Contraceptive “compromise” worse than original mandate: Eliminates any exceptions

Jill Stanek.com ^ | 2/10/2012 | Jill Stanek

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

How does this work? It seems likely that this will cause some insurance rates to go up.

Obama and company will argue that birth control reduces costs for the average person, because pregnancies are orders of magnitude more expensive.

And anyway, they will say, birth control will reduce the number of abortions, and that’s what all you gun- and Bible-clinging extremests want, isn’t it?

From a purely political point of view, this seems like a more defensible policy for Obama than what he had. The Catholic Church could accept it and take a Pontius Pilate approach (”It’s Obama and the insurance companies doing this, not us!”) Or will the Church affiliates refuse to provide the insurance-with-built-in-birth-control?

[Avoiding_Sulla]

You being a man? That's it? LOL.

My being a man of principle says that daddy at comment 21 has the much clearer perspective. A Pontius Pilate attitude adopted by the churches would be one heck of a sellout.

Money laundering so that they in their whited sepulchers will their hands (souls?) cleansed too. There is no higher Authority than the Bummer. No sirree. The Bummer is bending them over backwards to make sure their HANDS are clean.

Money laundering has been made a crime when anyone but the Bummer engages in it.

[sickoflibs]

RE “How does this work? It seems likely that this will cause some insurance rates to go up.”

Krauthammer said the only change is that now those specific employers do not have to tell the employees that they get the BC benefit, their insurer does if for them. Otherwise nothing has changed. They still pay the same.

Many people work at self insured companies that hire a third party to perform the administration of the claims.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”You being a man? That's it? LOL. My being a man of principle says that daddy at comment 21 has the much clearer perspective.”’

My principle is : don't force me to pay for others expenses against my will, to me being moral is when I can do it willingly. The Church does not share that principle. Their principle seems be give them a waiver because they object to it, but don't give SOL one. No I am not talking about all Catholics but most in Maryland are libs and believe that.

RE :”Money laundering has been made a crime when anyone but the Bummer engages in it.”

See #23

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

daddy at comment 21 has the much clearer perspective

I did not claim to have a clearer perspective than anyone else. In fact, so far, I fail to see any contradictions between between SOL's position and mine on this issue.

I did not interpret SOL's statement about being a man to be his only possible objection to Obama's new policy. For me, the 1st Amendment principle is the paramount argument (SOL: My principle is : don't force me to pay for others expenses against my will, to me being moral is when I can do it willingly.), but I do not think it's the only argument.

[okie01]

Being a man I am still urked that they spread those costs (women's BC and other reproductive benefits) across the male pool when they/we cant use them, intention was to get female support.

Then, there are the healthcare plans that include Viagra...

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks sickoflibs.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Being a man I am still urked that they spread those costs (women's BC and other reproductive benefits) across the male pool when they/we cant use them, intention was to get female support.......
Then, there are the healthcare plans that include Viagra”

Does the government force employers to include that?
Allowing insurance companies to charge based on risk as with auto insurance would solve both.

Geoco is allowed to offer very low auto insurance rates for many customers based on things beyond a driving record that statistically impact their risk for claims to the company. Instead Health insurance companies are mandated to charge many benefits that are not useful for many that pay for them and spread the cost across the risk pool. It's become privately run welfare.

This one issue has fortunately brought the negatives of that aspect of Obama-care to the forefront, after congressional Republicans gave up on their major campaign promise after an early symbolic vote .

[sickoflibs]

RE :”From a purely political point of view, this seems like a more defensible policy for Obama than what he had. The Catholic Church could accept it and take a Pontius Pilate approach (”It’s Obama and the insurance companies doing this, not us!”) Or will the Church affiliates refuse to provide the insurance-with-built-in-birth-control?”

I was watching both the Democrat channel and the Republican channel tonight on this, the first said that Obama was brilliant and made everyone (including church leaders) happy except those bad Republicans, over at the Republican channel they are pointing out that the compromise is a scan and that the same Catholics are not going for it. The next few days will tell us if Obama made this issue go away.

My question: If health insurance companies really all 'want to' GIVE free birth control to employees because it saves them so much money as Obama claimed today, then why is Obama mandated it?? They could do that at any time without a mandate. Just asking the questions no one else will.

[Qbert]

"I was watching both the Democrat channel and the Republican channel tonight on this, the first said that Obama was brilliant and made everyone (including church leaders) happy except those bad Republicans, over at the Republican channel they are pointing out that the compromise is a scan and that the same Catholics are not going for it. The next few days will tell us if Obama made this issue go away."

It doesn't matter what the short-term polls or the giddy leftist pundits say- it will go away (in the ways that matter) if people and their religious leaders stand firm.

Imagine if Reagan had obsessed over polls at the time about handling the Soviet Union, instead of acting upon what he believed. The Soviet Union might still be around, and he would've been a forgotten one-term president. He had his brilliant motto: "We win; they lose"- it seems so simplistic on the surface, yet it was revolutionary at the time. You have to stand firm against bullies- that's the only way to stop them. (Netanyahu telling Obama, "That's not going to happen" is another shining example).

People need to understand this controversy today isn't simply about whether "free" contraceptives and abortifacients should be in the plans- the leftists know that if the religious leaders cave on this, this is effectively the end of Catholicism as an institution. What do any of the teachings mean if the bishops won't defend the most important ones? If the leftists see weakness here, they will attack even more brazenly in the future... all designed with the goal of ultimately crushing the institution.

[okie01]

Does the government force employers to include that?/i>

Yes. "Free" Viagra is a mandatory benefit in many (blue) states.

Recall that health insurance is highly regulated by the individual states.

Indeed, in many (blue) states an individual (or a company) cannot purchase high deductible "catastrophic" health insurance. Instead, the insurance companies can only offer the highly expensive low-deductible insurance. Which also includes mandatory coverage of STDs, sex change operations, addiction treatment, etc.

The cost of health insurance is heavily impacted by the behavior of liberal voting groups.