E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images stock
The White House has a new proposal aimed at helping employers with religious objections opt out of paying for birth control coverage.
The Obama administration is taking another stab at a compromise over the contentious issue of making employers pay for birth control, offering a way for women to get the coverage without forcing religiously affiliated organizations to pay for it.
The proposed new rule would have insurance companies provide the coverage free of charge through separate, individual health insurance policies. It’s not quite clear how much it would cost or who, exactly, would end up paying for it.
“Under the proposed accommodations, the eligible organizations would not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for any contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds," the Health and Human Services Department said in a statement.
The 2010 Affordable Care Act requires all health insurers to pay for a woman’s contraceptive care without charging her anything. Religious organizations such as the Catholic Church, which oppose artificial birth control, have objected strongly. While churches and other overtly religious organizations were always exempted, things were a little fuzzier for religiously affiliated organizations, such as universities, and private employers who said they had their own personal conscientious objections.
Some employers who don’t oppose birth control in general oppose the requirement that products such as emergency birth control, which they equate with abortion, be supplied.
The Obama administration proposed revised rules regarding religious organizations and contraception coverage under President Barack Obama's health care law. Women's rights advocate Sandra Fluke shares her reaction.
At least 44 lawsuits have been filed against the government over the issue, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a legal organization helping oppose the mandate, says. It has been a big thorn in the side for the Obama administration.
A year ago the White House came up with a compromise but it did not settle the matter. The new approach tweaks it a little, leaving almost all the responsibility for covering women whose employers object up to private health insurance companies.
Some employers are self-insured, meaning they pay all the costs of health insurance for their workers. Usually, they employ an insurance company to administer the plan. The new compromise leaves it to these third-party administrators to sort out which insurance company will pay for a woman’s birth control through a separate policy.
The insurance company would get a break on user fees that will be charged to join the state health insurance exchanges – the marketplaces where people can go buy health insurance starting in 2014 if they cannot get coverage through an employer, Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare or some other public policy.
The White House argues that it in fact saves money to provide contraception for free. It costs way more to pay for a pregnancy, the administration argues. The Institute of Medicine said in 2011 that it would save the country money and make medical sense to cover birth control for free, so more people would use it.
“Women who work or go to school at these organizations will have free contraceptive coverage and will no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go to rent,” said Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, of the Health and Human Services Department’s Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.
Brooks admitted the administration doesn’t know how much the proposal would cost. “We have not estimated the cost. We certainly welcome comment on that,” she told reporters in a conference call.
Health insurers had no immediate comment. A spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, which represents the industry, said the group was studying the proposals.
The new rules also say religious organizations will be defined just as they are by the Internal Revenue Service.
Left-leaning and women's health groups welcomed the policy. “As we go through this, we want to make sure that the details pan out, but it does seem as if it works,” Marcia Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center, told NBC News in a telephone interview. “Of course, women assume that contraception is part of their health care and it is widely accepted because it is almost universally used.”
"Today's draft regulation affirms yet again the Obama administration's commitment to fulfilling the full promise of its historic contraception policy," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“We know that Catholics in the pews support this position, as 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception and 58 percent of Catholics support insurance coverage for contraception,” said Louise Melling of the American Civil Liberties Union. “The ACLU will defend the health and religious liberty needs of employees and hopes the intense recent debate is now be behind us.”
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it was studying the proposal. The Susan B. Anthony List, a political action committee that helps campaign for anti-abortion lawmakers, rejected the proposal.
“Once again, President Obama’s so-called ‘compromise’ is unacceptable – religious and moral freedom is not up for negotiation. There must be no religious ‘test’ by the government as to who, and what type of entities, are entitled to a conscience,” said the group’s Marjorie Dannenfelser. “The taking of human life is the antithesis of health care.”
The Family Research Council agreed. "The mandate continues to force religious non-profit institutions as well as companies guided by a well-articulated and longtime moral code, such as Hobby Lobby, to violate their faith, threatening serious fines in the millions of dollars if they refuse to comply," said Anna Higgins, director of the group's Center for Human Dignity.
“Regardless of whether insurance companies or third party administrators use their dollars for an employee’s free abortifacients and contraceptives, the provision of these drugs and devices still necessarily depends on the religious employer’s health insurance plan. They remain the gateway for drugs and services to which they object."
HHS says 90 percent of American women use or have used birth control. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 10.7 million U.S. women use birth control pills. Despite this, CDC says nearly half of all pregnancies are unintended, which in turn can often lead to poor health for the mother and baby.
The proposals will be open for public comment for 60 days before they take effect.
Related:
Leave a Comment:
Why thought you won 2012?
How can religion keep women barefoot, pregnant and oppressed, if women can choose to not become pregnant.
How can a woman expect someone else to pay for their birth control?
How can a man expect someone else to pay for Viagra?
Pay for their birth control so they have have nicer housing? That is the same as subsidizing their housing.
The woman doesn't; obama expects someone else to pay for their birth control.
JH- if it's covered under an insurance plan the woman pays for, how is that 'expecting someone else to pay'?
That's how insurance works. I pay a premium that covers a certain variety of medications. Some of these I may use - some I will not.
In essence, I am paying for someone else's insulin or blood pressure or cholesterol meds or Viagra.
However, I don't complain because that's how insurance works.
We are not talking about 'free' medications. We are talking about including birth control pills into the list of medications that most insurance company plans already provide to each paying member for free - like antibiotics, blood pressure meds, etc.
LaDolce.....The problem is that woman wasn't paying for the plan. The employer was paying for the plan. The compromise looks like it will be the woman paying for at least that part of the plan.
FYI there are plenty of BC prescriptions out there that cost less that $10 a month that you can get filled at Walmart or Target even without using my insurance. Infact the same prescription using my insurance at CVS costs me $32 a month while not using my insurance the the Walmart is $9! If you can't afford $9 a month then you can afford to procreate and thus atleast make the guy wear a condom, which are free at alot of Health Services facilities. Thats alot cheaper than a kid, unless the gov't would wind up taking care of the kid anyway.
Yet all of society pays for unwanted children that rely on public services...
Compromise is a good thing.
