Birth Control Rule Clarified

[seekerz]

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…

**

The clarification quoted above, states that an independent entity would provide the coverage. If that is so, then the religious institution would have nothing to do with it, no?

 

[scipio337]

The clarification quoted above, states that an independent entity would provide the coverage. If that is so, then the religious institution would have nothing to do with it, no?

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!

 

[seekerz]

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!

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?

 

[karaleigh]

When is says, “Instead, the students will get such coverage directly from their insurer as a separate policy”, as opposed to Can get such coverage…It appears that this is not a “separate policy” (something the student can contract for separately) but rather something like a “rider” on an existing policy.

And what about religious institutions etc that are NOT colleges or universities? Where does Catholic Charities, or Catholic Hospitals, or “Catholic Answers”, for instance, fall in this matter.

Sounds like another semantic shell game to me.

Peace
James

'Will" / “Can”. Sounds like semantics! As a female this HHS decision sounds fair. It is still the females who has the final decision if to or not to take birth control…here at least it is outside the Church…we have a choice now, no just this way or that way. My thoughts.
:hypno:

 

[_Abyssinia]

Obama admin is correct - insurance companies will give out free contraception.
No, everybody will end up paying for it - including those who have moral and religious objections to it. It is such a lie that there will be free contraception!

Once again, nothing but fancy language trying to buy time because of the lawsuits.

 

[JRKH]

'Will" / “Can”. Sounds like semantics!

Semantics are very important in these matters. Laws, rules and regulations MUST be written clearly and carefully because the words have meanings and the meanings are important.

As a female this HHS decision sounds fair. It is still the females who has the final decision if to or not to take birth control…here at least it is outside the Church…we have a choice now, no just this way or that way. My thoughts.
:hypno:

Let me ask you a question - If birth control were completely removed as a required provision of the health care package…Just how would this restrict your “Choice”. Isn’t birth control universally available now? If you want to take Birth control NOW - before “obama-care” goes into effect, what is stopping you?

Peace
James

 

[karaleigh]

Here is what the Catholic response ought to be:

thisroamincatholic.blogspot.com/?view=classic

The purpose for the Catholic Church is to also inform persons, especially females, of the dangers of the Plan B and other birth control proposals. Thereby, offer alternates away from sinfulness. Please remember females are not the tool for world population…that is moving females back to the dark ages. Just like the women suffrage movement so can birth control regulations turn into a battle of who the females body belongs to…women have fought for ownership of their own body. If we commit sin that is on our souls…if we are forced into sinfulness that is a matter of God’s. It’s called “Freewill”.

Finally, if the insurance provider is the cause for sinfulness, stop the insurance coverage. Send women out the door to get coverage somewhere else if the mire though of the insurer draws your sword. But, please stop taking over the female body as though they a carcass to battle for the church. The Catholic Church population is growing, help it to continue to. You won’t if you tell women to sit in the pews with a swollen belly as service to the church.
:banghead:

 

[karaleigh]

Kara,

It would be nice if it were a victory, and your optimism is refreshing, but it seems that this is another example of the way the administration is twisting the issue. As in the original question, the response of the administration is “ok, we won’t force ‘you’ to provide the coverage and pay for it: we’ll just force your insurer to provide and pay”! In other words, the moral objection is completely ignored, and responded to as if the issue were simply financial.

Worse yet, it doesn’t really get rid of the financial implications: if the insurer is the one who is paying for the coverage, do you expect them to simply open their wallet and absorb the costs? Or isn’t it more reasonable to think that they’ll simply raise premiums, so that the institution ends up paying for it (indirectly) in the end, anyway?

Blessings,

G.

The USA called for socialize insurance! Though the Catholic Church built this country, I may get remarks with that, they still understood freedom of religion…that is, away from oppressive religious behaviors! This new decision from HHS says the universities will not have to give free birth control to students…if students want the coverage they have to go directly to the insurer. Duh! My Thoughts.
:whacky:

 

[karaleigh]

For another perspective, lifenews.com/2012/03/16/white-house-colleges-also-forced-to-institute-hhs-mandate/

(I think “Lifenews” is considered to be a news source…)

Sounds like a cut an paste from Planned Parenthood…beat on the PP(?) door people will believe somebody’s already got them…go get other!
:sad_bye:

 

[seekerz]

Obama admin is correct - insurance companies will give out free contraception.
No, everybody will end up paying for it - including those who have moral and religious objections to it. It is such a lie that there will be free contraception!

Once again, nothing but fancy language trying to buy time because of the lawsuits.

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.

 

[Brendan]

The clarification quoted above, states that an independent entity would provide the coverage. If that is so, then the religious institution would have nothing to do with it, no?

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

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

 

[JRKH]

The purpose for the Catholic Church is to also inform persons, especially females, of the dangers of the Plan B and other birth control proposals. Thereby, offer alternates away from sinfulness.

Nicely put. It is also the responsibility of those women who Claim the title Catholic to embrace the information that the Church provides and to incorporate it into their lives for it comes from the one who is the Lord and King of us all, Jesus Christ.

Please remember females are not the tool for world population…

Excuse me for saying so but this statement is just plain foolish. I realize to an extent what you are trying to say, but this is an extremely poor and fundamentally incorrect way to say it.
Females ARE the tool for world population, in conjunction with males. World population comes from no other source. It is as God has made it.
This is not a “male chauvinist” attitude but a simple recognition of the facts of the case in how God arranged the biology of procreation. Male and female he made them.

that is moving females back to the dark ages. Just like the women suffrage movement so can birth control regulations turn into a battle of who the females body belongs to…women have fought for ownership of their own body. If we commit sin that is on our souls…if we are forced into sinfulness that is a matter of God’s. It’s called “Freewill”.

As a Christian and a Catholic, our bodies belong to God. Any “fighting” we do about our bodies needs to be for the purpose of glorifying God and building up His Kingdom.

Finally, if the insurance provider is the cause for sinfulness, stop the insurance coverage. Send women out the door to get coverage somewhere else if the mire though of the insurer draws your sword. But, please stop taking over the female body as though they a carcass to battle for the church. The Catholic Church population is growing, help it to continue to. You won’t if you tell women to sit in the pews with a swollen belly as service to the church.
:banghead:
I think that perhaps you have a misunderstanding about what the Church is fighting here with the HHS mandate…This is about religious liberty, not the availability of birth control.

Peace
James

 

[salusanimarum17]

Sounds like a cut an paste from Planned Parenthood…beat on the PP(?) door people will believe somebody’s already got them…go get other!
:sad_bye:

What? I can’t understand what you are saying here. Sorry.

 

[Dawnia]

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.

In the short term, maybe. But in the long term, pregnancy coverage is the better deal for an insurance company. Under the mandate, every live birth generates an avg of 75 years of new premiums and profit, making pregnancy coverage an investment, whereas ABCs are simply an expense.

 

[SamH]

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.

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

With government regulation insurance companies are called upon to justify their rates via claims paid and are allowed a reasonable profit on those rates. The more pregnancies they cover the more more profit they can make based upon the premiums they are allowed to charge. Fewer covered services means they have to charge less for their coverage - meaning less profit. Then they have to give away “free” (?) services that further eat into those profits.

 

[SamH]

In the short term, maybe. But in the long term, pregnancy coverage is the better deal for an insurance company. Under the mandate, every live birth generates an avg of 75 years of new premiums and profit, making pregnancy coverage an investment, whereas ABCs are simply an expense.

Nor is the government looking long term either. Each new citizen ensures the survival of the social fabric of the nation. A nation “top heavy” with retired citizens and fewer working citizens is doomed to a Greek like existence. But the Obama administration isn’t looking any further than the 2012 election. Long term to them means looking to the 2014 election.

