Obama announces that insurance co's, not churches, will have to pay for contraceptives

[Little-Acorn]

Apparently a little while ago the Obama admin announced that health care providers would have to provide free contraceptives etc. for women who wanted them. This didn't go over well with some, particularly hospitals etc. run by Catholic churches, who have always disapproved of contraception, morning-after pills etc.

So today I heard Obama go on the air and announce that he had changed his mind: now insurance companies, not hospitals (at least Catholic ones) would be required to pay for the contraceptives.

I had to do a double-take.

Could somebody explain to me where the President gets the authority to simply command that a certain groups must pay for something, and Bingo, they have to do it?

---------------------------

I just caught a little bit of the announcement, and maybe I'm missing something here (wouldn't be the first time :-/ )

But suppose that, instead of announcing that insurance companies had to pay for them, what if he had anounced instead that Little-Acorn, that guy with the computer in San Diego, had to pay for them?

Would I have no alternative? I would have to pay for them?

What's the difference between Obama ordering insurance companies to pay, and Obama ordering private individual(s) to pay?

If Congress, in its legislative majesty, had written up, discussed, and passed a bill saying XXX company (or Little-Acorn) had to pay. They vote on it, pass it, and send it to the President, who signs it.

Isn't that called a Bill of Attainder? Which is flatly banned in the Constitution?

----------------------------

As far as I know, Congress can't do that. So how on Earth can one man (the President) do it? Just order some person or group to pay for something?

I can see where a King might have the power to do that, in countries that have Kings.

Do we have one?

[hadit]

Seriously. The president simply doesn't have that authority, and hopefully will get slapped down for this.

[86Dùde]

Seriously, the president has a mental defect.

[AlbertJ]

The president can say whatever he wants.

[Lulu]

Obama +1; GOP 0

The GOP looks like a bunch of hysterical neanderthals fighting birth control right now. This is what it actually says and this way anyone who wants BC can get it which is what normal people should support. It also means that women will not have to enroll and pay separately for a health insurance policy to get birth control. They go directly through the insurer not their employer who may want to disallow birth control. Perfectly reasonable to me. It also sounds like a win for insurance since birth control is a whole lot cheaper than pregnancy.

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama announced a compromise Friday in the dispute over whether to require full contraception insurance coverage for female employees at religiously affiliated institutions.

Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politi...rsy/index.html

[9ball8]

Seriously. The president simply doesn't have that authority, and hopefully will get slapped down for this.

Wouldn't have authority, if insurance companies were required to participate. Are all insurance companies required to participate in Obamacare? If not, then it is a requirement for insurance companies that want a piece of Obamacare. If they don't want to pay or play by O-care rules, they can stay in the private market.

[Šñøü†ê®]

Don't all the crazy Old Testament based religions use the "be fruitful and multiply" verse to rationalize overpopulation, of their particular followers? And let's face it. In this day and age, if you extract tid bits of info out of context from ancient mythology, you should probably be on mandatory contraception until further notice. Primitive superstitions really should have no place in government.

[Vader]

Seriously. The president simply doesn't have that authority, and hopefully will get slapped down for this.

Sadly it has to be done to keep the various religious-based hospitals and the like from refusing to provide treatment based on their own religious bias. Also those employed by the same need to be forced (at gun point if needed) to provide insurance for their employees which covers the same services.

The greatest example of this effect is catholic-based hospitals. These people have long been guilty of forcing thier beliefs on thier patients and staff.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Pregnancy isn't a disease, Vader.

[Cd.]

Obama +1; GOP 0

The GOP looks like a bunch of hysterical neanderthals fighting birth control right now. This is what it actually says and this way anyone who wants BC can get it which is what normal people should support. It also means that women will not have to enroll and pay separately for a health insurance policy to get birth control. They go directly through the insurer not their employer who may want to disallow birth control. Perfectly reasonable to me. It also sounds like a win for insurance since birth control is a whole lot cheaper than pregnancy.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politi...rsy/index.html

I support free condom distribution myself. If people practiced birth control, you will have less kids running around sucking up tax money. Thats why I just don't get the conservative mindset.


