Madison Diocese Provides Contraceptive Coverage (Complies with State Law)

[Corki]

30% of employers are self insured. In a self insured scenario, the employer is the plan administrator. They contract with an insurance company that acts as a Third Party Administrator that generates it’s profit through Administrative Services Only fees. It rents it’s network to the employer, pays the claims on the employer’s behalf, and works with the employer on plan design.

The employer takes on the risk, and generally buys Stop Loss insurance to pay for catastrophic claims. All claims as paid by the employer, from a combination of employee contributions (so called premiums) and employer funds. The employer is responsible for determining employee contributions and for tracking Incurred But Not Realized (IBNR) costs to ensure that they have enough money on hand to pay the claims.

But, the problem with the HHS mandate is that to design a plan without contraceptive coverage (if you offer drug coverage) would be illegal and the TPAs would not comply.

Thanks. You explained that much more precisely than I did.

I also found this link about self-insurance.

siia.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=4546

 

[St_Francis]

The thing is these dioceses, colleges, etc made a choice: they chose money over Catholic principles. I completely get that from a practical standpoint, but there are those out there who are questioning why these Catholic institutions did not sue then when the attack began. I see their point and I do wonder if it will hurt the current cause. It certainly doesn’t help getting more people on board on our side of the fight.

It sounds like the satte mandates were not as rigorous as what HHS is requiring, so Catholic organizations were able to follow the state law without violating moral law.

 

[Ana_v]

but it is not essential to any faith to have contraceptives covered.

I am not predicting that this will actually happen (because of how impractical and transparently disingenuous it would be) however, I would not be entirely surprised if certain anti-Catholic Church individuals who are passionately supportive of the original mandate, decided to come together and invent a “religion” in which contraceptive coverage is an article of their alleged faith/morals.

Why pull this stunt? Because then they could claim protection under the First Amendment. For what purpose? To at minimum, “make a point”. At maximum, to affect policy.

(NOT to incite digression, but only as a point of reference – to bear in mind – for what I said above, consider: “Sweden recognises new file-sharing religion Kopimism” )

Human creativity and absurdity is notorious for not knowing bounds.

 

[PaulinVA]

I am not predicting that this will actually happen (because of how impractical and transparently disingenuous it would be) however, I would not be entirely surprised if certain anti-Catholic Church individuals who are passionately supportive of the original mandate, decided to come together and invent a “religion” in which contraceptive coverage is an article of their alleged faith/morals.

Actually, I believe a new state religion is being advanced by Obama and the liberals - liberal sexualism. It believes that everyone should be able to have sex without consequences with anyone they want and the state should facilitate that.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

This is one of the reasons I’m almost glad that this HHS mandate has come to pass as it has. Rather than the slow erosion of religious liberty taken against places here and there(Boston diocesan adoption agencies here, and Illinois diocesan adoption agencies there, and apparently Wisconsin health care plans, too), we have a full-frontal assault. This forces us to band together and fight it head on.

The difference between Wisconsin health care and the other areas you listed is that Wisconsin has a way to get around that, and they have started to become more Republican and conservative as a state.