Source: President Obama to change birth control rule
February 10, 2012 at 3:27 am in West Central Tribune
WASHINGTON President Barack Obama will announce a plan to accommodate religious employers outraged by a rule that would require them to cover birth control for women free of charge, according to a person familiar with the decision.
Continue Reading
Apparently the count of the necessary votes needed to win took a major plunge so the policy has to be rectified to try win them back. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I think we are there.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
15
Announced in Jan. of this year!!, but only called to our attention , last few days. . When Obamacare was passed several years ago, all this information was in it, but the Democrats, all 60( not one GOP member voted yes on the Bill) of them in the Senate, at that time would not tell the American Public what was in it, only because few, if any had read the 5000 pages in the Law.. I FEAR, we will all learn more of the evils or sadness caused from Obamacare as time goes on. Do have question for the President. Will you still enforce the part of Obamacare insurance policies that says ‘the morning after abortion pill ” will be made easy to get,(maybe even in venting machines)?
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
21
Just heard the President define the “rules”(dictates) of how this will work. Every woman will have “access” to contraceptives regardless of any policy language. Organizations who have religious concerns will not have to pay for the services in the policies they offer to workers. The cost will be borne by the insurance company which means two policies – one – insurance companies will increse premiums to cover the cost for those who pay, two – those policies paid by the taxpayers will increase to cover the cost. IMHO, I don’t think that will be appealing to many people who have been complaining of the high premiums their compnay has to pay or why the share they pay is increasing.
Remember the Executive Order signed by President Obama at the request of Rep Bart Stupak, prior to getting his vote as well as others, in support of the ACA, on this part of the act apparently means nothing in light of this announcement.
As I stated before, this President is becoming more and more a Pinochio day after day – which tells me he is in full campaign promise mode.
During his 2008 campaign, I heard one attendee of a campaign speech later say the President-to-be would be paying her mortgage and filling her tank with gas. So far the check list includes, contraceptives, write down or help on mortgages, rewrites of mortgages(by the way, the mortgage versus home value amount has been determined to be $750B, this current announcement of a $25 billion program is like a rain drop in the Pacific Ocean) – wonder when we will have the next mortgage buydown(in the works, I read) and a gas buydown program announced?
Seems more like the select buying of votes than helping the general American population.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
21
Like or Dislike:
11 
12
Ha! That is JUST what I was thinking, too!
Like or Dislike:
10 
13
President Obama’s idea of a “compromise” with Catholic institutions is a quick change from mandating they must offer contraception and abortion services to mandating that the insurance carriers they use must offer them.
Where do insurers get money to pay claims? They collect premiums and co-pays from the insured group or risk pool. No matter what the Obama administration wants to say now, the money that will cover those contraception costs will come from the religious organizations that must now by law buy that insurance and pay those premiums. Their religious doctrines have long-standing prohibitions against participating in contraception and abortion, and nothing in this “accommodation” changes the fact that the government is now forcing them to both fund and facilitate access to products and services that offend their practice of religion.
This “accommodation” only attempts to accommodate Obama’s political standing and nothing more.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/10/obama-accommodation-insurers-must-cover-contraception-at-no-cost-to-anyone/
Like or Dislike:
18 
11
Having worked for a Catholic institution, which was self insured, this action will not solve the problem for the church. IMHO, I think the President does not care as he was losing the women vote and this was purely an action to get them back in the fold.
Like or Dislike:
16 
13
Here’s a novel thought – Maybe this is simply an attempt to find common ground, an attempt to do what is in the best interest of everyone concerned, to compromise, to allow Catholic hospitals, organizations, groups etc. (this never included churches as they have always been exempt) to do what they feel they are bound by their faith/conscience to do, while also allowing employees who work in such institutions to have access to such medical care that is currently legal and available to everyone else under the law. I am also sure that to be absolutely consistent, those who rail against the Affordable Health Care Act, or ‘Obamacare’ as it is derisively referred to, are also vehemently against Romneycare, and are just as upset with Willard Romney, who was for such a plan, before he was against it. Just as he was also pro-choice before he became pro-life, and pro gay rights before he changed his mind. Santorum and others at least have some consistency on such issues. I also wonder if most would simply like to make some changes to the current health care plan, without totally scrapping it. Afterall, there are some good provisions, such as coverage for college age kids up until age 26, and not being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, etc. Maybe not throw the baby out with the bathwater…
Like or Dislike:
19 
9