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
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)before his insurance will cover Viagra.
Sex outside of marriage is a no-no don't ya know.
EternalOptimist
(8 posts)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.
FSogol
(45,499 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)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.
primavera
(5,191 posts)Appeasement is sadly what this administration does best.
Javaman
(62,531 posts)a wave of rightwing corporations apply for religious organization exception.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)minority tyranny continues.
This is getting way too predictable.
R Merm
(406 posts)they all give up their federal funds, grants or other monies.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,330 posts)I can't see an explanation in the Daily News at all, but here's the Washington Post:
...
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.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)it didn't try to appease?
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)or you just so hard up to find an excuse bash to you totally ignore that parrt
forestpath
(3,102 posts)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.
PSPS
(13,604 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)for him, that constitutes a firm stance