Kathleen Sebelius rules against the church: Kathleen said from on high, let there be "free" contraceptive, and then there was contraceptive

'The White House ruled Friday that employees of religious-affiliated, nonprofit institutions would receive insurance coverage for birth control under Obamacare, ensuring more legal challenges to the rule.


"[Friday's] announcement reinforces our commitment to respect the concerns of houses of worship and other nonprofit religious organizations that object to contraceptive coverage, while helping to ensure that women get the care they need, regardless of where they work," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.


Early last year, the Obama administration said that universities, hospitals, and other employers with a religious affiliation could avoid paying directly for contraceptives.


Under that Obamacare arrangement, insurance companies would instead provide coverage and pay for it.


The rule requires an institution's health insurer or third-party insurance administrator to notify employees about birth control benefits and provide beneficiaries with direct payments that cover the cost of contraceptive services.


The announcement by Sebelius puts into effect a requirement that has been beset by more than a year of talks between administration officials and religious employers.


The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other denominations oppose contraception on religious grounds and have protested against the requirement, along with conservatives.

"We have received and started to review the 110-page final rule," New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the conference’s president, said in a statement. "It will require more careful analysis. We will provide a fuller statement when that analysis is complete." ' - Obamacare Ruling: Religious Employers Must Provide Birth Control Coverage, Newsmax, 06/28/2013


Link to the entire article appears below:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obamacare-insurance-coverage-birth/2013/06/28/id/512562?s=al&promo_code=14029-1

Your Murky Quagmire ObamaCare Question of the Day

The Obama administration views access to contraceptives as a basic human right.

-OK-

Then why does the same administration prohibit/deny the use of a Health Savings Accounts to purchase over the counter items…..such as condoms?

H/T: Our Dinner Table, Mike M.

“Free Contraceptive”: Upon Further Review the “free contraceptive” problem is merely an indicator of base model failure.

A point that seems to be missed by talking heads, pundits, and media-types regarding the Catholic contraceptive issue is: this is one more episode in a series of endless episodes associated with a central planning scheme known as ObamaCare. Further, it is not Obamacare specifically, its any centrally planned scheme that by design continuously exhibits an endless series of negative episodes also known as unintended consequences.

The centrally planned scheme, as with any scheme, comes with endless tangents. Tangents of the unintended, that then interact into cascading unintended consequences.

When the unintended consequences surface one will most certainly note the classic central planning after-the-fact attempt to address unintended consequences by way of back tracking e.g.: ...oh we really meant this or that, ...oh that doesn't apply to YOU after all, ...oh we will waiver that aspect, and on and on and on it goes.

In the main, its not about Catholics, its not about contraceptives, its about a central planning scheme. Yet another scheme in a long parade of schemes based on "the way things ought to be". Scheme based propositions are never able to sort out the endless tangents.

Those gazillion tangents, that the central planners of the centrally planned scheme were suppose to take into account. Those experts with Omni-present knowledge, with grand supposed abilities, with continuous and dynamic real-time knowledge of each and every mundane aspect, that go onto design a socio-economic system…. with knowledge they do not in fact possess. (1)

Those tangents, which are so conveniently assured to never occur when central plans are sold based on a proposition of “the way things ought to be”. Those tangents that have absolutely no chance of being accounted for, but most assuredly were sold as accounted for when “the way things ought to be“ was a warm and fuzzy politico info-mercial. Yes, those many, varied, and consequential tangents go on to tarry at their haunt and re-visit time and time again.

One needs to consider being ahead of the curve regarding the following propositional arguments that surely will surface regarding the endless tangents of the scheme as it unravels and reveals its many and varied errors: (a) if the plan had been different, (b) if the planners had been different, (c) if circumstances had been different, (d) if we would have had more money, (e) if all of the above, a combination thereof, had been different.

Do centrally planned schemes by “experts” through the use of coercive powers, armed at best with non-real time general knowledge….do such schemes historically sort through items resulting in wonderful outcomes? -Or- do free market based, free people, free people basing decisions on real time mundane knowledge, making free decisions at the point of mutual self interest historically result in the best overall outcome?

Notes:
(1) F.A. Hayek, from the essay The Pretense of Knowledge

Contraceptive Compromise? Betsy McCaughey vs. Igor Volsky

In the video above note that Igor Volsky states the “free” contraceptive is paid as “part of the premium” paid, then reframes his position as “straight from the insurer…out of the reserves of the insurer”. Volsky might want to consider he doesn’t understand the difference between insurance premium and an insurer’s reserve. That Volsky first argues part of the premiums is a cost and hence no free lunch then turns around and argues that an insurance company’s “reserve” pays and hence it is free lunch time.

Later in the video Volsky attempts to frame ObamaCare as the ability to freely choose. First of all if freedom of choice was the overriding concept then there would be no reason for ObamaCare. What Igor Volsky is attempting to frame as free choice is: choice by a central authority [the plans of the few] has authorized as the choice ObamaCare, and then one can choose from a predetermined choice. Hence choice is framed as choice of a predetermined choice which by definition is not choice. It’s an argument of political dupery.