Does Obama understand how insurance works???

[healthmyths]

President Obama is scheduled to announce Friday afternoon a revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, changing the onus on who pays for contraception from employers to insurance companies.
Obama to announce revamp of contraception policy - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

SO let's see how that might work.

religious hospital contracts for health insurance for employees.
BUT some employees want birth control pills.
OK it would seem the insurance company will need two sets of books then.
1) for employees that don't want.
2) for employees that do want contraceptives.

So if the employer DOES NOT want to pay for contraceptives, WHERE will the money
come from to pay for the contraceptives?

Because the company doesn't keep two sets of books now they will have to have then :
One set for premiums and payments for employees NOT wanting contraceptives
One set for premiums and payments for employees WANTING contraceptives.

NOW mind you religious employer that objects to paying for contraceptives will
require the insurance company to prove NO co-mingling of FUNDS i.e. that can't
have their payments being used for contraceptives!

That's the ONLY way I can see where the Insurance companies can be the one responsible for paying for contraceptives!

 

[Baruch Menachem]

He likes the idea of playing like the guy doing the three cards on the table. No matter which card you choose, it is wrong

 

[The Infidel]

He likes the idea of playing like the guy doing the three cards on the table. No matter which card you choose, it is wrong

Wish I could rep ya for that one.

All these idiots patting themselves on the back for a 'compromise'.... Hell, he did'nt have a right to do it n the first place!

 

[theHawk]

You're missing the bigger picture here. "The President" doesn't have the authority to just proclaim that a church, or an insurance company, must do something.


There is something called Congress and a Constitution, but our Dear Leader doesn't want to be bothered by either.

 

[The Rabbi]

Novel idea here I know, but how about every employer just buys the coverage he wants for his employees? If Catholic institutions dont want to cover contraceptives, they don't have to. And their insurance will cost less too. If non-religious institutions want to cover abortions, they can do that. And their insurance will cost more.
The whole thing is absurd. Contraceptives really shouldn't be covered to begin with. they aren't that costly and adding them to a policy makes them much mroe expensive.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

President Obama is scheduled to announce Friday afternoon a revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, changing the onus on who pays for contraception from employers to insurance companies.
Obama to announce revamp of contraception policy - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

SO let's see how that might work.

religious hospital contracts for health insurance for employees.
BUT some employees want birth control pills.
OK it would seem the insurance company will need two sets of books then.
1) for employees that don't want.
2) for employees that do want contraceptives.

So if the employer DOES NOT want to pay for contraceptives, WHERE will the money
come from to pay for the contraceptives?

Because the company doesn't keep two sets of books now they will have to have then :
One set for premiums and payments for employees NOT wanting contraceptives
One set for premiums and payments for employees WANTING contraceptives.

NOW mind you religious employer that objects to paying for contraceptives will
require the insurance company to prove NO co-mingling of FUNDS i.e. that can't
have their payments being used for contraceptives!

That's the ONLY way I can see where the Insurance companies can be the one responsible for paying for contraceptives!

You think we have annual Trillion plus deficits because Obama's smart and informed?

 

[healthmyths]

Novel idea here I know, but how about every employer just buys the coverage he wants for his employees? If Catholic institutions dont want to cover contraceptives, they don't have to. And their insurance will cost less too. If non-religious institutions want to cover abortions, they can do that. And their insurance will cost more.
The whole thing is absurd. Contraceptives really shouldn't be covered to begin with. they aren't that costly and adding them to a policy makes them much mroe expensive.

YOU are describing "free market" and that according to Obama's exact words..
I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”
Barack Obama on single payer in 2003 | Physicians for a National Health Program
NOT what Obama WANTS much less does he UNDERSTAND that by being in favor of
destroying 1,400 insurance companies nationally, he will also destroy:
$100 billion in Federal,state,local and your local property taxes raised due to these companies forced out of business along with the 1 million+ employees, agents and other people associated with health insurance!