LaDolceVita - you are correct. If the insurance covers the medication, it is part of the premium cost and is calculated into the underwriting.
Having said that, if an employer group does not want to pay for prescription birth control, impotency drugs, or other like drugs, they should not be forced to cover it. Isn't this a pro-choice attitude?
With so many organizations getting exemptions or opting out, who is going to be left to pay for this?
PutAmericaFirst
The insurance you get from your employer is no different than the cash you are paid. Its called compensation. Your employer can't tell you how to use your wages, why should he be allowed to tell you how to use any other part of your compensation? Why should he even know how I use it? Also, when was the last time you worked for an employer that didn't charge a premium for your insurance? I pay nearly $200/month for my plan at work. I also have a $3000 family deductible. That $80/mo will be huge for my family. Now, that $80/mo will be pumped directly back into the economy in the form of groceries, clothes, oil changes, etc.
And, I don't use "contraception" for preventing births, its medicine for my PCOS. But, employers were allowed to punish me by making me pay out of pocket for my medicine while my male coworkers got their Viagra at copay, just because they had some moral objection to the type of medication I was taking.
Well truth is. Most Insurances coverage covers Viagra. If helping men keep it up when they are to old to make baby's anyway or shouldn't be making baby'a at that age, and we can't cover women's Birth control??????? This is the Rep's just trying to keep a woman from making her own mind up if she wants to children or not. Its her body and its her choice. I guess the Right wingnuts think Contraception is Abortion. These Gubbers from the South still think women are only for cooking, Cleaning, making baby's and Skinning dear and fish for them.
Now...the churches and other establishments of fantasy need to be taxed. Compromise - you religious get to proseltyze to your employees....but in return the country would see tax revenue...and I would bet there would be a lot.
Yep, "Crisis Management" fallout from ObamaCare.
"We won't know what is in it until we pass it."
How does one "skin a fish" ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep........gotta tax the rich to support the Progressive programs for at least EIGHT days. /sarcasm/
44 law suits...take government to court and have this law removed completely. No wonder Obama is ready to compromise. He will lose in court.
It is one thing to exempt a clearly religious organization like a church from having to provide coverage for birth control, but they are taking this too far. This exemption should not be extended to the point where a business owner can decide that because his personal religious beliefs say you should not use birth control, none of the company's employees will get coverage for it. What if the company is owned by a Jehovah's Witness, should they be allowed to exclude coverage for blood transfusions?!?! Or if you take this to the extreme, if the business is owned by a christian scientist should they be allowed to argue that they should not have to pay for health insurance for their employees at all because they do not believe in using doctors?!?! If you choose to run a business you need to follow the same rules as every other business, your personal beliefs should not come into it. I can understand the exemption where the employer is a religious organization like a church, but to extend it to allow exemptions based on the personal beliefs of the business owners is wrong and should not be done.
Why don't they bitch this much when their employees get divorced? Isn't that just as much of a no-no? Furthermore, when you leave the realm of the church to serve and employ the public, you follow employment law. If they can't do that, then keep it in the church. Unless they become a private CLUB, they can't discriminate in who they employ or give services to, how is this any different? This isn't just about religious based companies, but private ones and the religious whims of the boss. What's next, Tom Cruise won't let his assistant get a blood transfusion?
It's 2013, folks. You cover viagra, do you make sure you only pay for it for married men, because sex out of wedlock is ALSO a no-no? No one is forcing THEM to take the pills. Seriously, when did I wake up in a Mad Men episode, and where the hell is Don Draper? If I'm gonna be stuck in the '50's I at least want some eye candy.
since universal health care is now the law; simple if insurance has to provide a free service to everyone(females); then they will just have to raise their rates for everyone; my wife and i have a very expensive supplement, many of the medications we must take to stay alive, there is a co-pay around 15-20 dollars a month, except generic is 5-10 dollars a month, that is how the game is played some plans give Viagra or Cilas to employees, but they must pay a co-pay of about 15-25 dollars a month; why free BC pills.
Gee....when I lived in the Netherlands and England I didn't have to pay a copay......
LOL Sarah. Couldn't agree more. These guys are frightening!
saxon- I wish we had universal healthcare. If that was the case, employers would have nothing at all to do with what medical care their employees do or don't receive.
How can anyone be opposed to low-income women having adequate coverage when it comes to preventing pregnancy?!? Honestly.
Why should an employer have any say in a woman's (or man's) healthcare choices? Should they also be able to block employees from getting blood transfusions? Family planning decisions are private, and an employer should have no knowledge of or control over those choices. Not to mention the fact that many employees are Protestant or Jewish. We have religious freedom in this country so that members of one religion can't force others to conform to their beliefs. No one is forcing Catholics to use birth control (although most do anyways).
The religious institutions are still going to be paying for it. The insurance company is not going to charge them one penny less than the others they are covering. After all, someone is still providing it. Someone is not going to provide it for free. If you believe that the government or any policy gives you something for free then you need to wake up. No one gets anything for free. You either have to work for it or steal it from someone else (like our future generations).
The reason why it's being covered on rider policies FOR FREE is that women using contraception ARE LESS EXPENSIVE TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR than women who are not. It's that simple.
Some places in the Conserative echo chamber they're portraying this as a victory because insurance companies are providing this coverage as a separate benefit rather than making it part of the main policy. Would they do this if women on contraception weren't less expensive for them? Of course not. Bottom line with that line? The GOPTP has decided it's time to declare victory and go home. The HHS announcement of proposed rulemaking is here; http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/02/20130201a.html
Sarah-3043284 wrote: What's next, Tom Cruise won't let his assistant get a blood transfusion?
I guess you know nothing of religion, it is Jehovah witness that don't like to mix blood - Tom Cruise is a Scienctologist.
From what you've posted, as its 2013, then everything should be free for everyone as if people are made to pay for stuff its like being in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, etc. We should get our food, cars, houses, clothes, etc all free because if we don't we are living in the past aren't we?
If doing this helps the unemployment rate, I'm all for it!!
