Can anyone explain to me how this is not all just a bunch of poorly disguised flim-flammery?
The new proposal aims to find middle ground between faith-based nonprofits that have a religious opposition to contraceptives and women’s health advocates who vociferously supported the required coverage of birth control without co-payment.
Under this proposal, objecting nonprofits will be allowed to offer employees a plan that does not cover contraceptives. Their health insurer will then automatically enroll employees in a separate individual policy, which only covers contraceptives, at no cost. This policy would stand apart from the employer’s larger benefit package.
Leaving aside the merits of "free" contraceptives, does anyone actually believe that insurance companies will step in and provide them at "no cost" if the employer objects?
Of course not. Because it's mandated anyway, the cost to provide "free" contraceptives will be baked into every policy right from the start. On top of that, employers(and their employees on the policy)requesting to have contraceptives handled under a separate policy will also probably get hit with an administrative surcharge because now there will be two policies to administer.
It's an accounting gimmick. Flim-flam. Show me where I'm wrong.
And what about private companies and their religious objections?