Obama “accommodation”: Insurers must cover contraception at no cost to … anyone?; Update: “Magical thinking,” says LA Times

posted at 1:20 pm on February 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Today, the Obama administration hastily called a press conference to announce a change to its HHS mandate for employers to cover contraception at no cost, including religious organizations whose doctrines oppose contraception and abortifacients.  Instead of religious organizations footing the bill directly, the revised “accommodation” now says that insurers must cover the costs, which changes … nothing:

The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and the potentially abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.

Essentially, religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover both birth control and the ella abortion drug

According to Obama administration officials on a conference call this morning, a woman’s insurance company “will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The religious institutions will not have to pay for it.”

The birth control and abortion-causing drugs will simply be “part of the bundle of services that all insurance companies are required to offer,” White House officials said.

So these employers will still have to provide the health insurance, and the health insurance must cover the contraception and abortifacients.  The White House apparently wants t pretend that the funds for these outlays will come off of the Unobtanium Tree, where insurers find money to cover all mandates.  This exposes once again a stunning ignorance of risk pools and how costs are passed along to consumers.

Let’s just take this one step at a time.  Where do insurers get money to pay claims?  They collect premiums and co-pays from the insured group or risk pool.  No matter what the Obama administration wants to say now, the money that will cover those contraception costs will come from the religious organizations that must now by law buy that insurance and pay those premiums.  Their religious doctrines have long-standing prohibitions against participating in contraception and abortion, and nothing in this “accommodation” changes the fact that the government is now forcing them to both fund and facilitate access to products and services that offend their practice of religion.

Basically, the Obama administration told religious organizations to stop complaining and get in line.  This “accommodation” only attempts to accommodate Obama’s political standing and nothing more.

Update: The LA Times’ Jon Healy calls this new position “magical thinking”:

Here’s where the magical thinking comes in. The following is from the fact sheet the White House released Friday:

Covering contraception saves money for insurance companies by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception lowered premiums by 10 percent or more.

Making everyone in a pool carry coverage whether they need it or not spreads the cost, saving money for those who really do need it and who’d choose to carry it if it were merely optional. But costs faced by the insurer are the same — and when the care is provided with no out-of-pocket costs, the insurer’s costs are likely to go up because more people will use it. Such is likely to be the case with contraception.

Also, let me emphasize one point that this does not address.  The government is forcing religious organizations to both pay for and facilitate activities that violate their religious doctrine.  If anyone thinks that passes muster with the First Amendment, that’s even more magical thinking than this funding shell game.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6

The WH is throwing a massive tantrum and we all have to pay for it.

jeanie on February 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

This is clever, there is at least one poster on here who thinks that these costs are absorbed by the companies, and that the company pays for it out of a magical piggy bank…that their revenues from customers (you and I) don’t pay for added costs.
That is the way people think, if the company has to pay for it, only they are paying for it…as if the company prints their own money.
What he is doing will work, bizarre as it seems, the average person won’t see a problem with this.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Where in hell are we going? And why are we in this hand basket?

timberline on February 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Obama doesn’t have much respect for people’s intelligence.

Wigglesworth on February 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM

O’bama won 70% of the High School Dropout vote-what do you expect, Rocket Science?

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

So we blame Carter? Irony!

upinak on February 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM

That peanut-farming retard may have started the damage…but America willingly went down the path of destruction ever since then. Most of those who warned against trading with and farming jobs out to a Communist dictatorship were ignored or told to STFU.

And now look what’s happened. Another few years and they will literally own the nation outright.

MelonCollie on February 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

@nathor:
the argument can be made that the church is facilitating sterilizations, abortifacients and artificial birth control by paying employees that live in countries where such actions are permitted.

Wow, that’s good- one can further make the argument that the Church is facilitating voodoo rituals, a belief in alien abductions, and the abomination of drinking budweiser products for the same reason you just put forward.

GrassMudHorsey on February 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I think Obama snorted way more cocaine than he lead us to believe.

wheelgun on February 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

This edict from our Dear Leader will expire on January 20, 2013 at 12:01PM one way or another.

meci on February 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I have a feeling we are missing the forest for the trees.

How far have we come as a country where the president can tell private companies what they can and can’t cover?

Everyone is making a big deal (rightfully so) about how this is an assault on separation of church and state, but how is this also not an assault on free enterprise.

Without so much of a whimper, Obama is now able to tell companies what to sell and how to sell it.

dernst2 on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

He won.

FruitedPlain on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Barack Obama is incredibly skilled at missing the point.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

ObamaCare is a Trojan Horse for fascism, comrades

faraway on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Like Rush said today… he didn’t have the authority to mandate it in the first place, and has no authority to issue a compromise.

JellyToast on February 10, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I Won! is the only authority he needs.

Lily on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

This is not an “accommodation”, this is a change in tactics that has a better chance of withstanding court scrutiny.

ninjapirate on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

The WH is throwing a massive tantrum and we all have to pay for it.

jeanie on February 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

And that is where you are wrong, people will see this as the company has to pay for it, not the reality that we have to pay for it.
I could point to a whole thread of trying to convince someone that added taxes are a burden on the customers, not the company, and they think I am nuts.
They thought if the company paid for it, than we don’t have to…I am telling you, Obama’s solution works because people do not understand basic, and I mean basic, math and economics.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

This still does not work.

Obamacare calls for 85% of all premiums collected to go to services.

What exact piece of paper is it that Obama is referring to? This cannot be done thru regulations from HHS allowed by Obamacare. Those regulations all fall under the 85% rule.

Freddy on February 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

This is what you call a distinction without a difference. And it’s not even a clever one.

SlaveDog on February 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I think the Obama thought he was pulling a sharp political move on Republicans. Remember how strange it was when George Stephanopoulos made the Republican candidates focus on banning birth control in the debate? Everyone though that was strange. I wonder if that came from one of those Monday phone calls to the White House. Maybe the plan was to try to make Republicans appear opposed to birth control and then Obama pops and says I will see to it you all get free birth control. Perhaps it should be called ABC-PAC.

Their political calculus was to use this to push women toward supporting Obama. It didn’t work quite like they hoped. But they also get to grab more power for the President so their Big Government vision of utopia is still advanced.

AnotherJones on February 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Clearly, the 0bama regime thinks rallying the base is more important than the liberal Catholic vote.

Interesting.

Rebar on February 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Obama tomorrow:

OK, OK, OK. You don’t like the idea of paying the guy that pays the guy to provide contraceptives. So, I have a compromise. You pay me and I’ll pay the guy that pays the guy to buy contraceptives. Everybody wins!

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM

faraway on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Yep, it always has been. We are just now getting all the details from Comrade Sebelius.

d1carter on February 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Maybe he’ll just get mad and arrest church leaders.

darwin on February 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM

And now look what’s happened. Another few years and they will literally own the nation outright.

MelonCollie on February 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Well they are already on the way of owning Canada. Only time.

upinak on February 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I have a funny feeling behind the scenes – the Insurance lobby is hammering the WH with cost assessments that equal a huge loss.

Odie1941 on February 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I’m not comfortable bringing this up, but, has Obama ever had to get by on the sweat of his brow? I mean, worked? He seems so detached from the real world, where there’s a relationship between real effort and goods and services produced, and there’s a finite supply of goods and services. He was a community organizer in South Central Chicago, where I suspect his main objective was to get government funding for that community. What does he know about business, and industry, and how there are no free lunches.

Paul-Cincy on February 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Once again. Who picks up the tab for the RCC if they are self-insured? (I’m fairly certain they are.)

CycloneCDB on February 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Are you a trans gender male, looking for a sex change operation who is a liberal and has voted for Obama in 2008? If so, you may get your implants.

upinak on February 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Sadly I am just a regular female ,
but I’ve been told that my emotional health will improve if I can get free breast implants. It is a health issue for me .
If Obama Hussein pays for my free implants, I will vote for him forevah :(

burrata on February 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

argument can be made that the church is facilitating sterilizations, abortifacients and artificial birth control by paying employees that live in countries where such actions are permitted.

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM

What are you talking about? The religious organization does not want to offer something that is against their faith whether it’s free or not.