But many of us critics of Obamacare considered that the original premise that most people still think is true, i.e. 50 million+ "uninsured" is totally false when considering:
1) 10 million are People NOT citizens of the USA!
2) 14 million are people ALREADY COVERED by Medicaid!
3) 18 million people counted as UNINSURED could afford health insurance BUT
don't want to buy or be forced to by nor health wise NEED to buy health insurance!
42 million counted as "uninsured" are either not citizens, already covered or didn't want
health insurance nor need it!

YET the BIGGEST cost driver $600 billion "defensive medicine" costs was NOT addressed and the culprit..Obama/Congress receiving $300 million in 2008 from
ambulance chasing millionaire lawyers that MAKE $100 billion from lawsuits which 90% of physicians say is why they order duplicate tests, etc. i.e."$600 billion" in defnesive medicine!
National tort reform would KNOCK easily $100 billion a year from insurance companies costs which would directly LOWER premiums!
Tort reform would KNOCK $100 billion from Medicare!

Did you know some hospitals mark up their Medicare claims by 6,000% ?

 

[kiwiman127]

President Obama is scheduled to announce Friday afternoon a revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, changing the onus on who pays for contraception from employers to insurance companies.
Obama to announce revamp of contraception policy - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

SO let's see how that might work.

religious hospital contracts for health insurance for employees.
BUT some employees want birth control pills.
OK it would seem the insurance company will need two sets of books then.
1) for employees that don't want.
2) for employees that do want contraceptives.

So if the employer DOES NOT want to pay for contraceptives, WHERE will the money
come from to pay for the contraceptives?

Because the company doesn't keep two sets of books now they will have to have then :
One set for premiums and payments for employees NOT wanting contraceptives
One set for premiums and payments for employees WANTING contraceptives.

NOW mind you religious employer that objects to paying for contraceptives will
require the insurance company to prove NO co-mingling of FUNDS i.e. that can't
have their payments being used for contraceptives!

That's the ONLY way I can see where the Insurance companies can be the one responsible for paying for contraceptives!

==========================

You do know that after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, around 90% of companies with 15 employees or more complied. So your point is mute.

 

[kwc57]

President Obama is scheduled to announce Friday afternoon a revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, changing the onus on who pays for contraception from employers to insurance companies.
Obama to announce revamp of contraception policy - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

SO let's see how that might work.

religious hospital contracts for health insurance for employees.
BUT some employees want birth control pills.
OK it would seem the insurance company will need two sets of books then.
1) for employees that don't want.
2) for employees that do want contraceptives.

So if the employer DOES NOT want to pay for contraceptives, WHERE will the money
come from to pay for the contraceptives?

Because the company doesn't keep two sets of books now they will have to have then :
One set for premiums and payments for employees NOT wanting contraceptives
One set for premiums and payments for employees WANTING contraceptives.

NOW mind you religious employer that objects to paying for contraceptives will
require the insurance company to prove NO co-mingling of FUNDS i.e. that can't
have their payments being used for contraceptives!

That's the ONLY way I can see where the Insurance companies can be the one responsible for paying for contraceptives!

==========================

You do know that after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, around 90% of companies with 15 employees or more complied. So your point is mute.

The point is MOOT, not mute. Look it up. Oh yeah, no it is not moot.

http://grammar.about.com/od/alightersideofwriting/a/mootmutegloss.htm

 

[HenryBHough]

What a wonderful way to wage war against The Vatican while casting an illusion that he isn't sending troops....well, at least browshirts.

 

[g5000]

You're missing the bigger picture here. "The President" doesn't have the authority to just proclaim that a church, or an insurance company, must do something.

Yes he does. Perhaps you have heard of the law passed by Congress a couple years ago that is frequently referred to as "ObamaCare".

And perhaps you remember from grammar school that one of the roles of the Executive branch is to enforce the laws written by the legislature (that would be Congress).

There's all kinds of stuff about what insurance companies and businesses must do in the ObamaCare law.

Glad to color in that bigger picture in for ya! I would hate for you to be left behind thinking the President should be impeached for enforcing a law.