 

[seekerz]

In the short term, maybe. But in the long term, pregnancy coverage is the better deal for an insurance company. Under the mandate, every live birth generates an avg of 75 years of new premiums and profit, making pregnancy coverage an investment, whereas ABCs are simply an expense.

Profit only occurs if the care covered in less than the premiums paid. Insurance companies, if they are looking long-term, have to balance the state of health of individuals whom they know, versus the state of health of individuals not born yet. So while I see your point, I think it oversimplifies the situation. Those kids are going to be on their parents’ policies for the first third of their lives but who knows what the costs are going to be? Isn’t that the whole basis of profit in the insurance company: premiums from healthy people? More kids does not necessarily equal more healthy people.

 

[JimG]

The purpose for the Catholic Church is to also inform persons, especially females, of the dangers of the Plan B and other birth control proposals. Thereby, offer alternates away from sinfulness. Please remember females are not the tool for world population…that is moving females back to the dark ages. Just like the women suffrage movement so can birth control regulations turn into a battle of who the females body belongs to…women have fought for ownership of their own body. If we commit sin that is on our souls…if we are forced into sinfulness that is a matter of God’s. It’s called “Freewill”.

Finally, if the insurance provider is the cause for sinfulness, stop the insurance coverage. Send women out the door to get coverage somewhere else if the mire though of the insurer draws your sword. But, please stop taking over the female body as though they a carcass to battle for the church. The Catholic Church population is growing, help it to continue to. You won’t if you tell women to sit in the pews with a swollen belly as service to the church.
:banghead:

No one is trying to prohibit birth control. Birth control is available now, and has been for decades. It is obtainable cheap or free. There is no shortage of birth control.

What’s new is that HHS is forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage with no co-pay covering oral contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs, against their will and against their conscience. All these items violate Catholic teaching. What’s new is the federal government forcing Catholic institutions to violate their own conscience.

Before the health care law was passed, the president said: “If you like your current health care coverage, you can keep it. Period.”

Now he says, no, you can’t keep what you had before. Now, you have to violate your conscience to provide health insurance coverage of our liking, not yours.

There is not now, and has never been, a shortage of contraception, or even of contraception coverage. There is and was no need for an HHS mandate requiring it. Contraception is widely available, even at low or no cost. There is no need to force Catholic institutions to pay for what violates their conscience. It is simply a violation of the free exercise of religion.

 

[JimG]

Oh my. A 32 page proposal outlining three different options.

Why not just do the right thing and eliminate the unnecessary mandate entirely?

At the very least, why not give a full waiver to those with religious objections?
Why not comply with the constitution and allow for the free exercise of religion?

There is and has not been any shortage of contraception.

The mandate is unnecessary, arbitrary and capricious.

 

[Dawnia]

Profit only occurs if the care covered in less than the premiums paid. Insurance companies, if they are looking long-term, have to balance the state of health of individuals whom they know, versus the state of health of individuals not born yet. So while I see your point, I think it oversimplifies the situation. Those kids are going to be on their parents’ policies for the first third of their lives but who knows what the costs are going to be? Isn’t that the whole basis of profit in the insurance company: premiums from healthy people? More kids does not necessarily equal more healthy people.

Obviously, it’s a simplification. Insurance companies have this down to a very complicated mathematical science. They don’t have to guess as to the health of future children (or our future health), they “know” it already. It’s really kind of scary the amount of information they can predict. I’m sure it will become more refined as DNA advances are made.

Parents still pay premiums on their children. Insurance companies don’t cover them for free. Insurance companies shift the cost of expenses to their policy holders, they don’t pay the costs themselves. Heaven forbid that expenses should ever eat into their multi-million dollar profits. That just will “never” happen.

From a press release from Blue Cross a few years ago when they were trying to justify another price increase, is that their profits don’t come from premiums - costs, but rather from investments of the premiums until they are paid out in costs. (Not sure that’s the complete truth, but that’s what they claim.)