Brilliant move by Obama. Now watch the GOP start wailing about mandates on the insurance companies.

Can’t wait until this post gets front-paged and the Obama caved brigade rides to the rescue…

Awesome. Take it away with one hand and give it back with the other. I’m impressed; I thought he was going to totally cave to the bigots Catholic hierarchy.

I don’t know if the Administration wanted to stumble into this in just this way, but I have no problem with where they got, FWIW. Sounds like a decent policy to me.

Brilliant political strategy in the short term, poor in the long term, horrible outcome for insurance customers, and decent outcome for women. The insurance companies can now shift the costs of this to the pools at large, raising rates again exponentially and blaming Obama (hurts him in the long term).

More women may now have access to contraception, but the Catholic Church won here. They got to portray themselves as victims in the media and win sympathy from the right, while they remain the organization that enables the systemic rape of children on a global scale.

You don’t see the costs of this coverage being shifted to the consumer groups that make up the insurance pools?

Judging by the rate increases in 2009 and 2010 in response to the ACA, I’d wager that insurance companies will use this as an excuse to raise rates again. 2-5% increases wouldn’t be out of the question, even though those numbers are completely disproportionate to the costs of the coverage. Insurance companies will never let an opportunity to grossly over-inflate pricing pass them by.

Agree, which is why I think Obama played it this way. Just saying…

I’d also like to point out that the health care plans we’re talking about here routinely cover Cialis, Viagra, Levitra, et al. I guess it’s okay for men to have sex for reasons other than procreation, but not for women to do it…

The costs of contraception were going to part of the pool no matter what the outcome, whether it was the churches allowing it to be offered or in this more round-about way.

So, you’re kind of losing me here.

Sure. I see this not as a benefit for women (as part of the plans they’re being promised contraception with no copay, but their base premiums are going to increase waaaaay more than the copay would’ve cost them), but as another handout for the insurance companies. Much smaller than the ACA, and nowhere near as big as the handout he gave the banks with the settlement yesterday, but a handout nonetheless.

With a copay and the church paying for part of it, the cost is deferred. With this plan, the insurance company is supposed to provide the service at no cost, right?

However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.

does anybody here actually believe insurance companies aren’t going to raise rates on the entire pool in response to this? They aren’t non-profits. I can’t imagine they agreed to provide free contraception without having a mechanism to recoup that money. Hence my assumption that they will increase premiums on the entire pool.

The right, on a number of women’s health issues, keeping insisting that they’re real position is simply, “It’s ok if others do it, but don’t force us to.” But they’re true position is, “We want to be able to stop other people from doing it as well.”

If, on this issue, their position really is the first one, they should be happy. But, if they get upset at the decision, it’ll help make it even more clear to the public that they really think the latter.

It’s not so much that they don’t want their religious freedoms suppressed, it’s that they want to impose their religious doctrines on others.

does anybody here actually believe insurance companies aren’t going to raise rates on the entire pool in response to this?

They’re conforming policies, so they’ll be subject to greater PPACA regulation once the exchanges kick in.

Think about it in two separate ways: one, pregnancy is a lot more expensive than contraception, whether or not it’s taken to term; two, carving out a separate actuarial risk pool for these special cases means crunching a new set of numbers. The insurance companies are going to save money doing this — that’s partly why it was in the preventative health mandate.

Never mind. pseudonymousinnc covered it.

True, but fear of insurance companies making even more profit is a small price to pay for ensuring that women who work for religious organizations have access to cheap contraceptive coverage.

The whole argument over pool costs and Viagra, etc. is a completely separate subject.

Oh Jesus, my comment thread is being taken over by substantive debate. I better go say say something filthy and provocative, stat!

Yay, the presididn’t didn’t anally rape us on this one.

Set your sights a little higher.

The Catholic bishops will not declare this a victory. They’ll go back to the same “money is fungible” line, and claim that even if their bill from the insurance company doesn’t have a line on it that says “contraception and abortion-related services”, the money they send the insurance companies is still paying for these things.

