[This new proposed approach] still mandate[s] that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.
·It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer’s policy, not as a separate rider.
“the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer’s policy, not as a separate rider.”
That means either
1. The insurance company is donating the coverage out of the kindness of its heart,
or
2. The religious organization would pay for it, whether or not it wanted to.
Now, how many of you believe option 1 ?
The theory is the that insurance company would WANT to pay for it because preventing pregnancy is a lot cheaper than paying for pre-natal care and delivery. Which is actually true. Yet, historically, many many insurers have NOT covered the cost of contraceptives but DID cover the cost of pregnancy and delivery. So I guess the idea is that somehow insurance companies could be identified that were willing to perceive paying for contraception as in their own best financial interest? This part has not been clarified at all, so maybe I misunderstand this.
It should be noted that, despite the announcement by the President, there has been no change in the regulations. Specifically, the HHS rule which will be published in the Federal Register was uploaded yesterday at 3:44 p.m. and states, in relevant part, “These regulations finalize, [b]without change[/b], interim final regulations authorizing the exemption of group health plans and group health insurance coverage sponsored by certain religious employers from having to cover certain preventive health services under provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” (emphasis added) This belies the claim put forth by the administration yesterday that there has been a change, a compromise. See the document [url=”http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-03547_PI.pdf”]here[/url] (time of upload is in the document properties).
In case my link doesn’t work, here is the url:
http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-03547_PI.pdf
Which means that the President’s so called “new proposal” will have to go through the rule making procedure to change the now exiting rule.
And CM if having children is now a disease it would be cheaper to prevent them by forced sterilization and abortion to save the insurers and the state the expense.
After all the precedent is now set.
I would also add that if the insurance is not truly free then government compulsion to provide it is an unconstitutional taking of private property.
[i]then government compulsion to provide it is an unconstitutional taking of private property[/i]
All of this has been most inconvenient for the Obama Administration this week…..it is in essence another “Joe the Plumber” moment, because by accident, they are showing us who they really are.
They show us the trajectory of their policies. They show us they are annoyed that they have to play political shell games to tamp down legitimate criticism. They show us clearly they will feel no need whatsoever to change anything once they win the 2012 election.
Lots of teachable moments in the last week or so, sure hope rational people are paying close attention.
Br. Michael. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m just pointing out that studies have consistently found that covering contraception is significantly cheaper for insurance companies than not covering it. Even the healthiest pregnancy and delivery costs several thousand dollars. And even a short stay in the NICU (like my younger son who was 11 days in the NICU) can push the cost into the hundreds of thousands ($10k per day to be in the NICU.) So the logic that insurance companies would *volunteer* to cover contraception without additional cost is not actually as ridiculous as it might sound on the face of it. However, my understanding is the the Catholic Bishops do not want their employees to receive contraception *as a function* of their employment in a Catholic institution, regardless of who pays for it. In other words, whatever contraception they receive would have to be obtained outside of and unrelated to the fact that they were employed at a particular Catholic institution.
[i]studies have consistently found that covering contraception is significantly cheaper for insurance companies than not covering it[/i]
Not meaning to be confrontational, CM, but would you have a link to any one such study? I am curious of the methodology and the scope. For example, if you take into account the psychological effect of contraception [I wish I had had children when I was younger], the health effects of long term contraceptive use, the psychological effect of abortion producing drugs [did I sin, who did I kill], and of course any trauma related to sterilization; do the long term costs still make these procedures the bargin they are claimed to be?
I ask this because if this is really an incentive for insurance companies, then wait until we get into debating an HHS mandate for Euthanasia. There will be a bizillion studies that show how the medical costs in the last year of a person’s life can be multiples of the cumlatives costs during the rest of their lives.
Then I guess they will be send us the purple pills in the mail hoping to kill us off as fast as possible. The ethics of this slippery slope are truly scary. Suggest a review of Nazi Germany, Red China, North Korea, Cuba, Stalin’s Russia; for starters.
Capt. Warren — I had one in my hand yesterday. Give me some time to go find it. But we are not talking about “psychological” costs of contraception or even long-term economic effects, etc. etc. I’m simply saying that if you take 100 women of child-bearing age and either 1) provide them with free contraception or 2) do not provide them with free contraception., then, if you are an insurance company that has to pay for pre-natal care, for delivery, and for care of the infant in the hospital (and potentially much longer if the baby is then put on the mother’s insurance policy without increasing the premium, which is often the case for a “family” policy) then #1 is a great deal cheaper for the insurance company than #2. Therefore, it IS in fact (contrary to what a lot of people were saying) not economically ridiculous to imagine that an insurance company would agree to provide contraceptives for “free” (no addition to the premium).
CM,
I fully expect your cost comparisons to be exactly as you state them. I guess where I was going with this [other than my Euthanasia point] was that this simple transactional type of accounting is exactly what the left will not let us get away with in other arenas.
One simple example are the large upfront costs for hybrid automobiles versus the non-hybrid alternative. You never save the premium in actual fuel cost savings. But the left will then bring in the lower green house gases, fewer oil spills, etc etc.
So, what does the cost comparison look like when the “life cycle” costs of contraception, abortion producing pills, and sterilization are counted up? The pro-life folks have done some pretty systematic studies [none of which I have at hand!] to show the long-term harm of these “treatments” for pregnancy.
Keep a sharp eye out for the Euthanasia arguments; Obama even told us they are coming. Remember the discussion he had with the woman with the 90+ year old mom who had been kept alive by medical treatments and she asked Obama the value in that? His response? Well, we might decide some day to just take a pill.
Of course I can’t find the paper I was reading yesterday. But consider this:
[blockquote] In terms of costs and savings for the private sector, multiple studies over the past two decades have compared the cost-effectiveness of the various methods of contraception, finding that all of them are cost-effective when taking into account the costs of unintended pregnancies averted. The federal government, the nation’s largest employer, reported that it experienced no increase in costs at all after Congress mandated coverage of contraceptives for federal employees. Moreover, a 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health, a membership group for large employers to address their health policy concerns, estimated that it costs employers 15–17% more to not provide contraceptive coverage in their health plans than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity. Mercer, the employee benefits consulting firm, reached a similar conclusion. And a more recent National Business Group on Health report, drawing on actuarial estimates by PricewaterhouseCoopers, concluded that even if contraception were exempted from cost-sharing, the savings from its coverage would exceed the costs. [/blockquote]
Thanks; it should be obvious, that if absolute miniumum costs are the goal of the insurance companies, and maximum freedom for women to “be all that they can be” is the goal of the Obama administration, then both groups should be going all out for a universal abstinence campaign. And since Planned Parenthood is all about “women’s health”, they should be proud supporters of that goal also.
Perhaps the President will schedule a White House TV event to kick this all off?
Valentine’s Day?? 🙂
I’m pretty sure the Shakers had very low insurance costs — especially after they all disappeared. 🙂