If you dont work, even if its for no valid reason, you should be subsidized everything you want. If you are an illegal alien, you should be given in-state tuition, access to federal grants and loans, a drivers license, free medical and cheap housing. The people who work hard and make decent money should be taxed into oblivion so we can give that money to those who choose not to. It only makes sense doesnt it?
from the article:
awesome. And when a "religiously affiliated" institution (like a hospital or a school) decides that they're morally opposed to chemotherapy for employees with cancer because they believe cancer is God's punishment for past sins, are you going to let them get away with THAT too?
Personally, I find the whole notion of a "religiously affiliated" hospital to be absurd on it's face.
"Hi, we're affiliated with the Catholic Church, we don't believe in science, but if you need a heart transplant come to us!"
I'm just shaking my head at the uninformed on this discussion. Viagra does not = birth control in every instance. They are very different medications for very different needs and purposes.
One use for birth control is a personal choice for a woman who wish to prevent pregnancy. It is really nice if that is included in a benefits insurance package but again it is a free choice issues. If someone chooses to use BC pills or IUD's then it is reasonable that they participate in the cost. There are other avenues to restricting pregnancy but then we would have to expect women to learn to count days (obviously a big problem for most) and to understand more how their bodies work.
Some birth control pills are used as HRT or to help mitigate certain very real medical needs like endometriosis. This use does not offer the specific luxury of choice rather it allows women to feel physically healthier and in many instances is necessary for good health. Making it a lifestyle drug so that women can physically feel better and treat deficiencies of their own hormonal system. Therefore this use is more in line with taking insulin or cholesterol drugs. Making this use for the drug more in line with a health need not a choice drug.
Now for those of you who wish to throw the use of viagra around thinking that makes you seem some how self-righteous because men can get a drug for sex. If that is the extent of your information the your access to information is flawed. Apples and oranges.
My guess is those of you trying to equate viagra and birth control have no basic understand of a mans physiology. Impotence is a very real issue when it comes to a mans health and well being. Viagra fulfills a need that is more in line with taking birth control pills for endometriosis. There is a physiological change or deficit in health. Making Viagra a lifestyle drug like insulin or blood pressure medicine. It allows a man to feel whole like a breast implant does for a woman who has had a mastectomy. Oh yes and the guidelines and insurance provisions are so generous....Ye ha an insurance company considers 4 pills a months supply and that comes with a high co-pay for the med. Yep...men sure get away with so much.
Now consider the other aspect of mens health that is seriously neglected by our health industry. Try getting testosterone therapy. It's HRT for men. Now this is the apples to apples when it comes to birth control pills as a hormone replacement. Any woman who gets into "that age" can go to their OBGYN and get placed on estrogen and progesterone to feel viable and normal again. It is not the same for men. A man has to be incredibly depleted of testosterone before a Dr. will even consider prescribing let alone getting insurance to cover a variety of options.
Now for those of you boo hooing about having to pay for your birth control it is time that young women get a grip. When did womens lib turn form a movement for equality into a movement for get all you can for nothing.
If you really wish to be equal.... 1)pay for yourself. 2) don't sleep with a man who won't use a condom 3) make considerations very carefully about family planning and include your partner in your decision. 4) consider tubal ligation or vasectomy as real options if you can't afford or care for children. Either of those "choices" are really cheap compared to the cost of raising a child or six.
also from the article:
"Hi, I run a private business, but I'm Christian and therefore morally opposed to hiring Jews. Is it cool if I throw their resumes in the trash can?"
... the stupidity in this country ...
ldo
How does one "skin a fish" ?
I'd guess you're not much of an fisherman/outdoorsman
It's quite easy, makes for no scaling and in some cases tastes better.
It would be nice if the progressive liberals would turn their focus from the 2nd Amendment to the part of the 1st that insures the right to adhere to whatever dogma your particular irrational superstitious belief system might happen to require.
Birth control and abortion reduce the number of unwanted children, which in turn reduces the number of neglected and abused children who grow into disturbed individuals who end up killing innocent people with guns. Ban religion, not guns! You still get to piss off the conservatives!
Obama is going about this all wrong....
You will not find many who will object ( even religious groups ) to cover birth control when there is a medical need for it. My sister was on it for Ovarian Cysts. ( and SURPRISE it was already covered )
The back lash is coming from everyone because he is trying to give birth control to everyone who wants it to prevent getting pregnant. I'm sorry, but if you want to have sex, then it should be on you to pay for it. I buy my condoms, they preform the exact same purpose, and have the benefit of disease control IF you are not in a 1 partner relationship.
This is in no way an " attack on women " like some of ya'll want to claim. It boils down to it is not my job, the gvmnts job, or an insurance company's job to pay for your birth control. That should be 100 percent YOUR job. Personal Responsibility people.
What real religion would compromise on their faith based principles? The arrogance of this administration is amazing...
@txmom32 - it's not so simple as counting days - the failure rate for natural family planning is 25% even for those properly educated. Not all women are fertile for the same amount of time. Some of us are fertile throughout most all of our cycle, even those 7 days when the bible says we should be living out in the woodshed because we are unclean. And economically overall, we could reduce the abortion rate (usually seen as a plus) and decrease other costs by encouraging women to use birth control, especially longer-acting methods that don't require daily pills. These usually cost too much up front for lower-income women to pay out of pocket, but are shown to be more effective than daily pills.
For those who think it's OK for an employer to opt out based on religious beliefs - good luck if your company gets bought by a Christian Scientist. Let me know how the faith healing works for you when you get appendicitis. And let's take this a step further. If a Quaker gets drafted, they can claim conscientious objector status, as their religion is pacifist. They don't get out of serving, but they serve in a non-combatant role. If you allow the Catholic church to pick and choose a medical standard of care based on religious beliefs, then do you allow a Quaker employer to refuse to support employees who are members of the National Guard or Reserves and get called up for duty? After all, it's against their religion.
Obviously, I'm missing something here. I thought this whole thing was couched as a moral issue, yet all I seem to see on here is an argument about who pays for it. It always seems to come down to the money with the righties. As the old joke joke goes, "We've determined what you are, now we're just haggling over the price"!
somehow I seriously doubt that. Sandra Fluke touched on that aspect of birth control hormones in her testimony to Congress, and still got called a "slut" by Rush Limbaugh for it.
DrowningGrover
You, and the liberal left, really need to get off Limbaugh's jock..