This isn’t the end of the fight, but simply the next step. By trying to accommodate the bishops, Obama’s only feeding them more red meat. You may call it a “compelling illusion” that allows Obama to say he’s done the generous thing by offering a compromise, but the bishops will simply call it an illusion and continue pounding away.

The bishops have already had their battles with Sister Keehan during the health care battle, and will do so once again.

I turned on Faux just because of this. Bill Donahue is on and his voice has gone up half an octave since yesterday. This is funny.

You could put up the Shakira video, and tell the Bishops that you’re simply trying to increase procreation.

I understand your point, and see that this could be more cost-effective for insurers. However, as we saw in 2010 when the insurers in California and many other states raised rates in response to the passage of the ACA, insurers raise rates because they can. They told the country that the ACA was costing them more money (when in reality, none of the provisions had really taken effect and it wasn’t costing them a dime), and I think they can make the same argument here.

The simple line is ‘We have to provide free contraception to some people, and it’s costing us money, so we have to raise rates’. I think it’s far more likely that insurers will use this meme as an excuse to increase premiums again. I can’t imagine Kaiser, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, etc., passing up an opportunity to raise rates.

Pix of Shakira’s ass would work.

It’s all of your substantive stuff over the Komen clusterfuck that’s diverting us from our core mission at TBogg’s House of Bassets and Snark In Association With Shakira’s Ass.

However, as we saw in 2010 when the insurers in California and many other states raised rates in response to the passage of the ACA, insurers raise rates because they can.

I’m aware of that — and truly, I would like nothing more than for private insurers to go away yesterday. But once the exchanges and conforming policy regulations take full effect, there’s going to be more oversight of premium increases.

I agree with you, but I think they (the bishops) just lost a major PR battle because Obama compromised (sort of) and they won’t at all. The ground they were standing on was already unsteady since the rank and file Catholics didn’t agree with them. As I said over at Charlie Pierce’s place, now they’re going to look more churlish than ever.

EJ Dionne has already run up the white flag.

Yeah, the SEC is so well-staffed and hot to trot given all their latest successes keeping the finance industry honest, they’re going to expand their jurisdiction into the insurance industry and make sure we’re all taken care of. It’s gonna be so nice when room temperature nuclear fusion reactors become available at Wal-Mart too.

So oversight of premium increases in the next two years is great. How does that stop insurers from increasing premiums now? Or even more to the point, how does that stop them from increasing premiums in the future? There’s some magical government agency that’s actually supposed to function for the people that’s going to keep the insurers honest going forward? I don’t see that in the cards. Sorry.

And to tie this back to my original comment, the ACA does absolutely nothing, even if it functions the way it was sold to us, to prevent increases now. That’s what I’m concerned about seeing here.

All of this is moot to me. I only make about $3 grand a month, and it would cost almost $800 a month to insure my family, so we have no insurance.

And Obama will use drones to hunt down and kill “true progressives”. Yes, we get it. Obama has failed you again and everything in the world sucks.

Shorter you:

This does not address my needs, so I think I’ll just shit on everybody’s parade.

Again. This is one battle and nobody is saying this is the end all and be all of insurance reform; but that doesn’t make it a bad thing.

The Bishops speak. Sort of.

WASHINGTON— The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.

“The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said.

“Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”

And by “Americans’ consciences” the bishops mean “our consciences.” The consciences of the women who work for them, OTOH, . . . these are of lesser importance to them.

Well, that’s a lovely thought. Thanks for adding the filthy and provocative to the thread.

Shorter Bishops – we interpret the firestorm of women objecting to the Bishops demand as supporting us in our intransigency. And we gonna stay intransigent.

Sigh.

