John Kerry

The Obama administration has been speaking of a compromise for the last three days. So, no, it is not "obama is right and Kerry is wrong."

The only Kerry quote in the article is:
"n a statement, Kerry said, "I think the Administration is working towards a final rule that reflects a reasonable compromise. I think there's a way to protect everybody's interest here. I think you can implement it effectively in a way that protects women's access, but at the same time protects people's religious beliefs, and that should be everyone’s goal.""


Now, I am less sure that can be a compromise here. The two sides are not willing to accept anything other than polar positions. Women will be angry if women working for these institutions don't get free birth control from their insurance. The Church is unlikely to accept any compromise where they pay for birth control. It may be that the Obama administration, with many people far more clever than me, has found a "reasonable compromise".

My daughter worked as a volunteer in 2009 and 2010 for a Dorothy Day Catholic Worker organization. She is not Catholic. They paid for health care coverage when in 2010, after she no longer qualified to be on our plan. She has used birth control for several years for medical reasons. The insurance was very good and they paid the entire premium, but it did not cover this - something my daughter did nothing to question, understanding the problem. It did cover her visits to various doctors with very little out of pocket cost and the other medications she needed. (There was no deductible to be met)

The quality of all plans differ widely. I seriously think that the health care plan that volunteers and workers of Catholic Charities might be better for people, even without birth control covered, than the average plan I have seen WITH birth control - IF birth control could be purchased at the rate that the insurance companies actually pay. It could be that the federal government could negotiate prices for contraceptives and develop a card that could be used for anyone on a plan given a waiver - including the churches themselves - or - the cost could be borne by the government. Just comparing my plan from AT&T, which I have to go through first before my husband's, my daughter would be better off on the Catholic Worker plan even if she paid $81 a month - because the AT&T plan has a deductible before it pays anything on doctor's visits. (Her current plan is better than either - She is studying in London and on the NHS - and was shocked at how easy it was!)

This will result in a windfall for the Catholic Church. If half of the policies written include one person using birth control, the average cost of a policy for any company that does not now cover bc will be .5 (the cost for the insurance company). Assuming they pay half the going rate without insurance, this would mean about $20 more a month on every policy. It is entirely likely that some of that additional cost will be passed through to the employee.

I can see both sides of this. I do think that there should be requirements on what constitutes adequate insurance. In the past, the quality of a company's insurance plan was mostly driven (I think) by the need to offer a competitive compensation package. If the organizations are given a waiver, if all else were equal in the offer, they will lose potential employees - if they or their spouses use birth control. The only way to change that is to raise the salary by the cost.