I and many others could careless what this entertainer says on a raido show. You guys talk about him like he is some grand pumba in congress, when he has the same authority in this country as you and I do.
nice try at a typical deflection. I talk about how I think it should be done, and you deflect to a radio host.. typical
Viagra is not necessary to the health of a man. That is as bad as telling boys that if they masturbate their penis will fall off because it is bad for them. If a man can no longer get it up well then just to darn bad and he should accept it as being his gods will. No organization claiming a religious exemption should be allowed to cover viagra or any other ED drugs. ED is gods way of saying enough is enough.
And ED drugs are not even in the same ball park as when women who have hormonal irregularities and truly need pills for their health. In those cases (which actually are a majority of BCP prescriptions these days) it has zero to do with sex.
They don't have to...only business owned by churches have to.
No one is tying nuns down and force feeding them birth control.
Where on earth do you get insurance for nothing? I pay thousands in permiums a year for mine. While I do not use birth control, my daughter does. She has polycystic ovary syndrome. Without birth control, she is at high risk of developing uterine cancer and permanent infertility among other things. Before the first of the year the copay was obviously manageable, but I only know my situation I don't know everyones. They made BC a preventative treatment that is the reason it is now covered without copay, so are Mammograms and pap smears. Insurance companies know that in the long run preventative care saves them money.
I didn't deflect. I addressed a specific comment made about a specific topic by pointing to a specific example that contradicts your statement. And Limbaugh wasn't the only one castigating Ms. Fluke, a whole host of people did, including some that are religiously affiliated (although they stopped short of calling her a "slut").
And if the "religiously affiliated" organizations (like Hobby Lobby) were only objecting to coverage of birth control when used for contraception purposes, then why do they object to the entire contraception clause and not specifically single out "when used for contraception."
If they're willing to voluntarily pay for contraception coverage when used by a women under a doctors orders for hormonal or medical reasons, why don't they come out and say so?
Shouldn't institutions that don't want to cover birth control have to pay more to cover their employees, since their risk pool should be calculated on the basis of lots of prenatal care, childbirth, and then medical coverage for all of those children?
Oh, and I hate to be the grammar grandma, but please, NBC. "It costs way more"? Shouldn't at least journalists have some basic language skills?
My wife and I are both on Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. They do not cover medication for erectile disfunction but they do help with her birth control pills. The reason, birth control pills double for hormone replacement therapy.
Sandra Fluke was pushing for free birth control and abortion provided on demand. That's birth control not hormone therapy.
She was not advocting for coverage for abortion, she was only advocating for access to birth control.
Why should an employer and politicians be able to make healthcare decisions for women? Why do we pay for viagra, heart meds, diabetes meds......etc. A woman needs to be able to get coverage for anything she wants. If an employer won't do it the insurance company should do it on their own. I am sick to death of politicians and religious organizations trying to limit women's options. Never men, always women. Hormonal contraception affects different women in different ways, not everyone can take the 'cheap' versions, and frankly why should anybody have a say except the person themselves? There is a reason women didn't vote for misogynist republicans, and their WAR ON WOMEN is one of them.
We need to put this whole abortion and birth control debate to bed and reclassify religious establishments as political establishments as Albert Einstein referred to them. Religion is supposed to be about promoting the good will of God not laws of a man made institution.............
For far too long religious institutions have been permitted tax exemptions on raising funds to be spent promoting institutional political philosophy conjured up by leaders of whatever religious establishment.
While the US Constitution guarantees an individual the liberty to worship, or not as they choose, it does not guarantee a tax exemption to promote institutional philosophy that is political in nature.
You can bet your butt that all of these pink, sweaty, old, fat white guys in the religious community and on the right are taking their Viagra regularly and getting it through their insurance, if they have it. They don't want anything to do with contraception. They are walking around with their little weenies pointing North looking for a willing or non-willing participant just as though they were looking for water with a divining rod.
JS SD
You do what you have to in order to appease the majority. We no longer live in a perfect world.
Kelcy,
ED is a medical condition, somethings broke, they fix it.
Birth control is a want, as in, I don't WANT to get preggers. By your logic, medical coverage would allow you to demand free plastic surgery to look like Ken or Barbie. Sorry, wrong.
Medical coverage is there to cover medical NEEDS, NOT WANTS.
Ellis,
Churches & such, are exempted from taxes, as taxes are "the power to destroy", per the courts. Something that is against their teachings, they may preach about all day long, even to politicians. Besides, membership or employment in a church does not void your right to vote. As to the tax code, IRS' problem.
myownthoughts-
Birth control pill are not necessarily a "want." Many women who take birth control pills are not doing so to prevent pregnancy, but for medical reasons. It is none of any company or institution's business what kind of medication any employee takes or why they are taking it
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It can be argued that forcing those with religious objections to provide birth control is a violation of the free exercise clause. Therefore, the Obama bunch has now proposed exemptions but only for certain eligible organizations to be defined by him.
This entire fiasco is but one residual effect of Obama's buying of votes and he's apparently made the prospect of free contraceptives appealing to his dullard supporters that think they're actually free. Really now, can these people be so stupid as to think these contraceptives are actually free?
Wal-Mart, Walgreens, CVS etc, sell spermicide (if you don't like using condoms with your 1 sex partner). Costs $7-$12, not much and you only have to take it when you want to have sex. Effectiveness rates are comparable to oral birth control. For low income women (or men), many states will cover the cost of voluntary sterilization. These have little to do with the debate but are useful tips for those who cannot afford to pay for birth control but who want to use it for the express use of birth control.
sock,
The discussion was about funded birth control. If the Doctor decide to treat a medical condition, it would be covered, right now, even if it was the pill. Just as they would cover reconstructive plastic surgery after an auto accident, but not because you want to look like your favorite movie star. Clear?
I stand by my previous post as accurate. Please re-read it.
Compromising with Religious Right employers is risky. They don't believe in compromise. They'll fire scores of innocent employees on the excuse that their company's taxes in some obscure category might be raised in the future (and they have, some simply because President Obama won re-election by a majority), and they'll fire more because they'll claim that the government didn't ban all abortions, even for rape or incest. It's all or nothing with their absolutist, "mandate from God," mentality.
