What am I missing? "Insurers will pay for contraception, not faith based employers."

[Stinky The Clown]

How does this change anything? If insurers pay out for services, they charge the people who pay for insurance to cover that pay out. If they don't specifically charge, they bury it in something. But we all know they're not going to just bear another cost and move along. The Catholics will be paying for it just like everyone else.

Not criticizing Obama here. Just trying to understand how this works. To me it sounds like just another new set of clothes for the (catholic church) emperor.

[cbayer]

1. Shhhhhhhhh!!!! The Catholic Church is happy with this.

Let's not tell them.

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. What Catholic Church are you referring to?

Um... wait til Monday then get back to us.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. ...the one that conspired to help child abusers escape law enforcement and yet still somehow claims

moral authority over the sex lives of consenting adults, including ones -and this is pertinent to the contraception "debate", such as it is- who don't believe in any of its flimflam, fliphattery and nonsensical flapdoodle...


...that Catholic Church, maybe?

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. Oh, you mean the Catholic Church that's specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an

entity that can be forced to do anything at all?

or do you mean the Catholic Church that isn't protected by the First Amendment?

Yeah, fuck them for their transgressions... I get that and ride that train all the time. You'll NEVER find me defending that.

But tell me where in the Constitution the government is given the authority to force them to do anything past "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Sure. The gov't gets the authority when the Church decides to engage in a STATE LICENSED ENTERPRISE.

A state licensed enterprise, like, say, operating an insurance pool.

The Church can't be forced to "do" anything.. well, I suppose, unless it's the church of Rastafari and its members want to openly smoke pot for religious purposes, because GOOD GOD THAT'S NOT THE SORT OF FREEDOM TEH FOUNDERS INTENDED NO SIR

but like I said, The Church can't be forced to do anything, but any State-Licensed Insurance Provider operated by the church CAN. Same way Catholic Hospitals still need to abide by medical and other licensing laws.

[TheWraith]

3. You're not wrong. It's a way for the employer to pay without knowing about it.

Apparently, they're okay with paying for contraception as long as they don't KNOW they're paying for contraception. Schroedinger's Pill, anyone?

[JDPriestly]

4. Let sleeping dogs lie!

The whole "scandal" was nonsense to begin with. Of course all women have to have contraception covered in their health insurance in this day and age. This was just a political ploy by maybe the Santorum supporters. It was ridiculous and alienated a lot of women.

[msanthrope]

19. I completely and utterly challenge the assertion that it alienated a single Obama voter.

The only women I've seen offended are conservative mouthpieces screaming that lots of women were offended.

But where are they, these crowds of offended women?

The last thing we should do is let sleeping dogs lie. This issue is a winner--only the most extreme oppose birth control.

[rufus dog]

5. What are you missing, see text below (p.s. there is nothing in the message text!)

[Crunchy Frog]

6. The insurers save money by paying for contraception.

They pay for it with all the money they would have payed covering all the extra pregnancies, and they still come out ahead.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. Why weren't they doing it before then? They employ THOUSANDS of CPA's who pore over

the actuarial tables in attempts to increase their bottom line.

So tell me then, why weren't insurance companies offering FREE CONTRACEPTION to ALL WOMEN years ago?

[Thor_MN]

11. Actually, they don't.

You can be very sure that the insurance company will charge rates high enough to cover whatever it needs to to pay for procedures, plus a health profit. I'm fairly certain that an insurance company makes more profit off a pregnancy than contraceptives.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. They sure as hell didn't make any money off of my pregnancy.

These days even a normal vaginal delivery costs thousands of $'s, while if there are complications or the baby needs to spend time in the NICU, it can run into the tens or even hundreds of thousands. Even though I was paying an arm and a leg for individual insurance, I still came out waaaaay ahead of the insurance company.

[Thor_MN]

24. It seems you don't understand insurance

It's not about what any one procedure costs vs. what that person paid for the coverage. Your delivery may have raised the average cost for your group and the insurance company raised the prices for your groups coverage, including a healty profit.