It’s available for their employees because the organization can’t will it out of existence but they don’t have to participate in it’s distribution.

Vince on February 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Obama is nothing but a Chicago thug, if the Stupid party wasn’t so stupid and spineless impeachment proceedings would have been under way a long time ago. Especially for all the abuse of executive orders.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

All hail dear leader

I may just watch tingles today and see what happens

cmsinaz on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I’m amazed that dear leader still lets registered republicans and Christians engage in commerce, have access to food, and travel freely.

tom daschle concerned on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

The WH is throwing a massive tantrum and we all have to pay for it.

jeanie on February 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

jeanie, the national debt has increased 50% since Obama became President, and he’s not nearly done yet. We’re talking about the biggest hangover the world has ever seen.

Paul-Cincy on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

obozocare isn’t about healthcare. It’s about lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist CONTROL of one-sixth of the US economy, lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist WEALTH AND INCOME RE-DISTRIBUTION, lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist EXPANSION OF ABORTIONS WITH TAXPAYER MONEY, lunatic-left destruction of the Catholic Religion and every other Christian religion that opposed it’s dictates and unlimited lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist NANNY STATE COMMANDS and RULES for the American people.

In addition to being an insult to the US Constitution, obozocare is an affront to the American people. It must be removed, along with each and every lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist that supports it.

Our new president, along with the new Republican controlled House and Senate must, as their first official act, repeal obozocare, then tear it up into a million pieces, burn the pieces, bury the ashes and cover the burial site with 1000 tons of concrete.

TeaPartyNation on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

If Obama Hussein pays for my free implants, I will vote for him forevah :(

burrata on February 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

the indentured servant is a bad idea.

upinak on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

How is it possible that covering contraception, sterility treatments, or even abortion is MORE expensive than covering the birth of a child and subsequent care?

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

This is what you call a distinction without a difference. And it’s not even a clever one.

SlaveDog on February 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

And, yet, news reports are quick to point out all the Catholics who are happy with the head fake… Idiots.

Fallon on February 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bQnxlHZsjY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

So let it be written..

FLconservative on February 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Circus clown incompetence?

NoDonkey on February 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Not incompetence of any kind.

Destroying a civil right by edict, then pretending to compromise by destroying that civil right by a new–and practically identical–edict.

Don’t worry, though: choco ration’s going up this month!

KrebsCyclist on February 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Obama two days from now:

OK, so I admit that paying me the money might seem a little odd. I’m good for it, but some people don’t trust me. That’s cool. So, here’s the new deal:

You don’t have to pay me. You can pay Congress, and Congress will pay me and I’ll pay the guy that pays the guy to provide contraceptives. See, everybody wins!!!

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Does someone have a list of the laws that the president can unilaterally waive obedience to, or is it all laws?

Vashta.Nerada on February 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Every time they force insurance companies to pay for something, who do you think actually pays….it’s the policy holders…my health insurance premiums have nearly doubled in the last 2 years and each time the company has claimed part of the increase is due to provisions of the new health care law…why don’t the Repubs march out people who have seen these large increases like the dems do..I know I can’t be the only one experiencing this…

rich8450 on February 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I’m not comfortable bringing this up, but, has Obama ever had to get by on the sweat of his brow? I mean, worked? He seems so detached from the real world, where there’s a relationship between real effort and goods and services produced, and there’s a finite supply of goods and services. He was a community organizer in South Central Chicago, where I suspect his main objective was to get government funding for that community. What does he know about business, and industry, and how there are no free lunches.

Paul-Cincy on February 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM

It’s not just Obama. He is surrounded with these community organizers. They are so wrapped up in their belief that they know what’s best and that most of the voters don’t understand complicated issues.

The opposition needs to pound on the fact that this administration has nothing but contempt for the average American.

Vince on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Notice Mitt has not weighed in on this…maybe because he issued the edict in Mass to force Catholics in that state to do the same…Obama brings this out, to show that Mitt has no standing…

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Which politicians will honor their oaths and defend the constitution by bringing impeachment proceedings and court action.
If they do no they are part of the problem and must be GONE!
ALL OF THEM.

