LMAO due to Obama's compromise (the word compromise should have a
in it )
Roland00 Send a noteboard - 11/02/2012 12:12:57 AM

Pretty much he has done accounting math to obtain everything he wanted but get rid of the complaints.
1) Contraception services are required to be paid for by your employer unless your employer complains
2) If your employer complains then the insurance company must pay for the contraception cost, NEVER should the individual beneficary pay for the contraception cost (contraception costs the insurance company about $21.40 but if you buy it without insurance that price is marked up to $95 dollars.)
2b) The reason why insurance companies be forced to pay for this is that this in fact cost neutral for the insurance companies since $21.40 a month is a lot cheaper than the doctor visit costs for a pregnancy. Statistically in the end it saves the insurance company money.
2c) If an insurance company does not pay for contraception for free than they can't participate in the future 2014 insurance exchanges. Insurance exchanges will exist if a company doesn't provide insurance for individuals, people who do not get insurance from their work must buy insurance from one of these exchanges (or pay a minor tax fine) if they make less than 40k for an individual, 58k family of 2, 74k family of 3, 89k for a family of 4 (400% of family poverty line) they will get a sliding scale subsidy from the government.
In reality though money is fungible, and while in the long run money may be saved by less babies being born due to the "evil of contraception" churches are still paying for that "evil contraception."
---------
LMAO for Obama has just got two weeks of free media coverage creating telling women I am going to pay for your birth control pills. Furthermore people who are iffy on where they stand on this issue now see he has "solved" this fake problem and look perfectly reasonable in the process.
1) Contraception services are required to be paid for by your employer unless your employer complains
2) If your employer complains then the insurance company must pay for the contraception cost, NEVER should the individual beneficary pay for the contraception cost (contraception costs the insurance company about $21.40 but if you buy it without insurance that price is marked up to $95 dollars.)
2b) The reason why insurance companies be forced to pay for this is that this in fact cost neutral for the insurance companies since $21.40 a month is a lot cheaper than the doctor visit costs for a pregnancy. Statistically in the end it saves the insurance company money.
2c) If an insurance company does not pay for contraception for free than they can't participate in the future 2014 insurance exchanges. Insurance exchanges will exist if a company doesn't provide insurance for individuals, people who do not get insurance from their work must buy insurance from one of these exchanges (or pay a minor tax fine) if they make less than 40k for an individual, 58k family of 2, 74k family of 3, 89k for a family of 4 (400% of family poverty line) they will get a sliding scale subsidy from the government.
In reality though money is fungible, and while in the long run money may be saved by less babies being born due to the "evil of contraception" churches are still paying for that "evil contraception."
---------
LMAO for Obama has just got two weeks of free media coverage creating telling women I am going to pay for your birth control pills. Furthermore people who are iffy on where they stand on this issue now see he has "solved" this fake problem and look perfectly reasonable in the process.
Democrats bailing on Obama - War against the Catholic Church heats up
09/02/2012 04:03:35 AM
- 1785 Views
This is not a war on Catholics, it is Obama being an idiot again.
09/02/2012 04:52:01 AM
- 814 Views
For someone who used to be a Con Law professor
10/02/2012 08:23:34 PM
- 702 Views
In general, I disagree with that view, but not in this particular case.
11/02/2012 02:02:42 AM
- 936 Views
Also, kudos for linking to a source, and a fairly non-partisan one as well.
09/02/2012 01:33:07 PM
- 891 Views
I am a non-partisan guy, so I only use unbiased sources!
*NM*
09/02/2012 04:02:50 PM
- 614 Views

Wanting both parties to be hit by a bus does not make one non-partisan.
09/02/2012 10:05:28 PM
- 769 Views

You lost all credibility in the first line of your post.
09/02/2012 04:49:23 PM
- 830 Views
You actually think any of us has 'credibility' anymore in regards to neutrality? *NM*
09/02/2012 06:46:13 PM
- 506 Views
It's one thing to have a bias.
09/02/2012 07:28:51 PM
- 863 Views
Wow, talk about making a supernova out of a couple hydrogen atoms.
09/02/2012 08:41:44 PM
- 679 Views
The Catholic Church wants to eliminate the birth control coverage requirement entirely.
10/02/2012 12:24:01 AM
- 984 Views
Sounds like they just do not want Catholics directly financing; great argument for public healthcare
10/02/2012 02:27:36 AM
- 929 Views
I'm somewhat suprised that Obama blundered this badly.
10/02/2012 01:40:14 AM
- 1701 Views
Why? Have you not been paying attention?
10/02/2012 02:03:43 AM
- 2137 Views

