24

President gives insurers power to print money UPDATE

Today, in a stunning “reversal” of policy, President Obama announced that faith based organizations who are opposed to contraceptives or the “morning after pill” will no longer be required to provide coverage for these items in their group insurance plans.

Now, according to the President, it is the faith based group insurer who “will be required to reach out and offer contraceptives free of charge”. 

Hum?  Since the drug companies aren’t giving out free contraceptives to insurers, and, since the only income an insurance company has comes from premiums, aren’t the premiums paid by the faith based organization to the insurer actually paying for those contraceptives and morning after pills?

And, what about faith based organizations who self-insure?  In these cases, the organization actually pays all of the claims, hiring an insurance company to simply administer those claims.  Will the plan administrator be required to “reach out” and pay for those contraceptives itself?  If so, where will that money come from?

As, per the President, none of this “free”  will be paid for by the faith based organization, and, as the President wouldn’t try to mislead us, there is only one logical conclusion.

The President has given insurance companies and group plan administrators the power to print money…at least enough money to pay for the mandated “free” stuff.

 Update:

To give you an idea  how well thought out and carefully planned this decision was, this from today’s Wall Street Journal:

The insurance industry was caught by surprise. Industry officials said they learned of the decision early Friday without any discussions with the Obama administration over how it might work or how much it would cost.

Filed in: Featured, News Tags: ,

Related Posts

Bookmark and Promote!

From the owners: This section is for comments from Radio Vice Online's registered readers. Never assume the owners of this site agree with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use - a must read if you wish to contribute here - may lose their posting privileges. Just because we've let a similar comment stand in the past does not mean we'll let it stand in the future.

24 Responses to "President gives insurers power to print money UPDATE"

  1. Dimsdale says:

    It is like watching one of those cup games: you have to keep guessing which cup contains the ball (the bill for the services).
     
    It is just another political con game.

  2. johnboy111 says:

    don’t worry it”s free  except for the tax payers somehow we will pay&pay..I am tired of not having a say in how MY money is spent…again
    stuck in mass whom do I contact with my concerns??kerry..olver..brown..we are doomed

  3. ricbee says:

    Our Clown-in-Chief has been told to spout those inanities. I think his masters have already figured out he’s doomed & they want to get as many horrible laws passed as they can.

  4. Linda Mae says:

    Today, the President of the United States – with no authority given to him by the Constitution – ordered the Insurance Companies to pay for women’s contraception.  (contraceptives, morning after pill and abortions included.) He was dictatorial in his demand.
     
    With this action in mind, I beg you to join me in my petition.  Since he thinks he can order a private company to give out a service for free, I don’t think I am being unreasonable.  Of course, if you disagree with any item, you can opt out.
     
    I ask the President to order the following private companies to do the following:
     
    Order Starbucks to give free lattes to women – they are more expensive than the pill and are so good

    Order Hood’s to give out free double chocolate ice cream cones
    Order Southwest Airlines to give out free flights to Florida for us in CT so we can…

  5. crystal4 says:

    Checkmate!
    (brilliant)

    • Dimsdale says:

      Until he runs out of other people’s money, including the money the Chinese lend to us (with interest).

    • GdavidH says:

      You really believe he has the constitutional authority for this? Any of this?

      By the way…Checkmate?  In a game of Chinese checkers? 

  6. crystal4 says:

    The church was violating the constitution by imposing it’s religious beliefs on others.
    2007, denied hearing on basis of gender discrimination.
    http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/us-supreme-court-denies-review-new-york-law-requiring-insurers-cover-contracept
    2nd sooo worried about what this will cost insurers? Like the argument that the Health Care bill would break the insurance cos. They made RECORD profits after it’s passage..google it, I’m working.
     

    • PatRiot says:

      -  I am not getting how the church violated the Constitution.  The employee accepted the terms of employment.   He / she was not forced into accepting the job. 
      –  I find reproductive rights a delicate subject.  But here goes… Men & women are built differently, therefore there is only so much gender equalization that can occur.  I am sure women have no desire to have equitable prostate cancer rates as men.  By law women can have their contraceptives and “morning after” pills covered by insurance.  In turn: 1.  Guys have to pay for their contraceptives.  2.  Husbands have to have their wives signatures to get a vascectomy but wives do not need a husbands signature for having their tubes tied.  3.  The male in an unmarried pregnancy basically has no legal say about his unborn child.  hmmm.  Shall men persue legal action to stop the morning after pill until there is a male “evening before pill” – covered by insurance
      –  As I leave this slippry slope     –    ” In the absence of self-control, we have rules to control everything else.” 
      –  Agree with you on the profits, seems big business makes out when DC makes a decision.  They will not see additional costs, they will  just hike premiums.

      • crystal4 says:

        Hello!! Did you consider that preventative care (birth control pills for  just preventing pregnancy and use for treatment of other maladies) is cost effective to the insurance companies. A woman’s lifetime supply does not equal the cost of prenatal and natal care for just 1 unplanned-for pregnancy.
        I am sure the insurance companies with their actuarial tables have figured this out before you did.

      • Dimsdale says:

        I see.  So cost effectiveness, the driving force behind coverage charges with insurance companies was bad, but with government, it is good?  The big difference is that the government doesn’t know what it is doing, and will be buying votes rather than properly administering Øbamacare.  God knows there are plenty of precedents for this!

    • Dimsdale says:

      The church did nothing unconstitutional because it is not the only game in town (you can go to an unaffiliated hospital if you wish), while the government, which is a monopoly, with the force of law on its side, is forcing its secular beliefs on the church, with the force of law, in direct and specific conflict with the provisions of the First Amendment.
       
      The full effects of socialist medicine will not be realized until (conveniently) after the election, in 2013.

      • crystal4 says:

        Non, no, Catholic hospitals and schools are secular institutions taking taxpayer $$$. If they want to set their own rules they can fore go the money…or maybe they should just bow out..

      • Dimsdale says:

        If it is a church sponsored facility, it can have its own rules per the First Amendment, particularly in terms of getting taxpayer money.  Anyone is free to go to a true secular facility.  The money is to fund procedures performed, not impose secular mandates on religious institutions, specifically banned by the First Amendment.
         
        By your example, they should be able to forgo paying the taxes that get redistributed to them if they aren’t going to receive them as an illegal punishment for refusing to comply.

    • Linda Mae says:

      Supposedly it costs @ $600 per month for pills, no idea about the morning after, or abortions, etc – sure there is a price list somewhere.  You miss the point.  The president is telling a company they have to give away a good or service for free.  Stay on the issue.  If you think it is okay for him to do this then you shouldn’t care if he mandates that you – a private person – based upon your income – pay the cost for 2 or 3 women to get their pills.  It’s absolutely the same argument you support.  That is not the same issue, however, as forcing a religious group to do something against their beliefs.  He demanded that Notre Dame cover all religious symbols before he would speak there.  I was highly offended by that and I’m not even RC.  It did, however, tell us how little he respected Notre Dame and the Church. 
      Chrystal:  SIN  Switch the topic, Ignore the facts, Name Call.  You are still using the same strategies. Did you catch L. O’Donnell’s show in which he said the 28 states who are supposed to be doing this don’t exist – his staff did some investigative reporting and our President has misinformed us.  (OK, he lied.) No state follows this format.

  7. PatRiot says:

    Now we get the insurers involved – great.
    While women’s health rights are important, they are at the same risk as the Catholic church’s right to freely exercise its faith.  Pitting these against each other is the distraction – typical but especially despicable.   Adding insurers makes it worse.  
    A mandate that is Obamacare disregards the Constitution.  Forcing the church to change how it practices disregards the Constitution yet again and insults every religion.  Let’s add a breach of oath of office to that.  Oh, and who has the brass to renege on a deal with a church?  Yes, it looks like an attempt to marginalize the Constitution – at best.  Certainly un-American.  One can only hope that THAT is not a distraction from other arrogant acts.

    If we aren’t careful we will find ourselves rounded up, put in a handbasket and sent to a place NOT of our choosing. 

  8. Lynn says:

    I love it when Libs become concerned about helping insurance companies to be cost effective. Then they run up the debt to $15 Trillion giving subsidies to “Green” companies that go broke. LOL, what a folly! 

    • Dimsdale says:

      The folly called liberalism, where “feel good” trumps common sense and tried and true methodologies.

      • crystal4 says:

        You are off topic here. But your “tried and true methodologies” are your Repubs voting NO to end subsidies to big oil and tax cuts to corporations while telling seniors, crime victims, disabled people that they need to sacrifice. Keep LOL ing….what a “folly”.

      • Dimsdale says:

        I am exactly on topic here.  The tried and true methodologies are standard banking, insurance and economic practices which Øbama and the Democrats have tried mightily to upset.  I believe Jim has deconstructed the “big oil subsidy” canard on several occasions, and it is Ø and the Dems that are putting the bite on seniors (Medicare taxes and increases), crime victims (policies that increase crime) and disabled persons (say what?) with “feel good” but ineffective or destructive legislation, mandates and “executive orders”. 

        I have to laugh; it keeps me from crying while watching the fecklessness and ineptitude of politicians in general, and Ø and the Dems in particular, as they incrementally ruin our country.

© 2008-2014 Radio Vice Online Inc. All rights reserved | FAQ | Terms of Use | Advertise
Implemented and managed by Spider Creations LLC.