Which Insurance Companies will stand up and fight this unconstitutional mandate by Heir Dictator?
If they are one I use and do not I will not use them anymore!

ConcealedKerry on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Happy Nomad on February 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I don’t see it as an end run. If a religious organization self-insures they are subject to the mandate. If the contract with a third party insurer they would now be prohibited from adding a coverage exclusion for medication and procedures they find objectionable. So the announcement changes nothing.

MajorKong on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I sure hope that people remember this, as in November that if Obama is re-elected that he won’t have to bow to these “pressures” as he issues Executive Order after Executive Order after Executive Order….

B.O. needs to be stopped from a second term when he really has nothing to lose.

ProfShadow on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Does someone have a list of the laws that the president can unilaterally waive obedience to, or is it all laws?

Vashta.Nerada on February 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Well he’s been emboldened by the fact that the GOP has NO spine.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

See you in court, moron! – Archbishop Dolan

JAM on February 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I am a licensed insurance agent in Louisiana.
Insurance is regulated by our Elected Commissioner of Insurance.
Insurance, by federal law, from being sold accross State lines, so there is NO interstate commerce possible.
What law allows Obama to demand my Insurance Commissioner change his rules.

Also, a good point above,
Most organizations with more than 500 employees is Self Funded, meaning they hire an insurance company to administer it, but every drug and service is paid for by the organization.
So the admin fee will have to cover these mandates.

barnone on February 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Like lemmings off a cliff……

Rohall1215 on February 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

According to Obama’s team, this is supposed to be so cost effective that insurers will offer the stuff at no cost.

If so, why don’t insurers do it already without having the insured pay a co-pay?

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

drewwerd on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

How is it possible that covering contraception, sterility treatments, or even abortion is MORE expensive than covering the birth of a child and subsequent care?

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

What is your point?

Vince on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

This is not an “accommodation”, this is a change in tactics that has a better chance of withstanding court scrutiny.

ninjapirate on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Now if only the SCOTUS will rule that Congress exceeded it’s authority under the Commerce Clause of the 10th Amendment by forcing private citizens to buy a product is unconstitutional, this issue will be a moot issue.

timberline on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Just wait Tom, Mr thin skin will retaliate shortly

cmsinaz on February 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

the indentured servant is a bad idea.

upinak on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

First I want him to pay for my mortgage and gas out of his stash of Obama money.
Then he has to give me free implants, as well as free buttt implants ( it is my health issue) and free manicure, pedicure and all other essentials for my health….then I might think about it
:(

burrata on February 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

If you make access to contraception free, it is a smaller step to mandate who MUST use contraception compared to mandating its use for a price. This is a nice addition to the rationing of health care at the end of life. Kind of the way livestock are managed: selective breeding and culling.

DaveDief on February 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Hard to overcome the distance I feel from all of this, and have since even before the absurd election of 2008 placed such a ridiculous non-entity in the WH. There hasn’t been a group as intellectually, morally, and politically unfit for office in my lifetime, and perhaps in US history. And, for the most part, they have a country that deserves them.

But sorry, can’t give a rat’s posterior about the “church”. Any institution so arrogant and dangerous that it deals in “social justice” is just a different part of the same problem.

Hey, I’ve got an idea – why doesn’t the church (churches?) declare “sanctuaries” for those not complying with the latest crazy edicts out of the moronic People’s National Commissariat on Everything You Do (uh, the federal government)? You know, like those really cool “sanctuaries” (lawless zones) they’re so fond of for those in violation of immigration law (OK, only certain kinds of people, with certain looks and languages).

Social fascism is a b**ch when it comes back to bite you, monsignor.

IceCold on February 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Senator Blunt: “Just because you can come up with an accounting gimmick and pretend like religious institutions do not have to pay for the mandate, does not mean that you’ve satisfied the fundamental constitutional freedoms that all Americans are guaranteed” (bolding in original).

KrebsCyclist on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

The libs on the other sites are gong crazy. “He caved!”

We’re finished as a republic, aren’t we?

