Log In | Register
President Obama announced a plan today that attempts to accommodate religious employers opposed to a rule that would require them to provide access to birth control for women free of charge.
CAPTIONBy Mark Wilson, Getty Images
Obama announced that the rule would be tweaked, so in cases where non-profit religious organizations have objections, their insurance companies will be required to reach out to employees and offer the coverage directly.
Obama blinks, tweaks birth control rule
Seeded on Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:55 PM EST
Article Source: USA Today
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (18)
"Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive service no matter where they work," Obama said. "That core principle remains. But if a woman's employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan. The insurance company--not the hospital, not the charity--will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge without co-pays, without hassle."
With that distinction, Obama said those organizations won't have to provide the coverage, pay for it or refer their employees to it. The requirement will rest with insurers.
- 2 votes
#1 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:57 PM ESTSo did the President blink? Or did he execute a master-stroke? He gets all the coverage for women that was his objective, and gets it a year earlier for employees of religious institutions, and gets credit for showing that aspect of leadership that Republicans cannot muster, compromise, and get praise from religious groups for offering the compromise.
- 3 votes
Now Catholics can go back to supporting that paragon of virtue, the only Catholic candidate left, GOP family values candidate, Newt Gingrich. Too funny.
- 2 votes
#2 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:08 PM EST
... or any other candidate who thinks that HHS telling you what you have to buy is government overreach.
- 6 votes
All this could have been avoided had Obama listened to his advisors and taken this option to begin with but I'll give him his props for seeing reason even if it is only to save his chances for re-election. The definition is a bit narrow yet and needs further tweaking but it's a great start.
What's the matter, Born? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I would think everyone from all sides of this issue would be pleased with this outcome as women still get access to free birth control, religious organizations are unconstitutionally forced to go against their conscience, etc. But rather than be happy such a compromise could be reached....you're still pissing and moaning. Some Liberals are never happy especially if they have an ax to grind against the Church or the Christian religion.
- 7 votes
should read "....religious organizations are not unconstitutionally forced....."
- 2 votes
even if it is only to save his chances for re-election.
Honestly don't think if he had stuck to his guns it would have really harmed his chances for re-election. The republicans have painted themselves into the corner by refusing to run reasonable candidates.
- 2 votes
They weren't unconstitutionally forced to do anything actually. Do religious businesses get to ignore FDA regulations based on religious belief?
- 2 votes
What's the matter, Born? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Not at all. What he did was compromise, something most Americans want. This makes the right wingnuts look bad again. The move borders on genius, I wonder if it was planned. And, as I said, the Catholics look pretty stupid, as the only Catholic candidate left is a sociopathic shirt chaser. Too funny.
- 1 vote
religious organizations are unconstitutionally forced to go against their conscience,
They never were. Nothing forces them to run a hospital in the first place - so nothing forced them to put themselves in a situation where they'd have to run by this regulation.
I'm disappointed that our society decides to let anybody's random opinion be held up as *belief* and get special consideration in the eyes of the law.
Some Liberals are never happy especially if they have an ax to grind against the Church or the Christian religion.
... I always find the "Liberal v Catholic Church" or "Liberal v Christian" thing funny.
The Catholic Church itself says universal healthcare is a basic human right - a rather liberal stance don't you think?
And I know Christians myself who thought the whole thing was a non-issue and a media circus.
- 2 votes
Marie Hilliard, director of bioethics and public policy at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a registered nurse and a canon lawyer, noted that the administration has not changed it's definition of who is exempt. Instead, Obama just established a special provision for "non-exempt religious groups."
It's still a narrow definition focused on churches that employ and serve people of their faith, not schools, hospitals, social services or other ministries that are recognized under the tax code as exempt religious organizations. Until that's changed, Hilliard said, the government is still "cherry-picking to see which groups will be seen by our government as worthy of exemptions and which won't. "
- 3 votes
#3 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:28 PM ESTLooks like the sort of compromise everyone can live with if you ask me.
- 2 votes
#4 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:31 PM ESTI agree for the most part. The definition is still fairly narrow, though and I think a little more tweaking on that needs to be done but this is a great start.
- 5 votes
I'm sorry to tell you this guys, but bho's "compromise" did absolutely nothing. The churches suposedly do have to offer the coverage or pay for it but the insurance company that they choose has to and not receive premiums for the coverage? Excuse me while I dust off my bridge for sale sign. Then there are those church groups that may be self insured. Will they still have to cover it? His words like most thingshe says are worthless.
- 5 votes
#5 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:34 PM ESTThe costs of the coverage will be amortized into fees the employer pays to the insurance company. I know of no cases where a church group self-insures against catastrophic losses. Generally, self-insured employers cover the vast majority of expenses, but have stop-gap insurance for the big stuff. This coverage can be rolled into that coverage, and the costs amortized into the fees the self-insured employers pay for stop-gap insurance. If there are no other cases (the most likely scenario) then there is no need to worry about them.
And the costs here are pretty minimal from an employer's standpoint. Of all the medications that health insurance plans cover, birth control is among the least expensive, and likely to get even more affordable under this plan.
- 1 vote
The costs of the coverage will be amortized into fees the employer pays to the insurance company.
Translation: the employer will pay for contraceptive coverage.
- 3 votes
The costs of the coverage will be amortized into fees the employer pays to the insurance company
So as I said the Church will still be paying for the coverage of a proceedure that goes against it's teachings and beliefs. The "compromise" means nothing and changes nothing.
- 5 votes
It changes enough to satisfy ... it is after all, a compromise not a capitulation.
- 1 vote
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