And what was your overall tax rate. It's easy to hide the co-pay. You were just too blind to see.
And what was the total cost of taxes PLUS health care costs including copays, employee contributions, and employer contributions? Apples to apples.
Thought you won 2012?
Practice makes perfect.
Eric,
Now THAT was funny.
We did. The Administration is delivering exactly what it promised...zero-deductible contraception for every employee not directly employed by a church. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/02/20130201a.html
I thought one of the promises was under 5% unemployment. Maybe that one is too tough for the President.
Unwanted children are a far far greater drain on society than the cost of "free" contraception. It's a pay me now, or pay me a lot more later conundrum, and I for one choose the former.
We'll have to wait and see if third-party contraception coverage for women unfortunately employed by these neanderthalic institutions actually remains "zero-deductible" and/or free-of-charge.
Someone will pay for it, and I fear supplemental insurance will cost women forced to go this route extra, and thereby force them to pay more out of pocket for health insurance than their male, and very few female, counterpart employees who do not need what amounts to supplemental contraception coverage.
Theoretically, the supplemental cost will be paid for by reducing user fees to insurance companies joining the exchange, but that essentially amounts to the government covering the costs via reduced fees and I await the lawsuits from these same Neanderthalic institutions challenging that aspect of this "compromise" bringing us to the scenario I describe above...
"Practice makes perfect."
Not quite... Practice makes permanent..., perfect practice makes perfect...
This looks like a good compromise. Good job Obama! It is wrong to force others to contribute to something that they feel is morally wrong. This allows women to get what they would like without infringing on the rights of others.
Just the fact that this is a debatable point proves some of the already existing entities should be shut down. Birth Control is free to eligible recipients through Family Planning and other organizations. Free health care is available through several other entities like Free Clinic.
Why shut down anything? What's the point? Most health clinics provide other services besides birth control.
I agree that women should have access to birth control, and that as long as the government has begun to mandate coverage, it should be the same across the board. If a "religious organization" can object to birth control, can a business owned by a Christian Scientist object to doctors? Will some object to stem-cell therapies? Where does it end? I object to the tax-free status of churches. Why should I pay their fair share of expense for infrastructure?
Religion should not influence government in any way. Religion does NOT equal morality, especially since there is more than one path of religious belief.
The problem with taxing churches is the fact they are supported by after-tax donations of the members.
The feds ARE forcing others to contribute to something they feel is morally wrong. The owner of Hobby Lobby, for example.
I guess Pelosi was right, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” No telling what else is in the worst legislation ever passed.
Put american first. What is morally wrong is men making women's choices for them. Some Gommer from GA. is pushing a bill that if a woman has a miscarriage, she has to prove she didn't to anything to cause the miscarriage. If she can't prove she had nothing to do with it, she can be charged with murder. Do we live in the 21 century or the 18th?
Exactly why the govenment has no business begin involved with health care in the first place.
@republo-crat, I'm not sure I understand the significance of taxing churches because there money comes from the after-tax monies of their members.
We tax corporations and their profits come from the after tax dollars of consumers.
GaHack1. The Government is here when Big Company's like Insurance Company keep screwing its policy holders. Do you believe it is ok for Insurance company's to take your money for a policy, then when you need that insurance, the company denies your claim? And I am talking not only Health Insurance, But Auto Insurance maybe more so. Look what happens after a storm wipes out a town. The Insurances company's duck our and let the Government pick up the tab. I was Rear Ended by a woman that was un insured. My Insurance company sold me right down the river. The No worry people. Don't you believe it. So when you hear Tort Reform, don't buy it. That's the Insurance company's not wanting to held accountable to pay there policy's. When one of these Insurance company's screw you over, you will be looking for a good lawyer to help you.
Put America et al - Birth Control pills are an hormonal medication that is used for a myriad of other moderate to serious health conditions suffered by women, NOT just used for "birth control".
And please, stop everyone with the "there's plenty of generic pills you can get for $4". Not so! There's 60 different formulations of BC pills, only 3 available in generic at Walmart, Target and the like. Some women can't tolerate the generics, or they don't address more specific medical (particularly endocrine) disorders.
It's hormonal mediation for women as an important part of the average formulary in any healthcare plan, and tool kit to treat women's health. I don't hear Catholics complaining about covering VIagra, or Low T, or any number of other mens' "Happy" pills. And women's serious endocrine disorders are certainly more valid than helping Bob Dole get it up!
Sick of this crap. I didn't realize the Bible had it's own formulary of acceptable medications in the back.
But as long as we're using the Bible to run our public laws - I don't recall "Thou shalt allow anyone at anytime use assault weapons and extended mags at anytime or any place". Can we get on that one???
So is the hardware store...what's your point?
Chuck - maybe you should actually read your policy to know what is and isn't covered before you rant on about a company denying a claim. If you have an issue with the company wrongly denying claims, you should contact the department of insurance in your state.
JOhn....But the hardware store makes a profit while churches do not. We wouldn't make any money taxing churches because they don't make a profit. We only tax profits. If the hardware store didn't make money, we wouldn't tax it either.
Ha! If you believe that I have a terrific plot of land complete with ornate cathedrals, gold and bejeweled statues and artifacts, and a private security firm with funny shoes and hats.
It's over in the middle of Rome though, flights can get expensive...
And don't forget that income isn't the only thing we tax. Much of local government -- at least where I'm from -- is funded by property taxes, which churches don't pay.
And depending on state laws, churches may also be able to skip paying sales tax on the things that they buy, and even on the things that they sell.
So you all that hate the tax-free status of Churches would be willing to pick up the slack when their charitable work comes to an end? Like feeding the poor, housing the homeless or clothing the naked?
We didn't hate their tax free status until they started putting their noses in politics and our vaginas.
Non-profit institutions technically don't make a "profit." What they have is called a "surplus" under the rules for non-profit accounting. If a non-profit expects to expand, or even continue to exist for long, it has to generate a surplus or it has no cash for capital expenditures.
By the way, we tax businesses that don't make a profit. In some states, businesses are subject to a "gross receipts" tax, where the tax is based on revenue not profit. Under healthcare reform, medical device manufacturers are subject to a 2% tax on sales, regardless of whether the company is turning a profit.