CycloneCDB on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

That news conference was chilling…

d1carter on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

then I might think about it
:(

burrata on February 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Can I call you… Plas Tique Bu-tahy?

upinak on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Have we heard back yet from any of the Catholic (or other denomination) leaders to get their response to this world-shaking CHANGE in Dear Leader’s mandate?

PackerFan4Life on February 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

In Obama’s defense, it might not be a cynical move which insults Americans’ intelligence. Increasingly I’m beginning to think he may actually be stupid enough that this is how he thinks markets work. Not sure which is worse.

SoRight on February 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Senator Blunt: “Just because you can come up with an accounting gimmick and pretend like religious institutions do not have to pay for the mandate, does not mean that you’ve satisfied the fundamental constitutional freedoms that all Americans are guaranteed” (bolding in original).

KrebsCyclist on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Are you a ‘Maverick’? Just wondering…

tom daschle concerned on February 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I have a funny feeling behind the scenes – the Insurance lobby is hammering the WH with cost assessments that equal a huge loss.

Odie1941 on February 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM
I’m not comfortable bringing this up, but, has Obama ever had to get by on the sweat of his brow? I mean, worked? He seems so detached from the real world, where there’s a relationship between real effort and goods and services produced, and there’s a finite supply of goods and services. He was a community organizer in South Central Chicago, where I suspect his main objective was to get government funding for that community. What does he know about business, and industry, and how there are no free lunches.

Paul-Cincy on February 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM

You should feel great about yourself for both realizing this – and calling it what it is.

I guarantee you – if you sat with the President – and talked about everyday bills, stresses, challanges, etc – you wouldnt get a drop of empathy – though a lot of Political sympathy.

I have learned a great deal in my life by asking questions to the “common man” – while sitting at a bar.

A guy over a year ago was at a local place – played some pool, chatted about sports, where we were from, college – the usual. I brought up the fact I was new to the state and were looking to buy a home.

Within 15 minutes – and 2 emails later – I now know more – and will save thousands when we buy – from a guy at a bar – and it didnt cost me a dime.

Thats America to me. Red, black, white, female, male – when people actually share their honest experiences – its a 2 way street. I never lose in life – I win and learn.

Odie1941 on February 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Catholic Bishops grab the chance to say yes and get back in line with Dear Leader in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 . . .

2ndMAW68 on February 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

How is it possible that covering contraception, sterility treatments, or even abortion is MORE expensive than covering the birth of a child and subsequent care?

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

What is your point?

Vince on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

My point is I don’t see how it could cost an insurance company extra money to cover contraception, etc… when the result of not covering it is a higher rate of births. If it doesn’t cost any more to cover those things, why the argument about requiring insurance companies to cover it.

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Which Presidential candidate will stand up and call this the Unconstitutional Power grab that it is?
Rush showed the way, if none do, if none call for litigation and impeachment, then we have no candidate worth voting for and must draft a third party, NOW!

ConcealedKerry on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Now if only the SCOTUS will rule that Congress exceeded it’s authority under the Commerce Clause of the 10th Amendment by forcing private citizens to buy a product is unconstitutional, this issue will be a moot issue.

timberline on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

You have Ginsburg who doesn’t think the US Constitution should be a model for ANYTHING … then I finally understand why she gives it so little respect. She’s interpreting the Constitution not as it as, but as she’d like it to be. No surprise when she upholds ObamaCare.

Paul-Cincy on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

I love it when barack tries to make it look like he is so smart and has figured out the Rubiks cube, only to turn it over and find that it is still a mess!

Bahahahahaha!

DuctTapeMyBrain on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

How is it possible that covering contraception, sterility treatments, or even abortion is MORE expensive than covering the birth of a child and subsequent care?

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

It’s not. It’s voluntary…and Obummer’s proclamation isn’t.

MelonCollie on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

This is ridiculous. So the ‘accomodation’ is that instead of being required to purchase an insurance policy that covers abortifacients and sterilization the religious employers will be required to . . . . purchase an insurance policy that covers abortifacients and sterilization.

I get it.

jdp629 on February 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

“The WH is throwing a massive tantrum…
jeanie on February 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

So what does that make the hissy fits going on here?
You guys are aware of the Catholic church’s position on ‘Obamacare’…right?

