How does a secular government reduce the political influence of religious "zealots"?  Mandate birth control to limit the reproduction of MORE "zealots".

ROMAN catholic church promoted pro-creation because of help with the farm/war/out number the 'others'.....simple....more babies = more soldiers(on earth in tanks).....

government makes war
religion makes war
people make war

so where ever you go make sure the venue matches your beliefs....if it doesn't then F'EN leave....still CHOICE......

The argument is that catholics have been using and paying for birth control all along, but now they need a government mandate coverage to make sure it is offered at no cost to the user.  

It's so funny to listen to an argument using statistics that show every is already using birth control,  then make the argument that it has to be provided at no charge because it is not available.

With the Presidents power to mandate, that also gives the power to ban.  Eventually, the "right wing" will become the majority ruling the halls of government.  I can hear the shrieking now - when they BAN the offering of medical products like say...hmmm...chemical contraceptive - ALL IN THE NAME OF HEALTH CARE.  This is what happens when a nation disregards the Constitution, the rule of law, and subscribe to democratic mob rule.  The tables will turn and the new ruling majority will use the coercive powers of the government to force their will on the new minority.  You live by the mob, you die  by the mob.

Quoted from CICERO

Who pays the insurance premium to cover the additional cost of contraceptives - is it magic?  Insurance companies are FORCED to raise their premiums on companies in order to pay for additional cost to their health insurance plan.  

Economics 101 - there is no such thing as a free lunch.

-- Both insurers and employers who self-insure save money in the long run by covering contraception.
So much money is saved that it makes financial sense to waive co-pays and deductibles.
A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health estimates that NOT providing contraceptive
coverage in employee health plans winds up costing employers 15% to 17% more than providing
such coverage.

-- Contraception is used to treat or prevent many health conditions that affect women, including ovarian
cysts, endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, uterine fibroid tumors, abnormal bleeding, pain
associated with ovulation, and anemia.
Women who used oral contraceptives are also less likely to develop rheumatoid arthritis, particularly in its
more severe forms.

- It is estimated that for every dollar invested in contraception, the nation saves $3.74 in Medicaid
expenditures that otherwise would have been spent for pregnancy-related care. Aren't we trying to
reduce Medicare expenses?

- Contraceptives are NOT inexpensive if you are poor, work in a low-wage job, are unemployed and/or
a single parent.
The right has been working hard to make family planning clinics fewer and harder to access with their
crusade to  control women and (gotta laugh here) promote pregnancy.
Do we need to promote pregnancy in 2012?

The Obamanomics of Contraception
Tuesday February 14, 2012

What's so expensive that no one can afford it, but so cheap that everyone can? Since today is Valentine's Day, you can be excused for thinking that the answer is "love." Unfortunately, that's not the answer I had in mind, though (once again on Valentine's Day) the correct answer—artificial contraception—is all too often confused with love.

The Obama administration and its apologists made one set of arguments to try to win support for the initial version of President Obama's contraception mandate, only to turn around last Friday, after offering a "revised" mandate, and contradict everything they had said.

The two arguments can be summed up as follows:

Original Contraception Mandate
Artificial contraception is too expensive for working women to afford; therefore
All employers, including religious institutions that believe the use of artificial contraception is objectively immoral, must pay for insurance policies that will cover the costs of artificial contraception.

"Revised" Contraception Mandate
Artificial contraception is so inexpensive that
Insurance companies, which stay in business by taking in more money than they pay out, will be able to provide artificial contraception to the female employees of religious institutions free of charge.

When one boils the administration's two contradictory arguments down to their essentials, the point that I was trying to make in When Is a Compromise Not a Compromise? becomes crystal-clear. One does not have to understand how insurance companies use actuarial tables and cohorts of the insured to ensure that they make the profit they wish to make every year; one needs only to acknowledge what profits are: the difference between the money that a company takes in and that which it pays out.

If insurance companies are forced to provide a service or product for free—in other words, if their expenses increase—they have only one way of maintaining their profits: by increasing income. And that increased income takes the form of higher premiums, which the Obama administration knows full well will be levied on the religious institutions that object to paying for artificial contraception.

That's why, only minutes after President Obama announced his "compromise," I called this a "shell game." The only thing that has changed is that the cost of paying for artificial contraception is being hidden through semantics. "Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception," the White House says, yet that is exactly what will happen.

There were ways in which the Obama administration could have revised the contraception mandate that would have made it much harder, if not impossible, for insurance companies to pass the costs on to religious institutions that object to paying for artificial contraception.

President Obama could, for instance, have required insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage to women who work at religious institutions as a separate policy altogether. Since he insists that artificial contraception is too expensive for working women to afford, he could have set price caps on the cost of that policy—say, five dollars per month. Insurance companies could then have arranged for bulk discounts with pharmaceutical companies. President Obama could even have helped the insurance companies out in their negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies by imposing price controls on the most commonly used forms of artificial contraception.

None of these things, of course, would be good in themselves, nor would they advance freedom. But, had President Obama done any or all of those things, one might be able to make a reasonable argument that he had actually tried to ensure that religious institutions would not not be required to spend a penny on something they regard as intrinsically immoral.

The fact that President Obama chose not to go that way—the fact that he chose instead to play a shell game, and to argue that artificial contraception is too expensive for women to afford, but too cheap for insurance companies not to be able to give it away for free—proves that this mandate is less about providing a "service" to women than it is about increasing the power of the state over the Church.

Make no mistake: If the "revised" mandate actually becomes law, it will be the first of many steps in forcing churches to bow before the power of Washington, D.C. That is what is at stake here: no more, and no less.

EVERYONE COULD STOP PAYING THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS......VERY SIMPLE TO FIX....what's the fear?

the fear is the MANDATE to pay it....or....what?

the fear is jail/fine/extortion.....dirty dirty bastards......

This should not have EVER become a federal mandated issue but should have instead been left up to the states and the states taxpayers/residents to decide.

Question....

What gives the POTUS the right to mandate that an insurance company HAS to give something away for 'free'?

We'll start with this.

Quoted from BuckStrider

Question....
What gives the POTUS the right to mandate that an insurance company HAS to give something away for 'free'?
We'll start with this.

As posted above:

"A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health estimates that NOT providing contraceptive
coverage in employee health plans winds up costing employers 15% to 17% more than providing
such coverage."

You pay MORE if you refuse the coverage!

Quoted from Box A Rox

As posted above:

"A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health estimates that NOT providing contraceptive
coverage in employee health plans winds up costing employers 15% to 17% more than providing
such coverage."

You pay MORE if you refuse the coverage!

And what do you have against the businessman that s/he shouldn't be able to make that decision on their own?

Is this the same law that will mandate that we all have to drive a volt because they can only go 40 miles before they need a charge so by driving less there will be less accidents.