I have very very mixed feelings about this. Mostly because I doubt that what’s supposed to happen – ins. co. reaching out so employers don’t have to? – will happen. Lots of employees of the “affected” institutions will never know they have the right to add this coverage, and many others will treat it the way they treated actually taking the pill/getting a diaphragm etc as teenagers – being prepared would mean talking about sex or admitting in advance that you actually might want and consent to sex…So they won’t wanna talk to the ins. co. about it either.
I sure hope the number of such women will be smaller than it was in my day, but it still comes under…women’s needs come last.

And Dionne still thinks the administration went terribly wrong, so while he accepts this deal, it wasn’t quite the white flag I was hoping to see.

Women need to understand that we can never never stop fighting on these issues, which is really what we want. When will our needs be taken as the default, starting point? When do old religiously-indoctrinated guys like Dionne, Shields, Santorum, etc. shut up about things that f’ing don’t affect them?

I give you this is a far better “compromise” tben could be expected. But as a woman who has watched people like Dolan be given a say in her personal decisions despite the fact that I am not even Christian, any compromise sticks in my craw. Especially since history tells me this will reappear probably in September.

My demand, which will not get a hearing, is that since the Council of Bishops have shown themselves to be a political lobbying group in violation of separation of church and state they need to start paying taxes and report all their income.

So, the Bishops can save face and the Catholic (and non-Catholic) women who work for them can continue to get the pill… Which means at least 98% of them according to the stats…

That’s a big fuckin’ yes on provocation and filth, though if it’s filth I want (and not the good kind) all I need do is go read the commentary on this at K-Lo’s House of Eternal Virginity, possibly with special guest appearance by Formerly Virgin Ben. Always judge an Obama move by how wingnuts react to it – the greater the number of exploding heads, the better the move.

That’s a big affirmative on Shakira, although the commentary on that absolutely amazing fabulous ass is almost as good as the ass. Almost.

You don’t see the costs of this coverage being shifted to the consumer groups that make up the insurance pools?

Where do you think the costs were going before now?

They’ll go back to the same “money is fungible” line, and claim that even if their bill from the insurance company doesn’t have a line on it that says “contraception and abortion-related services”, the money they send the insurance companies is still paying for these things.

And what possible solution can they propose to that? Santorum’s contraception-is-a-liberal-plot nonsense? If the bishops try to push this an inch further, they’ll be stepping into no-conatraception-for-anyone territory.

Always judge an Obama move by how wingnuts react to it – the greater the number of exploding heads, the better the move.

That was one of the good things about the original decision. ; )

I fear the converse is also true (or is it the reverse?)—when wingnuts go along quietly, saying oh, I can live with this….that’s when I worry.

My guess is that this will erupt again when the church figures out it’s paying exactly the same for its women employees’ coverage as every other business is.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops…right. Like the good bishops and cardinals have any standing whatsoever to find anything short of murder “morally objectionable”. They apparently didn’t find major league child molestation morally objectionable, at least until they got caught.

Shit, I was afraid they’d front-page this. Now we’ll get six pages of bullshit about how Obama could have done better if single payer blahblahblah…

If the end user of contraceptive coverage has to pay a higher premium to her insurer because they’ve spread the cost across the pool and raised rates to cover their own loses, that’s not free contraception. It’s just shifting the cost. Whether you call it a copay for the pill or a premium increase doesn’t change the fact that it costs more. I’m taking issue with the administration doing this in a way that leaves the door open for insurance companies to victimize the end users. That’s all.

There were no costs before now, because the service wasn’t provided.

I think a week in which the right-wing Wurlitzer belched and spewed it’s foul gases for all the world to see, and hyper-ventilated over CONTRACEPTION, is a major win for us in the sanity party.

And women get free birth control–which is a win, win for both both sexes. What’s not to like?

My guess is that premiums will end up going down, because it’s much cheaper to have a woman on birth control, than to deliver a baby.

I’m having a hard time seeing how they’re going to be able to use this as as excuse to raise premiums, since they are required under ACA to spend 80% of premiums on care. Sure, universal coverage for contraceptives has a cost. But it’s not one they can use to artifically jack up prices in order to shove more money in their own pockets. They’re still bound by the law to spend 80% of what they collect on care, whether it’s contraceptives or anything else.