Just in case you wanna start a thread and call Bishop Dolan a fascist and other silly names…

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Need I say it again? It’s paid for with Obama money. From his stash.

The Rogue Tomato on February 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Now if only the SCOTUS will rule that Congress exceeded it’s authority under the Commerce Clause of the 10th Amendment by forcing private citizens to buy a product is unconstitutional, this issue will be a moot issue.

timberline on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

I wouldn’t worry. If the SC doesn’t do it, the citizens will do it themselves. If this is ruled constitutional, then we will be getting a new constitution.

Vashta.Nerada on February 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

So will the insurance companies raise their rates while they provide these “free” services? /

Cindy Munford on February 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Catholic Bishops grab the chance to say yes and get back in line with Dear Leader in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 . . .

2ndMAW68 on February 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

That’s what I fear. It’s going to happen. THEY will cave. This re-wording of the same mandate was just an opportunity for them to fall in line.

It’s total mafia mentality.

CycloneCDB on February 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

The Republic has fallen. Our Constitution and our laws now mean nothing.

steebo77 on February 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

My point is I don’t see how it could cost an insurance company extra money to cover contraception, etc… when the result of not covering it is a higher rate of births. If it doesn’t cost any more to cover those things, why the argument about requiring insurance companies to cover it.

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Then you miss the point.

CycloneCDB on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Cindy Munford on February 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Sebelius said that this was such a cost saving benefit that it could be provided at no-cost…?

d1carter on February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Can I call you… Plas Tique Bu-tahy?

upinak on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I luv Big Plas Tique Bu-tahy
and I cannot laaey

burrata on February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

How is it possible that covering contraception, sterility treatments, or even abortion is MORE expensive than covering the birth of a child and subsequent care?

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

It’s not. It’s voluntary…and Obummer’s proclamation isn’t.

MelonCollie on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

My point is:
If I run an insurance company, and I have two policies, one that covers contraception and one that doesn’t, I would charge more for the one that doesn’t cover contraceptives because my eventual costs are higher.

The same is true of covering checkups or any other preventative coverage. The end cost is lower by covering those things, so the cost of the premium should be lower as well.

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

JugEars just has no clue!
I’m starting to wonder if he has even written a check in his life, or seen a checkbook, until Moo-moo came along to do it. He just discovered what an ATM was recently.
I think everything in his life has been handed to him!
Thank you major media for vetting this vermin!

KOOLAID2 on February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I don’t see it as an end run. If a religious organization self-insures they are subject to the mandate. If the contract with a third party insurer they would now be prohibited from adding a coverage exclusion for medication and procedures they find objectionable. So the announcement changes nothing.

MajorKong on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Of course the announcement changes nothing. But the bigger point is that Obama’s mandate is illegal to begin with. That he shifted the mandate from religious organizations to insurers doesn’t change the very basic fact that he doesn’t have the authority to mandate by regulation in the first place. The government is demanding universal access to contraception based solely on an edict put out by the whore who runs HHS. Where is the legal authority for Obama/Sebelius to make such a radical demand on employers?

What is next? A mandate we all buy the crappy overpriced golf carts known as the Chevy Volt? A ban on sugar or salt?

Happy Nomad on February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

O ba ma
O ba ma
O ba ma

cmsinaz on February 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

But sorry, can’t give a rat’s posterior about the “church”. Any institution so arrogant and dangerous that it deals in “social justice” is just a different part of the same problem.

IceCold on February 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Nose/face. I’m Catholic and the church is far too liberal on some things but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t use them as an ally when it might help gain a good result.

This argument highlights the dangers of Obamacare and I’m glad the church is engaged in the fight.

Vince on February 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Kind of the way livestock are managed: selective breeding and culling.

DaveDief on February 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

I think you have hit upon the remedy. For the professional baby makers that exist and those who want to become one, and exist at the expense of working Americans, should they reguire contraception…… castrate them …..FREE!

Survival of the fitest!

ConcealedKerry on February 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Why not tell insurance companies that they have to provide these services free, he just told banks to cough up $26B for free to dole out to people who got foreclosed on. It’s not like paying for all these freebies are going to be taken out of our paychecks.