If I am not satisfied with Romney then my Plan B is to not vote.
10/02/2012 10:58:34 PM
- 2172 Views
How does that help anything? Except Romneys election chances, of course.
11/02/2012 01:08:22 AM
- 1985 Views
No everynametaken this is not unconsitutional according to the first ammendment
11/02/2012 12:14:29 AM
- 1977 Views
Obama doing this actually impresses me to no end.
10/02/2012 02:21:10 AM
- 2231 Views
He is already preparing to cave.
10/02/2012 02:42:32 AM
- 2215 Views
Why are you even replying to me? What you said has little meaning to what I said.
10/02/2012 03:33:27 AM
- 2007 Views
Aaaaand you can put your hat back on now: Obama has already caved.
10/02/2012 04:04:30 PM
- 2228 Views
Yup, the cave already happened.....you could have set your watch to this! *NM*
10/02/2012 05:00:02 PM
- 1697 Views
Actually, no, I could not; I expected it to take another week or two.
11/02/2012 01:27:31 AM
- 2110 Views
No, you don't have to buy it from insurers. You get it for free, just like everyone else will. *NM*
10/02/2012 09:55:53 PM
- 1840 Views
"The employees can then buy the coverage directly from an insurer."
11/02/2012 01:25:52 AM
- 2220 Views
Then that article is wrong.
11/02/2012 01:43:40 AM
- 2172 Views
Two days ago the White House said it would not back down from requiring school/hospital compliance.
11/02/2012 01:57:50 AM
- 2143 Views
So in summary... the article you posted was wrong.
11/02/2012 02:18:00 AM
- 1701 Views
To soon to tell, but if you think so feel free to demand a correction from them.
11/02/2012 03:12:40 AM
- 924 Views
Losing the exchanges is a pretty big loss
11/02/2012 03:30:15 AM
- 830 Views
So they refuse to cover it for the next two years, then do an about face in 2014.
11/02/2012 03:57:53 AM
- 1007 Views
If Aetna does not provide the free contraception as part of the compromise
11/02/2012 02:46:14 AM
- 703 Views
Yeah, I saw that; if Aetna does not do as Obama says by 2014 they lose out on free profits then.
11/02/2012 03:13:36 AM
- 765 Views
So Jehovah Witness employers should not have to pay for blood transfusions?
10/02/2012 03:57:47 AM
- 786 Views
Not if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
10/02/2012 04:20:32 PM
- 968 Views
Money is not the same as speech!
10/02/2012 07:20:56 PM
- 683 Views
And actions are different from both—until others are expected to pay for ones actions.
11/02/2012 12:53:40 AM
- 949 Views
No it isn't Joel, empirically you are dead wrong
10/02/2012 11:24:19 PM
- 930 Views
I do not see how requiring private entities do it instead of the feds is "least restrictive way."
11/02/2012 12:53:22 AM
- 919 Views
Catholic Charities of Sacramento Inc. v. Superior Court
11/02/2012 01:21:46 AM
- 847 Views
"the Court found that it wasn't a religious organization, it was just a non-profit corporation."
11/02/2012 01:36:33 AM
- 714 Views
One last point
10/02/2012 11:35:25 PM
- 1023 Views
The federal government forcing private groups to facilitate without committing sin also infringes.
11/02/2012 01:03:30 AM
- 800 Views
You argument does not make sense
11/02/2012 01:26:57 AM
- 681 Views
It was an analogy, not an equivalency.
11/02/2012 01:48:14 AM
- 805 Views
Lets enhance your analogy making it closer to reality
11/02/2012 02:19:41 AM
- 916 Views
Why could I not buy it with my own money?
11/02/2012 03:46:33 AM
- 873 Views
Re: Why could I not buy it with my own money?
11/02/2012 04:17:17 AM
- 2105 Views
In other words, I could.
11/02/2012 04:21:05 AM
- 604 Views
You believe it can't help people since it is not single payer? *NM*
11/02/2012 04:31:13 AM
- 518 Views
Since you answered this in your other response I will just adress it there. *MN*
11/02/2012 05:59:37 AM
- 871 Views
Some more points
11/02/2012 02:30:27 AM
- 932 Views
Sex is not a necessity either.
11/02/2012 03:56:51 AM
- 885 Views
LMAO due to Obama's compromise (the word compromise should have a
in it )
11/02/2012 12:12:57 AM
- 911 Views

Obama just got two weeks of being portrayed as "anti-church" to the point even Dems complained.
11/02/2012 02:00:28 AM
- 840 Views
The polls disagree with you.
11/02/2012 02:32:59 AM
- 797 Views
It is an interesting article, but not for the polls.
11/02/2012 04:18:17 AM
- 846 Views
I wouldn't put too much into that poll anyway
11/02/2012 05:37:05 AM
- 972 Views
Frankly, I hope Obamacare DOES die, just not because of the public mandate.
11/02/2012 07:18:04 AM
- 842 Views
I haven't really heard about it outside of this post, so the negative exposure can't be too bad.
11/02/2012 05:56:58 PM
- 662 Views
There seems to be plenty of Hell raising over it, but you are in the States and I am not.
11/02/2012 07:55:51 PM
- 683 Views
I don't think it's quite the laughing matter you think it is
11/02/2012 12:31:23 PM
- 844 Views
Understood.
11/02/2012 07:51:14 PM
- 788 Views
mmm...
11/02/2012 08:20:26 PM
- 851 Views
The man talked about during the campaign was the one elected with a mandate.
12/02/2012 02:28:15 AM
- 995 Views
I think Obama (for once) was far more clever you give him credit for...
15/02/2012 05:11:10 PM
- 1059 Views
Surrendering on liberal issues then blaming Republicans is not just Obamas strategy, but his POLICY.
15/02/2012 07:23:04 PM
- 904 Views