HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Obama administration chan...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:02 PM

Obama administration changes controversial birth control coverage rule to appease religious groups

Source: Associated Press

The Obama administration on Friday announced a new accommodation for religious nonprofits that object to providing health insurance that covers birth control.

The new regulation attempts to create a barrier between religious groups and contraception coverage, through insurers or a third party, that would still give women free access to contraception. Whether religious groups will accept this new approach depends in part on the technical details of how it's paid for.

The new health care law requires most employers, including faith-affiliated hospitals and nonprofits, to provide health insurance that includes artificial contraception, including sterilization, as a free preventive service. The goal, in part, is to help women space out pregnancies to promote health.

Religious groups which primarily employ and serve people of their own faith — such as churches — were exempt. But other religiously affiliated groups, such as church-affiliated universities and Catholic Charities, were told they had to comply.





Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-broadens-opt-out-birth-control-coverage-rule-article-1.1253093

17 replies, 2544 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama administration changes controversial birth control coverage rule to appease religious groups (Original post)
Redfairen Feb 2013 OP
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #1
EternalOptimist Feb 2013 #2
FSogol Feb 2013 #10
ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2013 #3
primavera Feb 2013 #9
Javaman Feb 2013 #4
Fuddnik Feb 2013 #6
xxqqqzme Feb 2013 #5
R Merm Feb 2013 #7
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #8
blkmusclmachine Feb 2013 #11
forestpath Feb 2013 #13
forestpath Feb 2013 #12
SpartanDem Feb 2013 #15
forestpath Feb 2013 #16
PSPS Feb 2013 #14
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #17

Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:16 PM

1. I'll take these religious groups serious when they demand that an old guy has to be married

before his insurance will cover Viagra.

Sex outside of marriage is a no-no don't ya know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:43 PM

2. Not really equal

 

Why aren't people making the comparison to vasectomies? They have been covered by insurance for decades. They have no purpose other than stopping a pregnancy. Shouldn't these religious leaders want them excluded from coverage?
No - because men matter and women don't and it is much more important to shame women for having the same sexual freedoms that men have always enjoyed.

I think it is also important to note that the insurance plan that EXCLUDES coverage for birth control is MORE EXPENSIVE than ones that INCLUDE the coverage because insurance companies are pretty smart and don't want to pay the expense of pre-natal, birth and post-natal care.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EternalOptimist (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:04 PM

10. Good point and welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:54 PM

3. Not surprising.

Appease Appease Appease. Everyone gets to play by their own set of rules. That's one of the reasons health care is so fucked up in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:47 PM

9. Agreed

Appeasement is sadly what this administration does best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:27 PM

4. This just in...

a wave of rightwing corporations apply for religious organization exception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:02 PM

6. The price of Papa Johns pizza will only go up $0.12 per pie now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:00 PM

5. The rabid, religious, rong wing

minority tyranny continues.

This is getting way too predictable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:13 PM

7. I will take the religious notprofits more seriously when

they all give up their federal funds, grants or other monies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:41 PM

8. It seems to me this is what was proposed last year, but taking the self-insuring of the hook

I can't see an explanation in the Daily News at all, but here's the Washington Post:

Under this proposal, objecting nonprofits will be allowed to offer employees a plan that does not cover contraceptives. Their health insurer will then automatically enroll employees in a separate individual policy, which only covers contraceptives, at no cost. This policy would stand apart from the employer’s larger benefit package.
...
Last February, the Obama administration announced an accommodation to faith-based nonprofits: A third-party insurance company would cover the cost of contraceptive coverage.
...
Under the policy proposed Friday, self-insured plans opting out of contraceptive coverage would notify the company that administers their health benefits. That third-party administrator would then be responsible for arranging “separate individual health insurance policies for contraceptive coverage from an issuer providing such polices.”

Insurers who create these plans for self-insured companies will receive an offset from the federal government: Lower fees to sell plans on the new health exchanges run by the Obama administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/01/the-white-houses-contraceptives-compromise/


So for employers that use an insurer, this is still the same (since contraceptive coverage pays for itself by vastly cutting the pregnancies and healthcare associated with that, an insurer will be willing to do this). The self-insuring Pharisees, however, are laughing all the way to the bank; they get to parade around their 'moral objections' to contraception, while being saved the costs of so many pregnancies. And the government effectively pays for the contraception instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:38 PM

11. Who won the election again?!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:54 PM

13. I ask myself that question every day.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:52 PM

12. Did the Obama administration ever meet a bigotted religious group

 

it didn't try to appease?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:51 AM

15. Contraception will still be free

or you just so hard up to find an excuse bash to you totally ignore that parrt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:34 AM

16. My issue is Obama is still APPEASING RELIGIOUS GROUPS

 

and that is still true regardless.

Considering that I am not the only one to post about it, but I am the only one you replied to in this thread, obviously you are targeting me personally.

But you won't shut me up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:57 PM

14. Further proof that we live in a de-facto theocracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:03 AM

17. Well, it's been two weeks since the inauguration

for him, that constitutes a firm stance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread