The Washington Post (of all places) explains why Obama's so-called contraception coverage compromise is all smoke and mirrors:
... on Friday, the White House rolled out a new rule, where insurance companies, rather than faith-based agencies, will offer birth-control coverage directly to these employees and foot the bill.
“If a charity, hospital or another organization has an objection to the policy going forward, insurance companies will be required to reach out to directly offer contraceptive care free of charge,” one administration official explained.
The first thing I learned in Econ 101 is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is going to have to pay for the birth control pills. Back to WaPo:
By one report’s measure, it costs about $21.40 to add birth control, IUDs and other contraceptives to an insurance plan. Those costs may be offset by a reduction in pregnancies. But unless drug manufacturers decide to start handing out free contraceptives, the money to buy them will have to come from somewhere.
Where will it come from, since neither employers nor employees will be paying for these contraceptives? That leaves the insurers, whose revenues come from the premiums that subscribers pay them. It’s difficult to see how insurance companies would avoid using premiums to cover the costs of contraceptives.
Indeed. As Tom Maguire explains for the simple minded:
If the insurance company can reasonably predict that a certain number of employees will take up the "free" contraceptive coverage, the quoted premium will be adjusted accordingly.
And so the Church will still end up paying for services it belives are immoral.
Predictably, Planned Parenthood is pleased, but still felt it necessary to fire a shot over Obama's port side:
... we will be vigilant in holding the administration and the institutions accountable for a rigorous, fair and consistent implementation of the policy, which does not compromise the essential principles of access to care. The individual rights and liberties of all women and all employees in accessing basic preventive health care is our fundamental concern.
Curious. I don't recall learning anything about a right to health care when I studied Consitutional law. I do, however, seem to recall something about "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. What part of "no law" is former law professor Obama unable to understand?
