Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Redfairen

(1,276 posts)
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:02 PM Feb 2013

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama administration changes controversial birth control coverage rule to appease religious groups (Original Post) Redfairen Feb 2013 OP
I'll take these religious groups serious when they demand that an old guy has to be married JoePhilly Feb 2013 #1
Not really equal EternalOptimist Feb 2013 #2
Good point and welcome to DU. FSogol Feb 2013 #10
Not surprising. ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2013 #3
Agreed primavera Feb 2013 #9
This just in... Javaman Feb 2013 #4
The price of Papa Johns pizza will only go up $0.12 per pie now. Fuddnik Feb 2013 #6
The rabid, religious, rong wing xxqqqzme Feb 2013 #5
I will take the religious notprofits more seriously when R Merm Feb 2013 #7
It seems to me this is what was proposed last year, but taking the self-insuring of the hook muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #8
Who won the election again?!!! blkmusclmachine Feb 2013 #11
I ask myself that question every day. forestpath Feb 2013 #13
Did the Obama administration ever meet a bigotted religious group forestpath Feb 2013 #12
Contraception will still be free SpartanDem Feb 2013 #15
My issue is Obama is still APPEASING RELIGIOUS GROUPS forestpath Feb 2013 #16
Further proof that we live in a de-facto theocracy. PSPS Feb 2013 #14
Well, it's been two weeks since the inauguration Doctor_J Feb 2013 #17

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
1. I'll take these religious groups serious when they demand that an old guy has to be married
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:16 PM
Feb 2013

before his insurance will cover Viagra.

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

 

EternalOptimist

(8 posts)
2. Not really equal
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:43 PM
Feb 2013

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.


ForgoTheConsequence

(4,869 posts)
3. Not surprising.
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:54 PM
Feb 2013

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.

R Merm

(406 posts)
7. I will take the religious notprofits more seriously when
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:13 PM
Feb 2013

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

muriel_volestrangler

(101,330 posts)
8. It seems to me this is what was proposed last year, but taking the self-insuring of the hook
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:41 PM
Feb 2013

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.

SpartanDem

(4,533 posts)
15. Contraception will still be free
Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:51 AM
Feb 2013

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

 

forestpath

(3,102 posts)
16. My issue is Obama is still APPEASING RELIGIOUS GROUPS
Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:34 AM
Feb 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Obama administration chan...