kind of irritates me in this who melodrama is using God to get out of civil responsibilities and citing “religious conscience” as an excuse to do so, and opening up the door for cheapscate non-religious employers to do the same for all kinds of services. It doesn’t irritate me enough to do anything more than sit back and watch how this all churns out though. When you sit back and watch/listen, you see all sorts of things from both sides.

Wonderful. I guess I misunderstood the new change. So, the insurance companies that the employer is providing for their employees does not offer contraception or elective abortion coverage at all? No riders available separately? Great!

 

[Rence]

That’s the conclusion I’m coming to as well: the only acceptable placation will be ‘no free contraception for Catholic employees’ regardless of which entity provides it. A little late to want to limit access to ABCs now in my opinion…let each live according to his/her conscience.

That is exactly how I see this. It can’t be any more clear than that. They want to control what they’re employees do by limiting their benefits, even if a completely different entitity is administering and paying for the benefits.

 

[Rence]

Nope. It’s still an issue because the employer is still involved in offering the insurance provider who is offering the rider. It would be like saying we will pay for the planned parenthood shuttle bus to take you to the abortionary, but we won’t actually pay for the abortion.

I realize this is very, very difficult for some people to follow…

Bottom line, give a complete exemption to religious institutions and complete freedom to private insurance companies on whether or not they cover contraception and/or abortion. Freedom is a good thing.

Nope. It’s a nonissue because the policies were all made the same across the board, and the rider is offered by a completely outside entity. It’s like saying we won’t pay for diabetes medication because none of the employees have diabetes, and if they do, it’s probably their lifestyle anyway.

Bottom line is that the religious insititutions have been given a complete exemption. They just don’t want their employees to get a free rider that they would otherwise have to pay for themselves (which they can do today). And that’s not in their control. Employers can’t control what the employees are granted by the governement. It has nothing to do with the employers. Their employees are not their property, they’re just their employees. They get paid to do a job, and that’s it. What the government grants them is none of the business of the employers.

 

[Rence]

Wonderful. I guess I misunderstood the new change. So, the insurance companies that the employer is providing for their employees does not offer contraception or elective abortion coverage at all? No riders available separately? Great!

You hit the nail on the head this time: “riders available separately”. Exactly. And that’s how it is today. The only difference is, the employee has to pay for it today, and the governement has mandated that the insurance compay has to pay for it with the new mandate. I don’t see a problem with that at all.

 

[seekerz]

The employers are just expecting the right to not have to supply, directly or indirectly, a product or service that is contrary to their beliefs. Why are you opposed to such freedom? If supplying free contraceptives is so important to you, then find a way to supply free contraceptions without an employer’s involvement. Simple.

There can be free contraception for Catholic employees. It’s a free country and contraceptives are legal. If free contraception is available, they can choose to use them.

I’m not opposed to religious freedom, I’m opposed to opposing for opposing sake. If a Catholic employee goes to an entity not related in any way, shape or form to her employer and receives free or government-subsidized coverage, what is it to her employer?

Catholics across the nation use non-Catholic hospitals where direct abortions are carried out (for birth defects for example). By being required to pay their portion of the hospital bill, are they also being deprived of religious liberty? Remember that the insurance company reserves the right to dictate which hospitals they may or may not use, not to mention the limitations of geography.

By this sort of reasoning, we simply cannot coexist in a plural society.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why would it necessarily be a lie? I would imagine that insurance companies prefer to save the pound by spending the penny. Pregnancy coverage costs way more than birth control/sterilization, so from a purely business perspective it makes perfect sense for them to pay policyholders to not get pregnant.

The same reasoning could be applied to physician assisted suicide if that was included in health insurance; since each suicide would result in a net saving because that person is not using public services anymore, it is really free and nobody pays for it.

You just made a similar argument that Sebelius did - that employers are not really paying for contraception, abortion, sterilization because that would be cheaper than providing prenatal, childbirth, or child care. It is a poor argument and there is no evidence that contraception reduces the rate of pregnancy, and I can give you provide you with many statistics this up.

The one-child policy is the extreme of the argument you and Sebelius are making: more people = more costs.

Pragmatically, imagine all the tax revenue that is non existent because of the 50 million + babies that have been aborted since 1973. They would of been contributing to the government for programs like Medicare and Medicaid, they would of been business people and job creators. Less Americans mean less tax revenue.

Who pays for the insurance policy? The employer who has an objection to paying for contraception, sterilization, abortificants and abortion - they are who will end up paying for these services.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not opposed to religious freedom, I’m opposed to opposing for opposing sake. If a Catholic employee goes to an entity not related in any way, shape or form to her employer and receives free or government-subsidized coverage, what is it to her employer?

It isn’t anything. The employer isn’t involved, so there is no issue. I don’t oppose things for opposing sake…what a dumb comment.

seekerz:

Catholics across the nation use non-Catholic hospitals where direct abortions are carried out (for birth defects for example). By being required to pay their portion of the hospital bill, are they also being deprived of religious liberty? Remember that the insurance company reserves the right to dictate which hospitals they may or may not use, not to mention the limitations of geography.

By this sort of reasoning, we simply cannot coexist in a plural society.

Abortions for birth defects. Nice. My brother who was born with birth defects takes issue with that…

I don’t think we are in disagreement. If a Catholic woman wishes to kill her unborn child because he has a birth defect, she is free to contract this evil and commit mortal sin in any hospital that employs such killers without employer involvement. If, however, her insurance doesn’t cover it, she will have to pay for her evil act out of her own pocket…as it should be.

 

[seekerz]

The same reasoning could be applied to physician assisted suicide if that was included in health insurance; since each suicide would result in a net saving because that person is not using public services anymore, it is really free and nobody pays for it.

You just made a similar argument that Sebelius did - that employers are not really paying for contraception, abortion, sterilization because that would be cheaper than providing prenatal, childbirth, or child care. It is a poor argument and there is no evidence that contraception reduces the rate of pregnancy, and I can give you provide you with many statistics this up.

The one-child policy is the extreme of the argument you and Sebelius are making: more people = more costs.

Pragmatically, imagine all the tax revenue that is non existent because of the 50 million + babies that have been aborted since 1973. They would of been contributing to the government for programs like Medicare and Medicaid, they would of been business people and job creators. Less Americans mean less tax revenue.

Who pays for the insurance policy? The employer who has an objection to paying for contraception, sterilization, abortificants and abortion - they are who will end up paying for these services.

Is there a part of “from a purely business perspective”, in my post which you simply did not register?

I hold no brief with population policies, so the bulk of your post is mildly befuddling to me.