So ... explain again why churches shouldn't be taxed?
If churches that lose their tax-exempt status because of overtly political behavior decide to stop engaging in charitable works, well, we'll see their true colors, won't we?
I wonder why anyone would continue to give money to such churches. What would that money be for? Paying out settlements to the victims of child molestation, I suppose.
I've never understood the issue. The employers have their own beliefs, I get that. They may object to birth control. I get that. But they aren't paying for it. They are paying for insurance. The insurance company is paying for it. Rather than ask for special treatment, why don't they put pressure on the market to have insurance that conforms to their conscious? If demand is great enough, somebody will gladly take their money.
They can't do that because the federal government has made that illegal. That is the problem. They had the insurance that they wanted without special treatment and now the government said that is unacceptable. Now it is illegal to have the insurance that conforms to their conscious.
If they aren't paying of it and aren't taking it....why is it their concern in the first place?
Pragmatic, your take on the issue is the most ignorant I've ever seen. "The insurance company is paying for it." Where do you think the insurance company gets money? It is from employer premiums. Furthermore, over 50% of employer plans are self-funded - this means the employer IS paying for the medical costs of their employees and dependents.
That's like saying if I buy milk at the Supermarket I'm paying for tampons...................
There's a big difference between paying premiums and paying for birth control. Premiums go into a pool of other insured people with the notion that some of them will consume less than their paid premium while others may consume more than their paid premium. Ergo, the insurance company is paying for it.
Another thing I don't get is why the employer feels they have authority to mandate what their employees do with their healthcare, which has been legally recognized as a private matter time and time again. A religious person with a moral objection to birth control doesn't have to buy it or consume it. It's like any other legal vice. I choose not to drink alcohol so I don't buy it. But as a boss, I'm in no position to dictate whether my employees can drink outside of work so long as it doesn't impair their ability to work for me.
They aren't paying for it. The health care of women on contraception costs less than the health care of women not on contraception. You think those pregnancies, deliveries, and the increased family size are free?
John,
There are other costs which may come in the form of social programs. A poor mother who can't afford birth control sure as heck can't afford another mouth to feed. Social programs may help her and will cost a heck of a lot more.
The premiums are based on what is or isn't covered under the plan. Saying that it is pooled together with other benefits and therefore that single benefit is free is rediculous. NO - the insurance company is not paying for it. THE PREMIUMS OF THE EMPLOYER ARE PAYING FOR ALL BENEFITS. Insurance companies don't have money unless they have premiums and pay less in claims than premiums collected.
Again, your ignorance shows, Pragmatic. The employer gets to choose what they pay for because they are paying for some of the premium. If the employee doesn't like the benefits offered and paid for by the employer, they can go get an individual plan that covers what they want. By your logic, the empler should offer thousands of different plans.
Ignorance? How hard is it to understand that women who don't give birth are less expensive than women who do?
Eric-913730
That's like saying if I buy milk at the Supermarket I'm paying for tampons...................
#4.4
I don't think I would have told that.
Ridiculous! I wish the administration would care as much about making sound economic decisions as it does about pushing birth control. If you can't afford the co-pay for birth control, you shouldn't be having sex. Period.
Okay you go without sex for 3 months, and get back to us about how that is going for you.
Unfortunately a lot of people who can't afford to have sex anyway, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for birth control than to pay for pregnancy costs and associated welfare.
If your goal is to save money, giving free birth control is the cheaper option.
If you can't 'get it up' without a stiffy pill (ie, Viagra) you shouldn't be having sex, and I shouldn't have to pay for it.
If you eat doughnuts and gain weight, I shouldn't have to pay for your insulin or blood pressure medication.
If you can afford to go skiing, you should pay out-of-pocket if you break your leg . . .
If a woman ends up with an unwanted pregnancy because her employer prohibited her from using her health insurance to buy contraceptives, the health insurance being part of her compensation package for working for the company, then her insurance plan should cover her abortion. . . . or help pay to raise the resulting baby . . .
.
Oh, wait . . . LaDolceVita1 in 1.5 is right, that's how insurance works . . . it's a pool we all pay into and then draw from when we need it.
.
I feel like Rip Van Winkle . . . I fell asleep in the 70's, when people were still (mostly) rational, and woke up in the 21st century, only now too much of the population is acting like it's the 50's.
INSANE.
I fail to see how your statement supports the fact that others should pay for a women's birth control. I've been paying for mine for my entire adult life. It's my responsibility, not anyone else's. If you can't afford birth control pills, use a condom.
Condoms are more expensive than birth control pills.
Is that you Mary Antoinette?
They should include free hypodermic needles for all the drug addicts like they do in Amsterdam and Europe. This will reduce the cost of AID's healthcare and benefit the US economy in the long run. Its cheaper in the long run but will it meet the Church's approval?
I see these churches getting political more and more. I say its time to make the pay taxes like the rest of us. They are always getting themselves into politic's and using there power to sway elections, both local and national. So let them pay there fair share of taxes. While we are at it, we should make Company's pay there fair share of taxes as well.
Quit trying to compromise Mr. Obama. Haven't you learned yet that it's seen as a sign of weakness. Ram it down their throats and let them come to you with a compomise if they want. Same with gun control and everything else. Be the President you're capable of being.
You can't ask for compromise if you aren't modeling the same thing.
Cat,
Birth control pills are cheaper than many of the alternatives. The alternatives in some cases are: abortions, welfare, unemployment, etc.
Compromise is most def a good thing. However, when the side you're trying to compromise with is unwilling to do so, that option sadly goes out the window. The President tried compromising in his first term without avail. I think that in his second term (I can't believe I'm going to say this), President Obama should be a bit more like President Bush. In that, he should kick the repubs in the (proverbial) balls, make them call him "Daddy" and get his agenda pushed through. But that's just my opinion. And we know what they say about those ;) Good day to all.
The same arseholes who want to deny women the coverage they want and deserve and the same ones who want to close the PP clinics and such that provide those services to low income women. Stop with the republican war on women or be prepared to lose all but the nutty states in a national election.
Lib50,
You missed the worst hypocrisy of all. They also complain that low income women keep popping out babies to get more welfare.