Eh, there’s always going to some number of exploding wingnut heads no matter what he does, as witness the debate over ACA. They can’t take yes for an answer, and Obama offends at least some wingnuts simply by being black, above the ground and breathing. The only things he could do about which they’d quietly say, oh, I can live with this would be to resign and/or commit suicide. Actually they wouldn’t be quiet about that, either – been my observation that wingnuts don’t do anything quietly, it’s not in their nature.

I fail to see anything humorous about Obama’s use of drones, but true worshippers at the Church of the Obama just know that he sprinkles magic sparkles on his drones, so they don’t really hurt anyone. Not really. They just land on people and turn into paper confetti.
Obama is a sexist, pure an simple. And a murderer, too.

Oh good, drone jokes. Never mind the war crimes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-waziristan

But hey, they’re only Pakistanis, amirite? Time to cheer on the war on Iran.

Wow. That is a strategic withdrawal by the Bishops. The Miami Bishop got it right, but the Bishops chose to withdraw to fight another day. Here is how the new policy logically has to work:

1. Insurer offers the religious employer an employee insuance policy that says nothing about contraception. The employer says, fine, we’ll take that one.

2. The insurer sends the individual employee a letter, like a policy rider that says, “contraception is included extra under ‘other stuff’ for no charge, but do not tell your employer. If you wish to opt out of this free secret coverage, please let us know.” Most don’t opt out, and the insurer doesn’t tell the employer anyway.

3. The premiums are based on full coverage, and everyone winks at each other. The employees are covered, the insurer gets paid, and the employer pretends they don’t get it, though they do. They routinely process premiums for everything, including for ‘other stuff’.

Important to remember that economists point out the employer doesn’t really pay the premium, even though the premium payments go through it’s accounting. Employee benefits are in lieu of salary and wages, so it’s always the employee who pays for their own benefits,, in the long run. Moreover, the employer gets to deduct the expense. So religious employers will say they are not paying for insurance for contraception, while they take a deduction for the embedded, but hidden cost of providing it.

So don’t nobody say nuttin. The gods are laughing. And Obama just pulled the rug out from under the demagogues. What we want to know is what the Bishops internal polls tell them, to explain their retreat?

>What we want to know is what the Bishops internal polls tell them, to explain their retreat?
That nobody likes them. And trusts them even less.

This “solution” bakes the cost of birth control into the premiums charged the bishops and their institutions, but allows them to claim they are not directly funding something they consider odious. It is a jesuitical exercise of form over substance, an art form the Church has made its special province for over a millenium.

As for the bishops, I expect they will apply their arguments on this issue to explain to a carefully listening Mr. Obama why the Church’s “errant” priests ought not to be liable for their sexual crimes. It would offend the conscience to so assert civic over religious authority. Never mind the underlying behavior.

I think that is an execellent point. The church has to worry a little over the faithful who are really not so and who may think again about the donation this month.

This does not address my needs, so I think I’ll just shit on everybody’s parade.

To address this – I mentioned that I don’t have insurance to demonstrate that I don’t have a hat in this ring. Whether they increase premiums or not, I still can’t afford it.

I was trying to point out that Obama left the door open here for insurers to take advantage of the American people again. It would’ve been really easy for him to say that the added costs to insurers for this service cannot be used as expenses factored into premium increases.

It’s the health insurance version of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

See #45.

Of course their expenses are going to be factored into premium costs as well as any increases. But again, you’re not really voicing a coherent concern. They’re required by law under ACA to spend 80% of what they collect in premiums on care.

Nah, they are insuring the continued income from donations, sound bites.

Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage.

Assuming that the most important issue was access, and that the compromise accomplished that, what do folks think of this on constitutional grounds?