"Don't be in a jiffy. Put a rubber on your stiffy!

[Cd.]

Don't all the crazy Old Testament based religions use the "be fruitful and multiply" verse to rationalize overpopulation, of their particular followers? And let's face it. In this day and age, if you extract tid bits of info out of context from ancient mythology, you should probably be on mandatory contraception until further notice. Primitive superstitions really should have no place in government.

I just wonder if we can get the Muslims to practice birth control as well. Or any other people in the developing world.

[Chachma v'Oz]

I support free condom distribution myself. If people practiced birth control, you will have less kids running around sucking up tax money. Thats why I just don't get the conservative mindset.

They're conflicted, inconsistent. They don't want to support unwanted, unaffordable children with tax money, yet also don't support, affordable easy access to contraception or abortion.

Speaking of abortion, they oppose women's choice in the matter while simultaneously obsessing over personal freedoms and privacy rights. C'mon, guys, pick a position and stick to it.

And this is in addition to their wailing for "small government" while pressing for the full force of law to be applied to ban this, prohibit that and restrict access to everything their little anal retentive minds can think of.

[Little-Acorn]

Obama announces that insurance co's, not churches, will have to pay for contraceptives


Today I heard Obama go on the air and announce that he had changed his mind: now insurance companies, not hospitals (at least Catholic ones) would be required to pay for the contraceptives.

I had to do a double-take.

Could somebody explain to me where the President gets the authority to simply command that a certain groups must pay for something, and Bingo, they have to do it?

[9ball8]

Obama announces that insurance co's, not churches, will have to pay for contraceptives


Today I heard Obama go on the air and announce that he had changed his mind: now insurance companies, not hospitals (at least Catholic ones) would be required to pay for the contraceptives.

I had to do a double-take.

Could somebody explain to me where the President gets the authority to simply command that a certain groups must pay for something, and Bingo, they have to do it?

Sure. See post #6. Also, see constitution, taxing authority.

Say, why don't you get the Republican Party to insert a policy that we have to pay taxes, only when we want to? That way, presidents can't make us pay for shit. We can maintain our military might thru mass willpower. Who needs money?

[BooRadley]

Personally, I think the whole point to this was to force the GOP primaries to turn back to social issues. They know that they've screwed themselves on social issues by going over-the-top during the Dubya Err, so they're trying to stay focused on economic issue now. This (along with a recent gay marriage law passing) forces them to start talking to the conservatives again -- during a campaign where they really, really want to pretend they're moderates.

[86Dùde]

A senseless attack on Christianity.

[jwreck]

Sadly it has to be done to keep the various religious-based hospitals and the like from refusing to provide treatment based on their own religious bias. Also those employed by the same need to be forced (at gun point if needed) to provide insurance for their employees which covers the same services.

The greatest example of this effect is catholic-based hospitals. These people have long been guilty of forcing thier beliefs on thier patients and staff.

Refusing treatment such as...?

[BooRadley]

A senseless attack on Christianity.

True, but it put the GOP in a position of having to argue that *hospitals* shouldn't have to pass out condoms, because they don't believe in medical intervention in pregnancy. (The same people who want to ban abortion, nonetheless.)

I bet it works against the GOP in framing the election.

[Little-Acorn]

Sure. See post #6. Also, see constitution, taxing authority.

(Hysterical rant deleted)

Taxing authority is given to Congress, not the President. And Congress has not passed any law switching a payment mandate from church hospitals, charities etc. to insurance co's. even if they had, it would violate the Welfare Clause.

This decree by Obama is so unconstitutional, on so many levels, it's mind-boggling.

[hadit]

Sadly it has to be done to keep the various religious-based hospitals and the like from refusing to provide treatment based on their own religious bias. Also those employed by the same need to be forced (at gun point if needed) to provide insurance for their employees which covers the same services.

The greatest example of this effect is catholic-based hospitals. These people have long been guilty of forcing thier beliefs on thier patients and staff.

Which is their right under the constitution.