can someone remind me (re: birth control / mandate)?

Heather R · April 2012

charminglife:

The Rev. Michael J. Graham, president of the university, wrote to employees, saying that the national debate prompted him to review the university's policies. He noted that President Obama has proposed a compromise on the issue, under which religious colleges would not have to pay for contraception coverage, but the insurance companies would be required to provide the coverage free. In his letter, Father Graham wrote that this compromise was "insufficient."

This is from the post below about Xavier University. Why again is the compromise still deemed to violate religious liberty?

MrDobalina · April 2012

I find it funny his name is Michael Graham.

Pamela05 · April 2012

Because the institution is still paying the insurance company for coverage in general so anything the insurance company is providing to the institution's employees is coming out of the institutions money. It just put another middle man in there. Nothing is actually free. The cost is just rolled in instead of being a line item.

epphd · April 2012

This is just a short step from boycotting any organization that offers BC coverage or asking to opt out of paying FICA because some tax dollars are used at some point for some activity that might be construed as interfering with contraception. I'm not saying it's not a right (the boycotting thing specifically) but where is the line drawn? If a person or organization is so morally opposed to the notion of contraception, how do they go about ensuring that not one penny is ever, down the line, 1000 transactions later, used to pay for a condom or BCP?

Again, I'm not arguing that it's not a right, I just think taking this line of thinking to it's logical conclusion leads to a very illogical place.

Y4M · April 2012

Because insurance companies don't "provide things for free" just because the president says they do. They just stop putting it in a line item for birth control and roll it up into more general fees. The compromise changes nothing except maybe the accounting.

Heather R · April 2012

Pamela05:
Because the institution is still paying the insurance company for coverage in general so anything the insurance company is providing to the institution's employees is coming out of the institutions money. It just put another middle man in there. Nothing is actually free. The cost is just rolled in instead of being a line item.

ok, but isn't this how all insurance works? Like, you and your employer are paying a company who is using some of your funds to supply BC to folks who are not involved with your organization. So the religious objectors have been doing this for years anyway? Yes? No?

Pamela05 · April 2012

Heather R:

Pamela05:
Because the institution is still paying the insurance company for coverage in general so anything the insurance company is providing to the institution's employees is coming out of the institutions money. It just put another middle man in there. Nothing is actually free. The cost is just rolled in instead of being a line item.

ok, but isn't this how all insurance works? Like, you and your employer are paying a company who is using some of your funds to supply BC to folks who are not involved with your organization. So the religious objectors have been doing this for years anyway? Yes? No?

Sort of. Some companies are self-insured which means they may have an insurance company to manage everything, but they eat all their own costs and their profit goes down if too many medical claims get filed in a year with no pain to the insurance company. And some catholic employers have been excluding BC from their plans for years. Some others are just starting, whether it's because of the increased attention and they just connected the dots or from pressure.

Heather R · April 2012

Well, it seems "this compromise is insufficient" is as much an overstep as they say the BC mandate is. The reasoning presented here is very flimsy.

2Vermont · April 2012

Heather R:

Well, it seems "this compromise is insufficient" is as much an overstep as they say the BC mandate is. The reasoning presented here is very flimsy.

Take a gander in the USCCB's website. There's a much more thorough reasoning presented by Cardinal Dolan. I wouldn't even begin to try to explain things myself. I can see where some things some folks may disagree with but I do think those with an open mind will see some very valid, concerning points.

Y4M · April 2012

Heather R:
Well, it seems "this compromise is insufficient" is as much an overstep as they say the BC mandate is. The reasoning presented here is very flimsy.

What is flimsy is the so-called compromise. These institutions did not have to pay for birth control before, and now the government is forcing them to against their values. Saying insurance companies "have to give it for free" now, does not in any way solve that issue, since insurers will just raise their rates to these customers in other areas to cover it.

arborgold · April 2012

Y4M:
Heather R:
Well, it seems "this compromise is insufficient" is as much an overstep as they say the BC mandate is. The reasoning presented here is very flimsy.

What is flimsy is the so-called compromise. These institutions did not have to pay for birth control before, and now the government is forcing them to against their values. Saying insurance companies "have to give it for free" now, does not in any way solve that issue, since insurers will just raise their rates to these customers in other areas to cover it.

Just stepping in to say that in this specific case, the institution WAS paying for it before. Xavier has been paying for BC coverage for its employees for years, and only just not, in the wake of this political insanity, decided to cancel that coverage.

can someone remind me (re: birth control / mandate)?

Re: can someone remind me (re: birth control / mandate)?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards