Doublethinking With Sebelius
Marvel with me as King Barack's Lord of Affordable Care, in an interview yesterday on PBS Newshour, attempts to explain how her edict mandating free contraception and pharmaceutical abortion for all will simultaneously 1) save a typical woman "up to $600, which is a substantial financial barrier"; 2) not be paid for by religious institutions since "actually, this is a no-cost benefit"; and 3) is a no-brainer for insurers since implementing her holy writ "could reduce an insurance plan by about 15 percent."
RAY SUAREZ: Secretary, can we talk about mechanics? If you've just taken a new job at a religiously based hospital or university, your employee paperwork is silent on reproductive health care, what happens next?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, typically, if you are a new employee and in an insured plan, the insurance company or the variety of insurance companies are the ones who actually publish the benefit package.
So, in this case, again, the insurance company would be reaching out to employees, making it clear that it is their choice whether to access contraceptive benefits. And what we know, Ray, is that actually this is a no-cost benefit, that the National Business Council on Health, that our actuaries, a variety of people in group plans say having contraception as part of a group insurance plan actually lowers the overall cost, doesn't increase it, because, on balance, preventive services around family planning, avoiding what may be unhealthy pregnancies, avoiding the health consequences of that actually is a cost reducer.
So we have a situation where the insurance companies directly offer this benefit to the women employees, and the religious employer doesn't pay for it, doesn't refer to it, and doesn't have to offer it.
RAY SUAREZ: You say money from the religious institutions doesn't pay for this, but isn't money fungible?
If a Catholic nonprofit is paying for your insurance coverage, isn't it paying for contraception if you are getting the coverage through that same insurer?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, again, Ray, in this case, actuaries have looked at this benefit.
The federal employees health plan, when contraception was added to federal employees' benefit, which is the largest employee group in the country, costed this as no cost, free, no cost, because adding contraception and having some employees take advantage of that coverage lowers the overall cost of the health plan.
So we have that in place around the country. We have actuaries that have inserted that, and so we're not -- this isn't a shell game of passing the costs along. This is a real no-cost option that is, according to the National Business Council on Health, could reduce an insurance plan by about 15 percent. We're not counting on that.
But I think we can say very safely that this doesn't add to the cost of either the employer's plan -- and we know that women, if they have to purchase this coverage outside of a health plan, could spend up to $600, which is a substantial financial barrier to access a very important health benefit and a benefit used by 99 percent of women across this country at some point in their lives.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
Absolutely right. Think of Michelle Obama's exercise and nutrition advocacy backed by some real teeth in a second term. After all, that too would be positioned as "cost free" to everyone everywhere.
When debating with liberals I ask them to imagine the latest power asserted by some agent of the administrative state being wielded by their personal political nemesis.
Sep '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
George Savage
This is fascist enforcement of moral conformity, nothing else. · 4 minutes ago
KTC, I think it may be about something more: voters. Single women vote disproportionately for liberal Democrats and this is an election year where President Obama needs to motivate his base to get out and vote. Think of it as a campaign expense being paid for by you, me and everybody else. · 56 minutes ago
If that's the case, then Obama has the dumbest campaign managers in the world. The Catholic bishops told him in no uncertain terms what was going to happen if he went through with this. No one would think that firing up single women with a $500 bill would outweigh massive retaliation from the pulpit.
I'm afraid I don't buy it. Obama's campaign staff are professionals. He's the real deal, George. A fascist.
Sep '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
More data in support of the fascist argument:
Through budget and regulation, he has outright control over the auto and mortgage industries. If Obamacare remains standing, he controls the medical industry from top to bottom. He is now jamming moral conformity down our throats. Sounds like Jonah Goldberg's definition to me.
Fascism is as fascism does. IMO, the dude is a Juan Peron fascist.
Nov '11
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
Christopher Esget
Mothership_Greg
Scott Reusser:
This is a sex subsidy. That's about it. · 1 minute ago
Is it really? Does the government really think that people who can't afford contraceptive drugs are so stupid that they can't satisfy their sexual desires without risk of pregnancy?
Yes, I suspect the government does think that, and for once I'd agree with them. Although it's not so much stupidity, as lust. · 1 hour ago
You believe that a large number of people who are gainfully employed (since that's who we're talking about here), are either so stupid or so filled with lust that they cannot stop from impregnating one another without contraceptive drugs? Perhaps you are correct, but I think the number of such people is small. Whatever the number, how can we trust such people to correctly take their contraceptive drugs?
I really think the Catholic Church would do itself a service by focusing on the contragestive (not contraceptive) drugs covered under this mandate, and focusing on liberty in general, since the religious liberty being impinged upon here is just a part of its offensive nature.
Nov '11
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
K T Cat: More data in support of the fascist argument:
Through budget and regulation, he has outright control over the auto and mortgage industries. If Obamacare remains standing, he controls the medical industry from top to bottom. He is now jamming moral conformity down our throats. Sounds like Jonah Goldberg's definition to me.
Fascism is as fascism does. IMO, the dude is a Juan Peron fascist. · 27 minutes ago
Shh, you're alienating the independents! Some words must not be uttered, no matter the evidence!
Jan '11
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
One wonders if Sebelius ever looked upward, curious at what was passing over her head during the questioning.
Sep '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
So we pick and choose what parts of the Catholic Catechism we defend so as not to offend the State?
What country is this, anyway?
Nov '11
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
K T Cat
So we pick and choose what parts of the Catholic Catechism we defend so as not to offend the State?
What country is this, anyway? · 42 minutes ago
No, the media wants this to be about "Catholic Church oppose birth control", not "Obama forces everyone to pay for abortifacients". The Church is more strongly opposed to abortion than it is to contraception. Defending the teaching on contraception is fine - but the emphasis should be on what is most offensive. Many people don't even seem to be aware that the mandated birth control covers so-called "emergency contraception" and sterilization, both of which are more offensive to Catholic teaching. The Church should argue for its own beliefs, but the fact is that mandates like this deprive EVERYONE of their freedom.
Jun '11
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
Mothership_Greg
You believe that a large number of people who are gainfully employed (since that's who we're talking about here), are either so stupid or so filled with lust that they cannot stop from impregnating one another without contraceptive drugs?
I do, sadly. But there's also a larger ideology at work, the same one that drives the abortion holocaust: the separation of sex from procreation. (This is the link between abortion and homosexual "marriage," as well.)
May '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
$600 per year?
Of course Sebelius has omitted the large number of union employees, government oversight and associated cost from her statements, but I assume that is one of the motivations for government in the bedroom. Strange, I thought we wanted the government out of the bedroom, as the liberal left demands.
How about 36 condoms for 9.95 at Walmart. IE 27.66 cents per condom
Generous assumption about frequency of sex of once per day = 360 times per year.
Let us assume 10 % of condoms thrown out, misused in application, so require a new one to be used.
Total condoms use per year = 1.1 x 360 = 396
Total cost using the Walmart link below per year, 396 x 27.66 = $109.45
I cannot see many men balking at the cost given the above
Yes there are people who are allergic, condom breakages occur etc, but using the above my calculation yields an inexpensive 1/5th of the estimate provided by Czarina of Contraception SEBELIUS. I should be nominated as its Czar as I can save the Government and Insurers a fortune.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Trojan-Magnum-Large-Size-Lubricated-Condoms-36-ct/10319356
Edited on February 12, 2012 at 4:09amMay '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
Thought I recalled this item, so whilst we are looking for cost savings in the Budget, and subsides to contraception, how about starting here by removing this item:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/25/obamacares-subsidy-for-the-sexually-depraved-viagr/