I noted in a prior post that the govt's position (that the required contraception coverage was cost neutral or would save insurance companies money) was based on a very flawed report. The govt argued that employers wouldn't be paying for it, because there would be no higher premiums due to the coverage, because it would save insurance companies money. The report was so shoddily prepared that it seemed to be advocacy rather than honest analysis.
Now a health economist has pointed out the flaws, in a NYT piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/upshot/does-contraceptive-coverage-pay-for-itself.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news It's no wonder that some people find HHS less than trustworthy and candid in these matters. Mark Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