Re the cost issue, I’ve seen several statements that say paying for contraceptives is cheaper than paying for pregnancy and child birth care. So it’s not clear premiums that include this will be higher.

I don’t think all women are shrinking violets these days. My daughter in law talked to both my grandson and his girlfriend and went out of her way to help both of them and his girlfrind’s mother.

I don’t see any constitutional issue. In one case, contraceptive care is bundled into the plan you get from your employer. In the other case, it’s not bundled in but you still get it. For there to be any grounds for a challenge based on inequal treatment, you kind of need to be able to show that someone else is getting a benefit you’re being denied.

Granted, it may well be cheaper. My point was that if we just take as a given that it will be more expensive, the 80% rule prevents it from being an issue anyway.

What I’m suggesting is that insurance companies will do as they have in the past and raise rates based on the perception of higher costs.

If insurers are required to pay 80% of their premium revenue for care services under the ACA, that’s great. It won’t take effect until next year, right? In the meantime they can raise premiums all they want.

Also, you’re counting on the government to enforce that 80% figure. This is the same government that just gave away the farm to 5 banks, and is refusing to pursue criminal charges in the biggest financial meltdown in our history. Insurance companies commit small abuses all the time within their contrived systems, and it’s against the law. That doesn’t stop them now, and I don’t think it will stop them in the future.

if it’s gonna get all emo in here, might as well have some good music for the occasion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szPQCvJ8MPg

So drones is the new third rail. Duly noted. I shall henceforth never mention them again in a less then reverent manner without providing a safety net of fainting couches for the preternaturally sensitive.

No, I was asking about grounds related to the Establishment Clause. Not a constitutional expert here by any means. I’m not saying that’s a fight that the nation needs at this point, but my feeling is that “religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals” should not be able to “provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage.”

Time to cheer on the war on Iran.

Oh get bent. If McCain had won we’d have had troops on the ground in Iran for three years now.

The fact the world isn’t just full of lollipops and rainbow-farting unicorns has nothing to do with President Obama, and everything to do with your pre-adolescent expectations of reality.

Are the drone attacks a damn shame? Yes. Could the President do anything about it? Not without handing the White House to the Republicans. Which is great for your conscience, but lousy for all the rest of us when Mittens gives Israel the high sign to start World War III.

Yeah, but, again – if you can’t show harm or unequal treatment in the final analysis, there’s no “there” there. They’re getting treatment and benefits equal to everyone else. It’s just that they’re getting a letter from the insurer that says, “by the way, we have to pretend like the church isn’t paying for birth control, so your birth control services are being covered under Rider X at no cost to you.”

It doesn’t matter how you get to equal treatment, just that you do, in terms of the constitution.

Goddamn that’s the best cracker I’ve ever had in my life!

Let’s throw a PARADE!

The real losers are the pedifile cases that are still on the churches high moral standards!

When will the church acknowledge their involvement and compensate all the children and present adults who were victimized by the church leaders – cardinals, bishops, priests and others within the church? There is no insurance or co-pay on this issue!

Don’t think I said otherwise. All women are certainly not shrinking violets. Neither are all women bold and assertive when they need to be. My concern is for those who aren’t.
I guess we just have to accept we haven’t gotten as far as we once thought, and must remind ourselves again, one step at a time.

Not sure I agree, but thanks. YMMV

Not to mention, as distasteful as the use of drones is, it’s a damn sight better in terms of destruction and lives lost than sending in thousands of troops and launching a full-on war. Stuff like CIA hits has always made me queasy – but in the end with the bin Laden types, it does come down to “is it better to hire someone to take out bad guy X who is hiding in a country that is not being cooperative about handing him over/dealing with him, or to have a full-scale war?”

Ok but that just means we have to keep spreading he word.

LOL … I’m still chuckling re. the McCurdle thread ...

Does anybody actually believe that the Insurance Company’s aren’t going to damn well raise premiums no matter what?

Whether or not they blame it on this or gin up some other excuse to justify the increase.