 

[g5000]

Novel idea here I know, but how about every employer just buys the coverage he wants for his employees?

I am all for that. Unfortunately, we need to repeal ObamaCare first. It requires every employer with more than 50 employees provide insurance or else pay a fine.

I think we should move entirely away from employers offering health insurance to their employees. That is part of the problem contributing to rising health care costs.

 

[healthmyths]

Novel idea here I know, but how about every employer just buys the coverage he wants for his employees?

I am all for that. Unfortunately, we need to repeal ObamaCare first. It requires every employer with more than 50 employees provide insurance or else pay a fine.

I think we should move entirely away from employers offering health insurance to their employees. That is part of the problem contributing to rising health care costs.

Yes employer insurance is a VERY VERY small part though!
2 Major gorillas..A) there ARE NOT 50 million "uninsured" a number most people continue to erroneously use justifying Obamacare!
How many times must it be shown:
1) 10 million people counted as uninsured ARE NOT CITIZENS! leaves 40 million!
2) 14 million that ARE counted as Uninsured ARE INSURED by Medicaid! -26 million!
3) 18 million making more then $50K and can afford and UNDER 34 don't want NOR
NEED insurance BUT that number is used to justify Obamacare..
That leaves truly 8 million!
NOW those 8 million most go to hospitals emergency rooms.
There BEcause of stupid idea called "In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) that if hospital takes Medicare must take uninsured!

As a result hospitals "pad and Pass" these "uninsured costs on to Medicare and private insurance.. FACT Medicare billed as much as 6,000% MARKUPs for services!

So that is one reason for high health care costs.
THE OTHER is according to 90% of physicians is fear they will be sued so they order $600 billion a year in duplicate tests, etc.!

Between the two fear of lawsuits and by law easily easily over $300 billion a year
could be reduced in health care costs and THAT directly affects premiums immensely!

BUT with Lawyers sending $300 million to Obama/Congress NO TORT reform!
And with Medicare OK with 6,000% MARKUPs???

DO YOU understand these two gorillas are the 90% reason for climbing premiums!

 

[HenryBHough]

Having surpassed Jimmy Carter's record for economic destruction, Our Kenyan President now set out to better John F. Kerry's record for most consecutive flip-flops!

You can do it, Messiah!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

President Obama is scheduled to announce Friday afternoon a revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, changing the onus on who pays for contraception from employers to insurance companies.
Obama to announce revamp of contraception policy - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

SO let's see how that might work.

religious hospital contracts for health insurance for employees.
BUT some employees want birth control pills.
OK it would seem the insurance company will need two sets of books then.
1) for employees that don't want.
2) for employees that do want contraceptives.

So if the employer DOES NOT want to pay for contraceptives, WHERE will the money
come from to pay for the contraceptives?

Because the company doesn't keep two sets of books now they will have to have then :
One set for premiums and payments for employees NOT wanting contraceptives
One set for premiums and payments for employees WANTING contraceptives.

NOW mind you religious employer that objects to paying for contraceptives will
require the insurance company to prove NO co-mingling of FUNDS i.e. that can't
have their payments being used for contraceptives!

That's the ONLY way I can see where the Insurance companies can be the one responsible for paying for contraceptives!

==========================

You do know that after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, around 90% of companies with 15 employees or more complied. So your point is mute.

However Title VII exempts 4 classes of employers including religious and non-profits....

 

[theHawk]

You're missing the bigger picture here. "The President" doesn't have the authority to just proclaim that a church, or an insurance company, must do something.

Yes he does. Perhaps you have heard of the law passed by Congress a couple years ago that is frequently referred to as "ObamaCare".

And perhaps you remember from grammar school that one of the roles of the Executive branch is to enforce the laws written by the legislature (that would be Congress).

There's all kinds of stuff about what insurance companies and businesses must do in the ObamaCare law.

Glad to color in that bigger picture in for ya! I would hate for you to be left behind thinking the President should be impeached for enforcing a law.

