A new plan for birth control coverage (Obama Administration proposal)

[pinto]

A new plan for birth control coverage

The Obama administration proposes that employees of some religiously affiliated workplaces get contraceptive coverage through a separate, private insurance policy at no cost.

By Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau
February 1, 2013, 9:12 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, trying to defuse one of the most contentious issues in its healthcare law, proposed Friday a new way to shield religiously affiliated organizations, such as hospitals and universities, from having to provide contraceptive coverage directly to their employees.

Instead, the employees would obtain coverage through a separate, private insurance policy at no cost.

<snip>

The administration took a second approach to try to address concerns from hospitals, charities and universities such as Notre Dame that have religious affiliations but primarily provide nonreligious services to people of many faiths. Many of these employers, like churches, object on moral grounds to providing contraceptive coverage.

The Obama administration did not exempt them in the way that churches and other houses of worship are carved out of the mandate.

Instead, administration officials proposed a complex system designed to insulate these employers from having to pay for the contraceptive coverage or even arrange it for their employees.

Employers that contract with insurance companies to provide health benefits to their employees would notify the insurer that they object to the coverage. Under the proposed regulations, the insurer would then have to offer the employees a separate contraceptive benefit at no cost to the employees.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-insurance-contraceptives-20130202,0,680698.story

[customerserviceguy]

1. Here's what I find interesting

"No cost". Somebody's paying.

If it's not the government, then it's the insurance company offering coverage to the religiously-affilliated employer. Since they never eat anything, they will simply factor that cost into what they negotiate with the employer for coverage. Thus, the employer really is paying for the contraception coverage.

I suppose there is a way around that, it is probably possible for the insurer to say, "We added $X to your annual coverage for contraception when we figured out what to charge you. Divide that by Y (number of employees being covered) and you have what it costs per employee for contraceptive coverage." Then, the employer sends out a notice that says, "Instead of your employee share for payroll deduction for your health coverage costing $Z per pay period, it's going to cost $Z plus a surcharge for your fellow employees who want contraception. Have a nice day!"

I don't see how either scenario makes the groups targeted by this potential policy change happy. Maybe it would simply be better to offer optional contraception coverage on a national basis, without regard to whether or not one is employed. Keep it totally out of the workplace for those employers don't want to be a part of it.

[pinto]

2. There's this brief snippet -

But the companies would be able to recover some of these costs.

The administration has proposed forgiving fees that these insurers would otherwise pay to sell insurance on new federally operated insurance exchanges next year to Americans who don't get health benefits at work.

[customerserviceguy]

3. If that's the case

then it is the government (in other words, all of us) who are subsidizing this, at least partially. Why not just skip all the middlemen?

[pinto]

4. Yeah. Public Health Departments in many states already provide free contraceptive services

to low income families, along with other preventive health care services.

(ed for spell)

[RainDog]

7. it's cheaper for insurance cos to provide bc than to pay for childbirth costs

so, even tho this charade may look costly - it's less costly for insurance cos in the long run.

[customerserviceguy]

8. I've read that here

but I've never seen any hard evidence on that. Even so, it's not the insurance companies we're talking about making happy, it's religious institutions and their employee-followers that this policy is designed to mollify.

[Demo_Chris]

5. 100% Opposed! It's a surrender to religious bigots and an insult to women.

Just because you believe in 'god' does not give you the right to ignore the law or oppress others. We settled this nonsense long ago and there is no need to fight it again. Obama needs to stop back peddling and grow a god-dammed spine.

You cannot discriminate even if god tells you to. Period.

[RainDog]

6. The only reason this is done is b/c of the power of that one church

No one is going to give a flip if a Scientologist doesn't want to allow its employees to get psychiatric care, or if one of those sects in xtianity wants to avoid paying for blood transfusions.

All this does is remind people of the repulsive power of one religious group that tries to force itself on Americans who don't share their beliefs.

I can't call them convictions since so many Catholics use birth control... really all this does is reinforce the fantasy among the priestly class that any woman gives a fuck what they have to say about their lives. Because, face it, you Catholics who don't follow dogma - you don't care if the church tells you not to use birth control. Why don't you tell these assholes to shut up?

Honestly. I am sick of the hypocrisy of a religious group whose own followers don't believe the shit they say. Why make anyone else have to suffer for this medieval organization?