Dear Stranger readers,
2020 is finally behind us, but our recovery is just beginning. Reader support has ensured that our dedicated and tenacious team of journalists can continue to bring you important updates as only The Stranger can. Now we're imploring you to help us survive another year. Ensure that we're here to ring in our upcoming 30th anniversary by making a one-time or recurring contribution today.
We're so grateful for your support. Thank you.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Sign up for the latest news and to win free tickets to events
Buy tickets to events around Seattle
Comprehensive calendar of Seattle events
The easiest way to find Seattle's best events
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
I hope, once it goes into effect, every female employee of the Church who takes advantage of this, makes a point of telling the monsignors how grateful they are to not have to worry about unwanted pregnancies - as loud and as often as they can. Once the clergy realizes roughly 90+% of their female employees are flouting Church doctrine on the matter, maybe THEN they'll STFU with their great, yapping, body-of-Christ-holes.
This is pure "whatever Obama wants, I'm against".
And they used to jabber about "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Fuck them. Fucking degenerate morons.
Put forward a proposal that has pretty decent support, let the other side reveal their true crazy, then put forward a reasonable compromise where you still get everything you want. He's accomplished the goal of making sure every women will have contraceptive coverage and painted his opponents as backwards nutjobs angry about something everyone uses.
That's a win.
I'll spell it out: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Just how exactly are the insurance companies going to pay for the "free" coverage.
Whereas birth control is $500/yr. Sounds like a free lunch to me.
more than likey the thing to be really concerned about is just how the insurance companies do end up using that windfall in cost of coverage differences.
Another thing people should remember is that thwse Catholic schools, Hospitals and charities are big, BIG Businesses that receive government grants and employ hundreds of thousands across the country, and that a substantial portion of those empoyees are non-Catholic.
No such claim can be made for The Jam - how can you not like a band with origins in dance protest?
The Jam and Wham other than sharing a final consonant have nothing to do with each other.
The Jam were the New Wave mods, to the Sex Pistols rockers.
Wham were in the tradition of mid 80s Brit synth pop bands starting with Soft Cell.
And they and Michaels solo had some of the most brilliant hooks, pop melodies and car radio tunes ever created!
And I can't resist repeating that we wouldn't have had to waste time on this unnecessary complication (or on a whole host of others) if Obama hadn't kicked his progressive base to the curb the day after the election and had instead enlisted their support in fighting for single-payer. But since Lawrence O'Donnell has a higher Q score than I do, I'll let him do the talking for me:
How America got into birth control mess
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell - 8 February 2012
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/…
Your point would be well taken if health insurance companies had an intrinsic financial incentive to reduce costs. Under PPACA (ObamaCare), they don't. (And since local oligopolies with preferred or exclusive provider networks will persist under PPACA, competitive pressures to keep costs low will remain weak.)
PPACA establishes minimum "medical loss ratios" (MLRs), meaning a minimum percentage of premium revenue that insurance companies must spend on clinical claims and "health quality" measures. For large-group policies, the minimum MLR is 85%, and for small-group policies it's 80%. Health insurance companies can use the balance of premium revenue for anything else, including administrative costs and profits.
In response to this, health insurance companies have been busy acquiring care providers (to recapture money spent on clinical claims) and lobbying state authorities to classify as many administrative costs as possible as "health quality" costs (to leave more of the balance available for profits). But quite apart from those predictable maneuvers, the MLRs establish what are in effect cost-plus contracts, with a 17.6% [(100-85)/85] markup for the large-group market and a 25% [(100-80)/80] markup for the small-group market. The more the insurance companies spend on clinical claims -- e.g., for prenatal, obstetric, postnatal, and pediatric care -- the bigger the markup, and the more money available for profits.
So no: under PPACA health insurance companies don't have a financial incentive to provide contraceptive care, or any other preventive care for that matter. The way PPACA is set up, preventive care has to be mandated and strictly policed. And (sorry for the repost to those who caught it before) here's how it's working in practice:
Preventive care: It's free, except when it's not
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-12-fr…