Well, seeing how criminal and inept our government is, I guess we should all be thankful that they didn’t just adopt a “Medicare for all” approach.

Right?

I don’t like drones but like you, I have no other solution.

Thank you!

These are not sympathetic service providers. These are heartless profit mills that pillage and burn wherever they can, as long as there’s a buck to be made.

McCurdle? Did you make that up? It’s perfect… I move that it be her new name henceforth! And forthwith!

That certainly doesn’t address my point above.

I would rather simply have affordable healthcare provided by non-profit organizations.

Gee this fire isn’t going out and all I’ve got is some gasoline to throw on it. What else am I going to do?

non profits don’t exist, they still line their pockets and you still have no way of getting at them. Rather have medicare for all.

Hiya tejana !

Yep … it just sounds right … like DoucheHat !

LLN brings out the genius in me … *g*

Yeah but but but if we had only elected Naaaaaader, he would’ve outlawed waaaaaaar in his first week and used the money to fund research that would’ve led to the creaaaaaation of rainbow-farting unicorns!

As a wiser man once said, “break the wrist; walk away”. I <3 you firedogs and basset-heads, and don't want to argue about this. I see it as a weak solution to the current problem while others don't. Let's just agree to disagree.

You’re gonna confuse ‘em by using logic and facts …

That’s the way insurance is supposed to work. The risks (costs) are pooled and everybody pays a small piece of everybody’s care. Healthy people subsidize the care of unhealthy people.

In return they get the peace of mind that comes from knowing that if they become sick they will get treatment also.

I’ll be waiting in the wings to see some.

Hey Pakistan, just be glad we’re flying into your country and only killing some of your innocent people, we could be killing so many more. WTF?!

I think we agree somewhat, I just think it’s a different conversation.

I’m not supporting your position above.

I’m trying to say that your hand wringing is pointless.

The Catholic church will figure out a way to “shame” women who request the coverage from the insurers. It’s what they do. Forty five years ago my doctor, who had been treating me for ovarian cysts, referred me to another doctor because the best treatment was birth control pills, and his church told him he was denied communion if he prescribed The Pill to anyone even if it wasn’t for birth control, and he didn’t want his eight children to see him denied communion.

That’s not to say this isn’t a good outcome and Obama played it smart. It is, and he did. Just don’t think the creepy weasels who wanted otherwise to not think of ways to at least make people uncomfortable for using it.

It’s not pointless, it demonstrates what is really happening.

Something that is counterproductive, however, is praising a sellout who cemented the insurance industry’s extortion racket.

Citizen Peterr:

I think you are right on the money, Obama legitimized the bishops’ claim by engaging the issue on the bishops’ terms and declaring a “compromise” when he should have just stood his ground and stated the obvious: that birth control coverage is required period. But this is what clever fascists do, they cover stupid fascists’ arguments with a blanket of well spoken bullshit and then get the people to pay for the “compromise” through increased premiums to the insurance companies. The final result is to make the stupid fascists look like they were arguing a point of principle and the policy comes out lookin like the “don’t ask don’t tell” of women’s health.

Hyperbole – You’re soaking in it.

How about, “hey Pakistan, if you’re going to continue to play these two-faced games of coddling Taliban and other terrorists while at the same time taking our money and pretending to cooperate, we’re sorry we have to come in and do the job without your prior knowledge or consent.”

The presididn’t's hands are tied.

I wonder if he has a safe word for when Bibi starts getting too rough.

We should be dropping money on them. It would likely be cheaper than the missiles and nothing ruins a church more than rich assholes being in charge.

If half the people you’re taking out are innocents, the JOB you’re doing is creating more terrorists WHILE violating international law.