Kissmygrits on February 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

So will the insurance companies raise their rates while they provide these “free” services? /

Cindy Munford on February 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

the conspiracy of the insurance vs government intervention goes on!/

upinak on February 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

And, yet, news reports are quick to point out all the Catholics who are happy with the head fake… Idiots.

Fallon on February 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Other than liberal Catholic Sr. Carol Keehan, who supported obamacare despite catholic bishops opposition to it (yes many of the bishops opposed it), can you provide links to other catholics happy with this “compromise”? not saying that they are not, I just haven’t seen it yet.

neuquenguy on February 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Just wait until you get to page 2748 of the health care bill, and read about the one-child policy.

Vashta.Nerada on February 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

How is it possible that covering contraception, sterility treatments, or even abortion is MORE expensive than covering the birth of a child and subsequent care?

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Money isn’t the issue. Religious freedom and the Bill of Rights is. If the First Amendment means nothing, you’ll need to check with this Administration to find out what speech is allowable… but most progressives wish for fascism.

theCork on February 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Basically, the Obama administration told religious organizations to stop complaining and get in line. This “accommodation” only attempts to accommodate Obama’s political standing and nothing more.

And CHA DID!?! Really? The Bishops had better stand up and be counted as well as ALL of the conservative pols.

GeorgieGirl9 on February 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

My point is:
If I run an insurance company, and I have two policies, one that covers contraception and one that doesn’t, I would charge more for the one that doesn’t cover contraceptives because my eventual costs are higher.

The same is true of covering checkups or any other preventative coverage. The end cost is lower by covering those things, so the cost of the premium should be lower as well.

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

You are falling for the “preventive medicine always saves money” canard.

If I have a company of 25,000 and I have to cover the purchase of condoms for 12,000 people or pay for a few oops pregnancies – you’re saying the cost is the same? Of course it isn’t. You act as though people have oooops pregnancies once ever nine months.

PLUS – you miss the point. You are compelling a religous organization to act opposite their faith. It’s so clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment that you have to be WILLFULLY trying to usurp basic human rights to support it. THere’s no way to spin this to make it innocuous.

CycloneCDB on February 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Absolute nonsense. Anyone who lets up on Obama due to this is a fool.

netster007x on February 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

My point is:
If I run an insurance company, and I have two policies, one that covers contraception and one that doesn’t, I would charge more for the one that doesn’t cover contraceptives because my eventual costs are higher.

The same is true of covering checkups or any other preventative coverage. The end cost is lower by covering those things, so the cost of the premium should be lower as well.

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Well that’s all very nice and obvious but I still don’t get your point as to this post.

Obama is mandating that the Catholic church offer contraceptives and abortifacients and they don’t want to because it is against their beliefs!

Vince on February 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

My point is I don’t see how it could cost an insurance company extra money to cover contraception, etc… when the result of not covering it is a higher rate of births. If it doesn’t cost any more to cover those things, why the argument about requiring insurance companies to cover it.

BBegley on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Huh? You do realize insurance companies want more paying customers As do 100% of every other entity.

Find 1 insurance company who isnt looking for more clients. Its the basis of actuarial science: increased volume at a decreased cost. Find 1 insurance company in the red. The only time that cost exceeds the revenue – is when the governement mandates and creates guarantees.

Which happens to be the failure of Obamacare and Romneycare.

Odie1941 on February 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Just wait until you get to page 2748 of the health care bill, and read about the one-child policy.

Vashta.Nerada on February 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

you missed my Mao ref earlier, didn’t you?

upinak on February 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Yep. Only a non-thinking person would accept the Obama move as a “compromise.” It’s cheap, slimy sleight-of-hand.

Basically, this has always been the case with Obamacare: everyone who either buys insurance or pays taxes must pay for contraception, whether he believes it’s right or not.

Obama’s tap dance doesn’t change that.

J.E. Dyer on February 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM

So what are the bishops going to do now? Double down, I hope.

Missy on February 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I am waiting for some Catholic Bishop to show up on TV and say how Catholic Church is so thankful to Obama now that they don’t have to pay for contraception anymore !!

burrata on February 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6