Spell check? Grammar check?
This is MSNBC.
Yeah....FOX news never makes spelling and grammar mistakes........(sarcasm)
http://www.maniacworld.com/fox-news-spelling-error.html
I wasn't saying it like, "This is MSNBC so they're all idiots because they are liberal."
I meant it like, "This is MSNBC, they've been making spelling and grammer errors for as long as I've been reading, where have you been?"
Umm, NBC.
Dave,
This is MSNBC, I'm allowed to make typos. ;)
This "new" change seems little different than the previous compromise that put the burden of paying for birth control on the insurance companies and brought on the deluge of lawsuits from employers. The Administration is looking for a solution before the courts rule on the lawsuits because they suspect they'll lose. If the Catholic Bishops fall for this, they've learned nothing from being double-crossed on the initial deal. There's no religious liberty as far as the Administration is concerned.
Oh, baloney!
"Religious liberty " how does a cult of guys that wear dresses that take a vow of supposed celibacy dictate other peoples sexuality....what on earth is up with that
Well, they want to control something. If you are told you can't marry, or even jerk your gerkin you want someone else to feel your pain.
religious liberty= if you don't believe in a certain medication, then don't take it! (but you can't tell someone else they can't)
Agreed, but no one should be required to pay for your "medication" if, by doing so, they violate their religious beliefs. As I suspected, the anti-catholic and anti-religious zealots are all over this issue. You boys and girls need to understand that no one can be forced to do anything by the Government that violates their religious beliefs -- no exceptions!! That's all be patient a little longer and see what the courts have to say on this matter.
Amunaka - if you don't believe in what they do, that is your choice. If you believe that it is wrong to kill and not eat an animal and I made a law that you could only kill an animal but not eat it, would you be in favor of such a law?
CME- so if I have a business and believe that mental illness is posession by the devil, I can deny mental health coverage for my employers? How about if I believe it's wrong to give birth with medical help? Can I deny any sort of hospital/doctor/midwife coverage? Can I dig up a religion to believe in that will somehow get me out of paying minimum wage, or following EPA or OSHA regulations?
By the way, I'm Catholic and have an IUD paid for by my insurance (my employer prefers that I come to work rather that go on maternity leave, unless I really, really want to)
To..Bookem"""
Huh...?
It's the affirmative purpose of the Catholic Church (of which I am a member) to deny contraceptive care to women. Given that, it will object to ANY compromise offer that gives women that access. You can't negotiate with someone who won't agree to anything but its own position.
I grew up on the Church. It's important for everyone to realize that contraception through abortion is THE SAME THING in the eyes of the Catholic Church as well as many of the Fundamentalist churches.
This is a position that is not open to compromise. Those who think they are compromising with these churches are being duped. The ultimate goal of eliminating EVERYTHING that interferes with a sperm and egg eventually becoming a living child remains for them.
What sort of compromise do you propose? Sounds like you are looking for complete capitulation from the right.
The people of the United States do not compromise Freedom of Religion. FU Obama! Impeach the tyrant who has attacked the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments! Assad and Mubarak and Obama are three of a kind!
You can have your religion, and get birth control too. Most of the women in the Catholic church use birth control.
Romney lost.
Your statements are a good example of why Republicans won't win again in 2016.
For all the freedom touting you are doing, you clearly don't understand the religious freedoms in this country. The religious freedom is freedom to practice religion and no formal state establishment of religion. Allowing women to get free contraception in no way impedes the ability of Christians to worship openly and freely in the manner they see fit. And it in no way pushes any religion on the rest of the country.
If you want to see what real religious oppression looks like, look to China and their treatment of of the Buddhists. If you want to see what state establishment of religion looks like, look to Iran.
Is the requirement to cover birth control a tax? If not, how can you force someone to purchase a product. The Supreme court found the mandate legal because it is within the powers of congress to tax. Therefore, forcing coverage of something must be a tax, right?
That ship already sailed. There are already a variety of regulations in place surrounding covered services...this is just one of those.
And since a lower birth rate is cheaper to ensure there is no cost, only a savings.
If it saves money, that's all that counts.
Seems like you ought to be able to terminate the child until they're able to survive on their own - age 7 or 8 sounds about right ...
It's just another cost shift from women to men. Women consume the bulk of health insurance even when pregnancy isn't included. It is illegal for a group policy to charge men and women different rates, but it is legal to charge smokers higher rates because smokers use more services. What's up with this sex-discriminatory pricing?
I'm all for women having the health services and products they desire. Just put them on a plan, call it Woman Smart Maxxx Plus, and increase their rates accordingly.
So when men need viagra then they need the Men Smart Maxxxx Plus plan as well?.................
From my experience (insurance industry), not many employer or individual plans cover sexual dysfunction drugs to begin with. If they do, there is extra cost.
Ian- don't know if you know this, but about 50% of the time pregnancy care is taking care of a male offspring. I know, I know, the person paying for the insurance is female. But every male paying insurance today is the result of pregancy in a female. I'd say pregnancy, like most things, is kind of a universal human medical expense.
Explain that statement it makes 0 sense. The following is a list of services that must now be provided with out copay. You guys are moaning about Birth Control, well I don't thnk I should have to pay for the drunks out there to get counseling.
1.Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
2.Alcohol Misuse screening and counseling
3.Aspirin use for men and women of certain ages
4.Blood Pressure screening for all adults
5.Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
6.Colorectal Cancer screening for adults over 50
7.Depression screening for adults
8.Type 2 Diabetes screening for adults with high blood pressure
9.Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
10.HIV screening for all adults at higher risk
11.Immunization vaccines for adults--doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
â—¦Hepatitis A
â—¦Hepatitis B
â—¦Herpes Zoster
â—¦Human Papillomavirus
â—¦Influenza (Flu Shot)
â—¦Measles, Mumps, Rubella
â—¦Meningococcal
â—¦Pneumococcal
â—¦Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis
â—¦Varicella
13.Obesity screening and counseling for all adults
14.Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
15.Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users
16.Syphilis screening for all adults at higher risk
Employers negotiate with the insurance company. Even though the biggest tax in American history, Obama Care, has been partially instituted, the employers are still subsidizing the insurance for their employees. If Obama dictates that a particular procedure or medicine is now "free" someone is still paying for it. It is the employer who pays the insurance company for that "free" item. The insurance company isn't going to eat that cost. If the employee isn't paying for it, then who is? The employer.