Your insurance company, with absolutely no doubts, made a profit off your delivery. You came out ahead, at the cost to everyone in your group.

[MH1]

26. so, the group's costs will go down if the relatively cheaper option is required?

so the requirement to cover contraception will make overall costs go down and either the insurance company will make higher profits or lower the rate to my group ... and 'competition' (to what meager extent it exists) in theory, will encourage the latter.

Sounds like a win!

[DCKit]

20. Too true. Even if their profit margin is legislated at 15%...

It costs a LOT more to have a baby than not.

With mandated insurance, it's in the best interests of Big Insurance to keep us all as sick and as pregnant as possible. A McDonald's in every school lunch room, free Hoverounds for everyone over 15 and greater rates of teen pregnancy is their wet dream.

[MADem]

7. It's one of those shell game solutions.

At the end of the day, you know who is REALLY paying for the contraception? The same person who is REALLY "paying" for the insurance--the damn worker. If the employer "pays for" the insurance, he's paying for it as a component of the salary package that the worker is getting. People take jobs for less pay if the benefits are decent--it's all part of the hiring package. Insurance, vacation, a parking space--it's all part of the "pay package."

This solution was incredibly clever, actually. It shut them up. Fine with me!

[grantcart]

9. Providing contraception lowers costs. If the Catholics want to take it out of the package they will

have to pay MORE for it.

Because unplanned pregnancies cost more that contraception a plan with contraceptives is cheaper than a plan without it.


If they take it out then they will have to INCREASE the premiums.

That would make employees really unhappy.

The Bishops are smart enough to not push their employees to the point that they pay more and possibly trigger popular strikes to get cheaper plans that include contraception.

Check and mate.

[ArcticFox]

12. Wait, why are employers paying for this anyway?

I mean, why are women having to go to their employer for contraception? I would not want my employer directly involved in my health issues. Shouldn't insurance be the source of payment in all cases?

[Sgent]

22. Almost all employers

with more than 100-150 people on insurance are self insured.

They hire someone (Aetna, BC/BS, etc.) to administer the policies, but they are the ones actually paying each individual claim.

[Jim Lane]

23. Employers pay indirectly by paying part or all of the premiums for the health insurance.

The employer wouldn't be directly involved. The women would indeed be dealing with Oxford or Aetna or whichever big insurance company was providing their plan.

At some workplaces the employer pays the premium for the employee's participation in the health insurance plan; that's one of the benefits of the job, above and beyond the employee's salary. At other workplaces, the arrangement might different -- for example, that the employer and employee each pay half.

The objection voiced by some church figures was that the church, in its capacity as an employer, would be paying money to the insurance company, in exchange for which the insurance company would reimburse pharmacists for most or all of the cost of contraceptives for employees.

To me that seems a pretty tenuous connection, and not a strong case for invoking the Free Exercise Clause. No one is forcing any of the bishops to use birth control pills.


ETA: I should've made clear that I was talking about employers that don't self-insure, in the arrangement that Sgent describes. I don't know how prevalent self-insurance is among religious employers.

[Brettongarcia]

15. Stinky!? It's a face-saving gesture!

[Motown_Johnny]

17. And will hospitals and schools not owned by the Catholic Church pay more

for their insurance?



If so, then why shouldn't they all start objecting to providing birth control so the insurance companies cut their cost?



This doesn't make any sense to me either. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Maybe it means if the "faith-based employers" want their own contraception, THEY can damn well pay

for it themselves.

You know they're using it, too.

I know that's not what it means, but a man can dream.

[NNN0LHI]

25. Some employers self-insure and hire a health insurance company just to process their claims

Mine does. That is what Medicare does too. Blue Cross/Blue Shield processes the claims for Medicare here in Illinois. May be a different insurance company in other states?

Not sure if that is the case here or not, just saying this kind of system is not unheard of.

Don