If the military’s mouth is moving, it is lying.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/209399-house-members-call-on-us-to-leave-afghanistan-after-whistleblower-report

precisely

There are actuarial tables for just about everything, but especially for insurance companies. They know the odds of, say a woman between the ages of 38 and 45 having a miscarriage, spontaneous abortion, Down’s Syndrome baby and all kinds of other problems. The costs and odds of these problems occurring are known. The costs of not having one of these situations at all are roughly, what? Betcha the cost of ‘the pill’ to an insurance company for a year is around, maybe, $5.00 per woman. The government knows these costs, too. They are not a secret. So, for an insurance company to say that providing birth control costs them extra is a known lie. It decreases their costs tremendously and can be proved.

If the insurance companies in the exchanges have to prove the costs of providing birth control through actuarial tables and statistics in order to raise prices, they will have no leg to stand on. I should think they would have to do so. Yes, they can raise the price today before the ACA kicks in, but I would think that Employers would have access to the same actuarial data and resist the specious argument that coverage costs them.

If you don’t get pregnant, you cannot have a child with very, very expensive ailments. If you don’t get pregnant, you will not have a child that, even if perfectly healthy, costs the insurance company for Well Baby Care, vaccinations, check-ups, broken bones and all of the myraid health issues that come with having a child.

Ergo: providing birth control to customers is one of the biggest cost-management methods they have. It’s a true win-win situation.

That’s right. The overall costs are going to wind up in the base rate of every insurance company. That means it will be in the insurance bills of the affiliates anyway, and this way they wind up in the bills of the Churches too. The Church can pretend it isn’t. Kind of like the way Catholics pretend that Church dogma about birth control isn’t there.

Also kind of like how they pay the pedophile cases off. No one objects to their money going for the moral outrage of raping children, at least not out loud.

I can’t wait. I especially want to see John D’arcy, Emeritus Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend go off like the hostile patriarch he is when he realizes those uppity women are going to remain in control of their bodies at the expense of the diocese. He’ll have a couple of novenas to do after the fit of profanity is done.

I point out that in a recent interview, Bishop Egan said that the Church has no duty to report child rape to secular authorities.

I would rather have people never need medical care at all, but that isn’t on the table either.

I wouldn’t rather have a million dollars instead of what I have in my bank account, but that wasn’t on the table either.

What was on the table was whether women who work for catholics were going to be able to get the pill or not.

I wonder if he is suggeting that he believes that it is a sacrament of the Church?

That seems to be the only way you could ever seriously suggest that the Church has no responsibility to report.

No that was decided 12 years at at the end of the Clinton administration and never even challenged by the Bush administration.

I suppose Obama’s compromise is fine, if

1. women working for these organizations actually are able to get good information about the different plans,

2. that a woman being part of one of the plans offering contraception is not then less likely to get promotions and raises because the higher authorities “know” she uses contraception, and

3. that Obama’s acceptance of the Catholic framing of the issue does not come back to make things worse down the road.

as opposed to the Republican who is going to anally rape us morning, noon and night.

I see your point, the guy who says he is our friend seems to anally rape us more than a friend should, but it appears to me that the only other person I get to elect as president of the ‘prison cell’ we call Planet Earth is a Republican who is out to anally rape me ever time his dick is hard and knock out my teeth on top of everything else.

So, if you want the guy whose going to anally rape you, kick your teeth out and then go ass to mouth on you, because, well at least he’s honest about it and doesn’t pretend he’s one of us, don’t expect everybody else to jump on that fuck fest bandwagon.

Surprise, Surprise, but liberals and DFH’s don’t get much say about what happens in this country, we live with 300 million other people, a good portion of which are bat shit crazy.

So, in regards to Obama, as bad as he is, don’t piss on my back and tell me he’s Reagan.

maybe women who work for catholic organization should just wise the fuck up.

if you’re not smart enough to leave after they cover up the rape of your children, how about when they try to deny you birth control?

Maybe Catholic women and others who say there is no difference between a democrat and a republican will think differently now when the race is between Santorum and Obama?

I certainly can’t defend Obama’s use of drones, but my other choice is going to be for a guy who will be elected by people who scream out ‘fuck yeah’ to the question ‘should a person in a car accident be allowed to die because he has no health insurance?’