Wrong jackass. Why would a law passed by Congress, have to have provisions of it enforced by the President. If the law says the Church has to pay for those services, then thats what the law says, he has no authority to grant them a waiver, or to move that requirement on to insurance companies. And if the law doesn't say insurance companies are required to pay for that type of coverage, then the President has no authority to force them to suddenly start doing it.

A law passed by Congress should be the law of the land, period. When we start saying its OK for a President to grant "waivers" for laws to certain groups of people, then we have a soceity in which some people live by some laws, while others are "exempt" of it. That sounds pretty un-American to me. But hey, thats the new Obamanation for ya.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

President Obama is scheduled to announce Friday afternoon a revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, changing the onus on who pays for contraception from employers to insurance companies.
Obama to announce revamp of contraception policy - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

SO let's see how that might work.

religious hospital contracts for health insurance for employees.
BUT some employees want birth control pills.
OK it would seem the insurance company will need two sets of books then.
1) for employees that don't want.
2) for employees that do want contraceptives.

So if the employer DOES NOT want to pay for contraceptives, WHERE will the money
come from to pay for the contraceptives?

Because the company doesn't keep two sets of books now they will have to have then :
One set for premiums and payments for employees NOT wanting contraceptives
One set for premiums and payments for employees WANTING contraceptives.

NOW mind you religious employer that objects to paying for contraceptives will
require the insurance company to prove NO co-mingling of FUNDS i.e. that can't
have their payments being used for contraceptives!

That's the ONLY way I can see where the Insurance companies can be the one responsible for paying for contraceptives!

There's no way to prove who's paying the real cost.....it will be hidden under other billings...and premiums will go up for "other" reasons...

Obama pulled a fast one.......he just sidestepped the religious issue and laid the costs ostensibly upon the insurance company......but still everybody will get to pay for the designated "free" contraceptives....Catholic or not....

what the HELL gives Obama the power to dictate that insurance companies must provide "free" contraceptives....?

 

[g5000]

However Title VII exempts 4 classes of employers including religious and non-profits....

IIRC, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act does not exempt non-profit businesses from the requirement of large employers to provide health insurance to employees.

 

[The Rabbi]

However Title VII exempts 4 classes of employers including religious and non-profits....

IIRC, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act does not exempt non-profit businesses from the requirement of large employers to provide health insurance to employees.

And that right there is the problem. In the past mandates always allowed for exemptions on religious grounds. That was understood by all. Now Obama&Co have trashed all that. That's why they're in this mess. They are caught between pro religious groups (of all religions) and the feminists. There is no way to win this. Now they have compromised. Which makes them look weak and unorganized (which they are).

 

[kiwiman127]

President Obama is scheduled to announce Friday afternoon a revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, changing the onus on who pays for contraception from employers to insurance companies.
Obama to announce revamp of contraception policy - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

SO let's see how that might work.

religious hospital contracts for health insurance for employees.
BUT some employees want birth control pills.
OK it would seem the insurance company will need two sets of books then.
1) for employees that don't want.
2) for employees that do want contraceptives.

So if the employer DOES NOT want to pay for contraceptives, WHERE will the money
come from to pay for the contraceptives?

Because the company doesn't keep two sets of books now they will have to have then :
One set for premiums and payments for employees NOT wanting contraceptives
One set for premiums and payments for employees WANTING contraceptives.

NOW mind you religious employer that objects to paying for contraceptives will
require the insurance company to prove NO co-mingling of FUNDS i.e. that can't
have their payments being used for contraceptives!

That's the ONLY way I can see where the Insurance companies can be the one responsible for paying for contraceptives!

==========================

You do know that after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, around 90% of companies with 15 employees or more complied. So your point is mute.

The point is MOOT, not mute. Look it up. Oh yeah, no it is not moot.

Moot and Mute - Glossary of Usage - Commonly Confused Words -Moot versus Mute

Well, excuuuuuse me! (And thanks for correcting me, I'm serious!)

And yes, healthmyths point about companies having to adopt a new approach is moot, being companies are already taking care of birth control prescription drugs with their health care coverage.