Do you mean would Obama make a good Anglican fudge maker?

I think it's a con pure and simple. There's no difference between the original policy and the revised policy. Fairies don't pay for contraceptives and insurance companies don't either.

You accept that institutions of the church can be exempted from a law that applies to the rest of us, or you can say no they cannot. But Obama's "solution" is no solution.

And yet many of liberal opponents of the first policy are satisfied, and I can't say that they are being disingenuous. I'm left scratching my head.

I guess that one definition of a good fudge.

But I thought good Anglican fudge bridged gaps in more sophisticated ways than simply asserting that the elephant in the room isn't in the room.

Really, John?

The whole storm was really just a way for the catholic bishops to bluster on about their religious rights being violated, all the while knowing the vast majority of their flock don't pay any attention regarding contraception.

Of course the solution is smoke and mirrors, but that's all they wanted or needed anyway.

And the solution has already been implemented in several states, so I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was staged so it could be magically solved. It was almost a rallying cry for the Rep Pres candidates, then "Abracadabra!" it's gone and Obama comes out smelling like roses (which is easy when the alternative smell is coming from RC bishops).

Actually, as far as I can tell, it gets even more interesting than that.

The reasoning behind the "compromise" plan seems to be similar to that used in including preventive care in insurance policies. That's a fairly new idea - it wasn't always included, anyway - and the argument has been that including, say, $600 of preventive care in a policy is actually much cheaper for the insurance companies in the long run. It saves money, IOW.

The same is, apparently, true for birth control; apparently a LOT of research shows that use of birth control saves money in a variety of ways. There's a lot of good information about this here.

So the "compromise" is actually far better than the original policy in another way: it will bring this reasoning to light - and along with it, the current research on this topic. Which will itself be a public rebuke to the Catholic Church's policy on the birth control! (There will still be an issue with things like the "morning-after" pill, though.)

And, yes: costs will still get passed along - but if the research is true, they actually shouldn't be. Costs should go down - but of course, they won't. That's not Obama's fault, though; from all indications, the theory is actually right - it's the practice that's the problem.

(The most important savings, of course - which is where the "rebuke" I mentioned comes in - come from better health outcomes for women and children.

I didn't explicitly say this above, but it's what I did want to say - so I'm saying it now.)

(And, now that I think of it, it's a rebuke to the insurance companies as well. Why are they raising prices when they're saving money? Inquiring minds want to know.

Anyway: nice going, Barack Obama! Even if this wasn't your intention, quite a lot of stuff gets done with this move....)

President Barack Obama proposed a "compromise" over his administration's earlier healthcare mandate to force churches and religious organizations to provide abortion inducing drugs and devices, as well as surgical sterilization, in their insurance plans.

What was his "compromise?" Make the insurance companies pay for it instead!

Obama's latest mandate is nothing more than a shell game. Religious organizations and Christian-owned businesses will still be paying for insurance plans which will, in turn, give "free" contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees. Where in the constitution does any president get the authority to mandate that private companies provide services or products for "free" to consumers?

The American people are not stupid, and realize insurance companies will simply pass the costs on to the insured. That's you, me, churches, and every other religious institution, including EVERY Christian-owned business, that provides insurance to its employees.

ObamaCare continues to violate religious and moral convictions by forcing Americans to pay for drug-induced abortions.

Well, Mr. Rotsch... Well before President Obama, the United States government continuously violated religious and moral convictions by forcing Americans to pay for war, segregation and even ethnic cleansing on our own soil, to name a few of its anti-Gospel endeavors. I never hear much indignation about those things, but there truly is nothing new under the sun, as the Good Book says.

Well, it is the case that insurance companies will pass on the costs (and we could only wish that Barbara were right and insurance companies will also pass on the savings; but it will take a while to realize those); but they will pass them on to everyone. There will certainly be costs, but the companies can distribute them across all of their plans, and not just those purchased by Catholic institutions. All the insured, regardless of faith, will be affected.

Which is part of what is so egregious about those bishops who are loudest against the compromise. They are clear that they want insurance for contraception available to noone. They don't want any plan to offer support for contraception, and not simply those purchased by Catholic institutions.

Now, this is not the position of most Roman Catholics, nor of important organizations like the Catholic Health Association. And, indeed, there are Catholic hospitals that choose to offer contraception as a part of their insurance package because it's what all those young women professionals want and expect in the benefit package (and make no mistake: health care is an industry primarily of women of child-bearing age). If the hospitals didn't offer it, they'd lose out in hiring during shortages of nurses, respiratory therapists, and lab specialists, among others.

Marshall Scott

There's a thought that the insurance companies would save money by providing contraceptives for free.

Let's take non-celibate fertile women of child-bearing age. Let's assume each either wishes to have become pregnant (group A) or not (group B).

Clearly, the insurer is not saving on the women who are trying to get pregnant. So much from Group A.

What of those who are not? These can be divided into two further categories: those who would pay for the contraceptives if they had to pay out of pocket (Group B.1) and those who would not (Group B.2).

Group B.1 clearly cost the insurer since they never would have become pregnant in the first place, but now the insurer is paying.

On this group the argument goes through: insurer loses and the costs get shifted back to the party paying the premiums.

That leaves those women in Group B.2 who would not buy contraceptives if they had to pay for them themselves. Let's taken as given that yes indeed these women now use the free contraceptives, the rate of unwanted pregnancy in that group falls and the insurer saves on that group B.1.

We are left not knowing whether insurance costs have gone up or down. But if they have gone up those costs are shifted back to the payer of the premium. And it is the employer the cost shifts back to the employee.

To simplify suppose that all women were B.1. (No A's and no B.2's.) The costs of contraception now in the first instance are paid by the insurer. The insurer passes the cost back to the employer. The employer increases the withholding from the employee's pay. The employee is just as happy to work there as before now although their pay is less they get something in kind they pay for before. The story is much the same if the employer simply reduces monthly wages by the cost of the monthly prescription.

Now suppose all women are B.2's. They were not willing to pay for the prescription out of pocket. Now the cost is being withheld from them. They are worse off, at least in their minds. That's the cost of misguided paternalism.

If it was truly in their interest to buy the contraceptives what we have is a public education problem, not an evil employer problem.

Religious organizations and Christian-owned businesses will still be paying for insurance plans which will, in turn, give "free" contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees.

And thank God for that!

Well, Walter, unless you're instead in favor (as I am) of single-payer "Medicare for all" health insurance.

As (adult) Jehovah's Witnesses are personally free to not avail themselves of blood transfusions, so are those whose belief-systems don't permit them to use contraceptive agents free to refuse this necessary aspect of health care.

But in a society where health-care is interdependent, I believe it is profoundly IMMORAL to not (financially) provide for another's health-care. Including contraception!

JC Fisher