The disconnect of having the scandal-wracked Catholic church speak out as a moral authority boggles the mind. That the mouth breathing wingers applaud doesn’t surprise me.

I am shocked, shocked….what I really want to know is what Ralph Nader has to say about this! He’ll clear up any ambiguities, you betcha! No doubt he will also have a great deal to say about how Obama has betrayed the cause and is no different and no better than Bush/Cheney. (Thanks, Ralph – now go fuck yourself. Do it today.)

I can hear the wanking already….

This “solution” bakes the cost of birth control into the premiums charged the bishops and their institutions, but allows them to claim they are not directly funding something they consider odious. It is a jesuitical exercise of form over substance, an art form the Church has made its special province for over a millenium.

Indeed, and it is something that manages to pass muster in, say, Soviet Canuckistan, where the employees of Catholic hospitals are signed up to the provincial single-payer system.

Now watch the GOP start wailing about mandates on the insurance companies.

I hate being right:

WH “compromise” totally bogus. Now just tramples on religious liberty of insurance companies instead. It’s a travesty.

— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) February 10, 2012

Seems like the bishops and the traditional power structure of the Church are turning the volume up to 11 to distract from their growing irrelevance. For example, could you ever have imagined a cardinal’s death spurring a local prosecutor to have the body checked for evidence of foul play? It just happened in Philadelphia:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120211_Montgomery_County_district_attorney_explains_her_calling_for_Bevilacqua_exam.html?cmpid=124488459

I’m sure the Church will gain legions of supporters, because who makes a better victim than a massive, world-dominating, secretive, fabulously wealthy, ancient repressive institution lead by powerful old men.? Yes, millions will weep in sympathy.

Does anyone here realize that the repubtards want to do away with birth control altogether so we won’t be outnumbered by the mooslims & whatever other group that’s rapidly increasing in numbers.& that isn’t white,conservative, and American.
Also, too, and in addition to…

Wrong.
(1)The administrative costs of providing specially tailored policies for certain non-profits makes the policies more expensive for insurers.
(2) The cost to insurers of covering contraceptives is only a fraction of the cost of care for unplanned pregnancies. Thus they can still make a profit by offering contraceptives for “free” to non-profits.
(3) Non-comprehensive policies offered by many non-profits render many terminated employees ineligible for COBRA continuation coverage, or reasonably priced health insurance under conversion coverage, or individual/family coverage under HIPAA, thus depriving employees of some semblance of a safety net. Paying for health care out of pocket is invariably more expensive than using insurance.
(4) Insurers make money by investing premium dollars to cover catastrophic losses, and to pay those ginormous bonuses to their Board of Directors and key employees. Many insurers are raising the costs of coverage NOT so much because of the increase in the cost of providing healthcare, but because they took a bath in their investments in municipal bonds, securitized mortgages, tech stocks, etc., over the past five years.

You bring up some interesting points. The possibility of a faith-based non-profit using your personal health information as an excuse to sack you for using birth control is highly unlikely.

First of all, most employers subcontract out the administrative duties related to health plan management to Third Party Administrators (“TPAs”). This is the cheapest and most expedient way employers have of acquiring non-employee expertise in the health care management field to cover their butts from a legal standpoint. Plus it also puts a wall between the employer and/or managment and the employees’ personal health information.

For those employers with self-administered plans, the Plan Administrator has a fiduciary duty to the Plan Participants and Beneficiaries. In other words, if the CFO is also the Plan Administrator, and he makes the decision to fire someone who is taking drugs for chemotherapy, the CFO had better make sure he has a hell of a lot of documentation to back up the decision to terminate, and that he didn’t rely on the employee’s personal health information prior to making the decision to terminate the employee. Raises and promotions would be a grayer area, but again, if the discrimination is overt, the person in charge had better have a legitimate reason not involving access to the woman’s personal health information.