Prevention saves money.....simple concept.......
Lot of examples of this in countries with universal health care.
We ALL pay for things we don't use, the highest cost is from the uninsured going to ER's (the most expensive, by the way). Reproductive healthcare is a BASIC coverage for women. It affects most every part of women's health. Nobody should have the right to deny women the ability to get that coverage if they want it. Nobody. Including churches, and especially fricken politicians.
Are condoms covered under birth control ? A condom is a birth control device.
I'm ugly, so can I get money as a birth control device. :-)
TYPOS! I can't take any journalist seriously who doesn't have the time or ability to check their articles before they PUBLISH them.
OOPS......I just spilled the little round paper circles from the 3 hole punch on your carpet......
TYPOS!!! I can't take any journalist seriously who doesn't have the time or ability to proofread their own writing before they PUBLISH it.
Did you notice I turned your lampshade a touch to the left? :-)
The religious nuts will surely compromise.
The White House doesn't want to kill all children. They only want to kill unborn children.
Cutting off long term revenue flow.
Yeah, we'll let the gun nuts kill the other children.
It is the nuts liberal organizations turned loose on an unsuspecting public that are killing the children.,
I understand most of don't care about the Constitution but if you were to take a minute out of your lives and READ IT you'd understand it is an issue to be addressed by the states and anything that marxist f**k has to say is at best a personal opinion better kept to himself. He stirs the up the sh*t and you stick your nose in it.
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.
wow, your ability to articulate is only surpassed by, well, everything. Spewing hate is not commentary. I'm gonna bet you have never read the entire Constitution yourself (just a guess, based on your apparent level of education).
BG - then tell us how it is in the purvue of the federal government to dictate what is in an insurance contract?
Hey
Maggie, 'It’s not quite clear how much it would cost or who, exactly, would end
up paying for it'. Did you really write this?? Are you getting paid for this,
or is this just some kind of intern deal for you? You really need to look in
the mirror and see if this is really what you should be doing. I'll tell you
who will pay for it, THOSE OF US WHO ARE ALREADY PAYING OUR FAIR SHARE. It
might even be worth it, but there is NO evidence the stuff would be used.
Running a 70% illegitimate birth rate, is indicative of a lot more than a lack
of birth control products. If the government is going to keep slapping me
around, about paying my fair share, how about some outrage for the illicit
behavior in these communities. Just so there is no concern, about the use of CODE
words, I am talking about the INNER CITY GHETTOS. To use the vernacular, I am
tired of being DISRESPECTED, by people taking my money(for years/decades), to
supposedly 'fix' these problems, and NO results. Let's assume some personal
responsibility, starting with the clergy in these communities. Invest in some
mirrors, show some disapproval for this behavior, instead of making endless
excuses. PS Check out the homicide maps for these cities, I will give you a
hint, IT'S AN OVERLAY. Yeah, I got a bit carried away, but trust me, I am the
tip of the iceberg. It's time some folks got out of the wagon and took a turn
at pulling it, because this boy is FED UP.
You wanna end welfare ..ban abortions ..you want to ban abortions restrict access to contraceptives that's the ticket ...the right always wrong about everything ....jeeeeze
Can you prove the right wants to end welfare? Are you saying that birth control and/or abortion should be used to reduce the number of those on welfare?
I don't get it. Why is it that birth control has to be free? Where's the personal responsibility? What makes it so important that it trumps basic health care? When my child gets sick and needs antibiotics I have to pay a co-pay. I also have to pay for their flu shots!
So basic healthcare to protect the health and well being of a child requires me to make a co-pay. But a woman that wants to go out on a date with a meal and bottle of wine for a $100 dollars or more refuses to pay $20 for a monthly prescription. And lets know mix that up with the inner city poor. If you're a poor woman in the city and you have to go to the free clinic you're either already going to pay nothing or next to nothing. This is about middle and upper middle class women! Suck it up and pay your $20!
If someone does not believe in birth control, he or she is free not to use it. Preventing or getting in the way of someone else using birth control is an attempt to force a person's beliefs on others, denying the others their religious freedom. I do not understand how so many people have this backwards!
The only thing I can figure out is that some big daddies in the sky count more than others. And that is simply wrong.
All during the election the Obama crew pushed a war on women narritive.Now they want to negotiate the war? I am only suggesting here,before everyone pounces. They MIGHT have been advised they couldn't win this legally maybe.
Why is there a compromise? I thought the Supreme Court already decided against the jesus freaks trying to impose their sharia law or whatever they call it on our country.
I just have to give my opinion here. First, covering 100% for women sterilization but not a man's is in and of itself sexist. A woman gets pregnant once in a 9 month period, how many times can a man get a woman pregnant? A lot if he is promiscuous. Also the invasive procedure and recovery time, there is no comparison, and if you consider the cost involved - this is just rediculous. Cover a man to get cut if you are going to cover a woman. That being said, if the government thinks that the pill should be covered then the condom companies should sue for coverage as well. The pill and condoms are both readily available and free if you can't afford them thru clinics. Just ask. But some women don't want to bother so now we will all pay for the cost. Not just the employer, but members as well. Haven't you seen your premiums rise? Free wellness exams, colonoscopy, etc, are not free. Nothing is free people.
I didn't see that as one of the covered services. BC is not sterilization, and they are working on birth control for men, it just doesn't exist yet.
It DOES exist.
It's not marketable. Men don't want to be burdened ( I know.....right, like a kid is NEVER a burden) and women don't trust men with that responsibility. (THAT, I get).
Government has only two responsibilities regarding abortion or any other medical treatment:
One - That the person performing the procedure is properly trained and licensed to perform the procedure.
Two - That the facility, medicines, equipment used for the procedure is on par with other facilities, medicines, and equipment used for medical procedure.
The government has no opinion on the morality of whether abortions should be performed. The decision to have or not to have an abortion is strictly between the woman if of majority age and God. God needs no go betweens.