I dunno, it seems to fit the cave-in pattern.
So the insurance companies have to eat the cost? It seems more likely that they will increase premiums across the board, and probably generate a little extra profit as well. Sounds like a great deal for the Catholic universities/churches and their employees, not so great for everyone else paying into the pool.
Seems like a good way to make republicans look even dumber for the week, while making Obama once again look like the only adult around, AS WELL AS a staunch defender of women's rights.
It's much cheaper for insurance companies to have people on birth control, babies are freaking expensive. This is a no brainer for them and shouldn't translate into higher costs.
Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.
Churches remain exempt from the birth-control coverage requirement. And their workers will not have the option of obtaining separate contraceptive coverage under the new arrangement.
As a result, analogies are useful heuristic devices for deepening and sharpening reflection on the merits. It is also the case that people are often more confident in their judgements about various concrete cases than they are about abstract theories that attempt to account for their judgements, and so regard this is a more profitable way to approach a question (see Sunstein 1993, 775–7).
The category of “other” methods mainly consists of withdrawal but also includes less common methods, such as suppositories, sponges and foams. Natural family planning includes periodic abstinence, temperature rhythm and cervical mucus tests.
There's no such thing as "free." Someone is paying for it.
How about "Nobody's health should depend on who they are or where they work?" We wouldn't have this problem if we weren't tying health care to employment.
There are lots of downsides. For one, it opens the door to every religious institution pushing the cost of drugs and medical procedures it disagrees with onto non-members.
The only way this makes financial sense is for insurance companies to continue charging the same premium on plans even as the number of unintended pregnancies goes down. In effect, Catholic organizations will still be funding birth control indirectly. -- muddgirl
Is birth control required by the monster healthcare bill from 2010? Is it a new bill?
Is the administration just making things up as they go along?
To force Catholic institutions to pay for birth control? Because there's a Supreme Court that values religious liberty. Because the political cost would be enormous. And because the government can't just de-fund religious hospitals that won't go along with it.
START UPHOLDING YOUR END OF THE BARGAIN
TWO PARTY GOVERNMENT BY NATURE WILL ALWAYS INCLUDE COMPROMISE IF BOTH SIDES ARE LOOKING OUT FOR THE GREATER GOOD.
THE GUY WHO VOTED FOR (AND WILL AGAIN) OBAMA
Can you say Compromise? I knew you could. Unlike most of the U.S. House of Representatives.
« Older "I think a lot of women around you have experience... | The Seventh Art... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt