We need FReepers to flood us with donations.
Click the Pic
Support Free Republic
Posted on 02/01/2013 9:09:08 AM PST by reegs
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is announcing a broader opt-out for religious nonprofits that object to providing health insurance that covers birth control.
The administration is allowing religious nonprofits to offer coverage that does not include contraception. In such a case, a third-party issuer will handle all business related to providing birth-control coverage for women, according to a source familiar with the changes who spoke only on condition of anonymity.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Using a third party still requires them to provide the service. Nothing is gained but a salve for “easy” consciences.
That's the same thing.
Nothing but lies from these people.
Most large entities (like Catholic hospitals) self-insure. That means they pay their own bills, they use an insurance company to handle the processing and payment of the bills.
Therefore anyone who self-insures would STILL be paying the bill for the contraception and abortifacent coverage. If a firm self-insures that firm can’t escape the cost of any service that’s required to be covered under the firm’s health insurance.
In the non self-insured situation, you conceivably could have the firm paying the insurance company to provide insurance, then the insurer eating the cost of the contraception/abortifacent coverage. Except, of course, they’d pass along that cost in higher rates, so even the non self insured firms would still be paying for it indirectly.
The Obama administration knows this, therefore this is just another cynical ploy to fool the media and give politicians cover.
throw another impeachable offense onto the growing mountain of unpunished crimes committed by Obama
that reminds me , I have a $600 speeding ticket I need to pay, (minor tickets are $600 in California now) I wonder how much Obama will have to pay for his constant misdemeanors
SCREW YOU OBAMA. WE WIN WILL DEFEAT YOUR DAMNABLE LAW IN COURT.
Just for my own information, which legally elected body agreed to these changes in the law?
I thought so.
Chairman Zero simply trying to cover his rear end.
how is this any difference than the “compromise” he offered last year? what exactly am I missing here?
This is like a thief robbing your house, getting caught, and then deciding they’ll give you back your stuff.
Since these questions were not being asked before the passing of "Obamacare," it demonstrates the ANTI-God nature of Obamacare, and that DELIBERATELY written into it.
This is outright Soviet Union style lawmaking and implementation.
This is a sleezy attempt by Obama to avoid another judicial slap-down for another unconstitutional action.
Just more typical Obama sneakiness: twisting words and meanings, lying subterfuge and obfuscation.
Nothing is “free”.
If a religious group’s insurance provider has to provide “free” contraception the costs are still there. They may be hidden but will be rolled into premiums charged.
Acts 7:85
58 Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
You don’t need to pay, please hold are coats while someone else does.
Obama promised not to enforce portions of the law. Judge Cogan said, “put it in writing” -—
“The administration is allowing religious nonprofits to offer coverage that does not include contraception. In such a case, a third-party issuer will handle all business related to providing birth-control coverage for women, according to a source familiar with the changes who spoke only on condition of anonymity.”
Obama is desperate because he’s afraid that the entire “birth-control mandate” will be struck down on First Amendment grounds. We can’t let him adopt some half-assed effort at a “compromise” that will result in “free” abortions for millions of women paid for by all of us.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
“Not sure about this whole “third-party” business. Who will be paying the “third-party?” Didn’t we go through this business the first time around?”
Depends on how it’s structured... If my org. doesn’t want to provide for birth control (or abortion), and one of my employees wants to go to another insurance company not associated with me and obtain what ever coverage he or she desires, it seems to me that that is none of my business.
...No more so that if said employee went to the drug store and bought the drugs or services with cash.
How can an administration just alter an existing law?
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.