Arizona women will have to PROVE they need birth control

[Thunder]

Ariz. bill could require reason for birth control - Yahoo! News

if they can't prove the birth control is for something other than to prevent pregnancies, their HMO will be able to deny reimbursement..for "moral" reasons.

looks like the War on Women is moving into high-gear.

when will they pass a law allowing companies & HMOs to deny reimbursement for vasectomies, hysterectomies, Viagra, for "moral" reasons?

The War on Women. The War on Sex. I don't know what's the best term, but its ****ing disgusting.

 

[MaggieD]

Ariz. bill could require reason for birth control - Yahoo! News

if they can't prove the birth control is for something other than to prevent pregancies, their HMO will be able to deny reimbursement..for "moral" reasons.

looks like the War on Women is moving into high-gear.

when will they pass a law allowing companies & HMOs to deny reimbursement for vasectomies, hysterectomies, Viagra, for "moral" reasons?

The War on Women. The War on Sex. I don't know what's the best term, but its ****ing disgusting.

No, it's the war on Obamacare.

A bill nearing passage in the Republican-led Legislature allows all employers, not just religious institutions, to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage when doing so would violate their religious or moral beliefs.

I don't agree with the portion of this bill that lets all employers make that decision. And guess what? It won't pass.

But you keep letting the politicians derail your thought train from the real issues, Thunder. It's exactly what both sides want.

 

[ChuckBerry]

I think the war on religious freedom got started when the Obama administration wanted to force religious institutions to pay for things that were abhorrent to their conscience. It continued with the petty backlash of lawmakers introducing bills to equate Viagra with birth control. Since Viagra is used to treat a medically diagnosed deficiency, and ovulation and pregnancy are not deficiencies, but normal processes of a woman's body, this can only be viewed as an opening salvo in a war against men.

The war was started by others.

 

[liblady]

I think the war on religious freedom got started when the Obama administration wanted to force religious institutions to pay for things that were abhorrent to their conscience. It continued with the petty backlash of lawmakers introducing bills to equate Viagra with birth control. Since Viagra is used to treat a medically diagnosed deficiency, and ovulation and pregnancy are not deficiencies, but normal processes of a woman's body, this can only be viewed as an opening salvo in a war against men.

The war was started by others.

to be clear, the bill wouldn't have forced the religious institution ITSELF to cover birth control, only the businesses affiliated with the church. and i call bs on the viagra, unless, of course, the man is married and in a fatihful relationship, and can prove it. otherwise, morally, why does he need viagra?

 

[Harshaw]

Ariz. bill could require reason for birth control - Yahoo! News

if they can't prove the birth control is for something other than to prevent pregnancies, their HMO will be able to deny reimbursement..for "moral" reasons.

looks like the War on Women is moving into high-gear.

when will they pass a law allowing companies & HMOs to deny reimbursement for vasectomies, hysterectomies, Viagra, for "moral" reasons?

The War on Women. The War on Sex. I don't know what's the best term, but its ****ing disgusting.

The way you describe this indicates you either didn't read the article, or you just didn't understand it, because your description does not match the actual bill in any way.

And there's no excuse, because your own article is quite clear on it, despite the headline. Is that where you stopped reading?

 

[digsbe]

I think the war is fine. Birth control as means of preventing pregnancy is a lifestyle choice. If it's not for a medically necessary purpose then an insurance provider is under no obligation to cover it. Many insurances don't cover Viagra, condoms, lubes/spermicides, and other products. I don't see why it's necessary for an insurance provider to be forced to pay for a medically unnecessary medication.

 

[Harshaw]

to be clear, the bill wouldn't have forced the religious institution ITSELF to cover birth control, only the businesses affiliated with the church.

To be clear, this is the false distinction being pushed. (And it always involves the term "businesses," to make it seem like they sell air conditioners or hamburgers, when the institutions involved are charities, universities, and non-profit hospitals.)

and i call bs on the viagra, unless, of course, the man is married and in a fatihful relationship, and can prove it. otherwise, morally, why does he need viagra?

This analogy is considerably less than perfect.

Even so, I'm not sure what you think it accomplishes, as there's no reason to require an employer to cover Viagra, either.

 

[Thunder]

I think the war is fine. Birth control as means of preventing pregnancy is a lifestyle choice. If it's not for a medically necessary purpose then an insurance provider is under no obligation to cover it. Many insurances don't cover Viagra, condoms, lubes/spermicides, and other products. I don't see why it's necessary for an insurance provider to be forced to pay for a medically unnecessary medication.

what about hysterectomies & vasectomies?

 

[digsbe]

what about hysterectomies & vasectomies?

A private insurer shouldn't be forced to cover these things if they aren't medically necessary. If someone really thinks it's important that they have a health insurance plan that covers sexual lifestyle related items then they can purchase a plan that does so.

 

[missypea]

When a female worker uses birth control pills, which can be used to treat a number of medical conditions, the bill would allow an employer who opted out to require her to reveal what she was taking it for in order to get reimbursed.

Ariz. bill could require reason for birth control



Whatever people call it, it's an attempt to legalize misogyny.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I think the war on religious freedom got started when the Obama administration wanted to force religious institutions to pay for things that were abhorrent to their conscience. It continued with the petty backlash of lawmakers introducing bills to equate Viagra with birth control. Since Viagra is used to treat a medically diagnosed deficiency, and ovulation and pregnancy are not deficiencies, but normal processes of a woman's body, this can only be viewed as an opening salvo in a war against men.

The war was started by others.

Yep - that's what got this stupid ****ing ball rolling.

In the end - I think it will bring down all of Obama Care and might even reshape how our nation views *who* is to provide your insurance altogether.

I hate being right: but for years I've belived that the more we rely on government and employers for such needs the more they'll feel just in sticking their nose in our healthcare business.

Whether you have access via insurance to certain health related measures shouldn't rely on SOMEONE ELSE'S religious or personal opinions.

I had thought this was common sense but I guess not.

 

[Neal N. Bloeme]

 

[Harshaw]

Yep - that's what got this stupid ****ing ball rolling.

In the end - I think it will bring down all of Obama Care and might even reshape how our nation views *who* is to provide your insurance altogether.

I hate being right: but for years I've belived that the more we rely on government and employers for such needs the more they'll feel just in sticking their nose in our healthcare business.

Whether you have access via insurance to certain health related measures shouldn't rely on SOMEONE ELSE'S religious or personal opinions.

I had thought this was common sense but I guess not.

There are already those who argue for the individual mandate based on the idea that if "I" (as in, a taxpayer) "pay for your health care, then I can require you to be responsible."

It's not hard to see where the ball will roll down THAT slope. As pretty much everything you do is related to your health, there's no end to what can be regulated about your life.

 

[soccerboy22]

I do have a problem with employers having the right to know why women are on birth control for it to be covered. That to me, seems to breach doctor-patient privilage.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

There are already those who argue for the individual mandate based on the idea that if "I" (as in, a taxpayer) "pay for your health care, then I can require you to be responsible."

It's not hard to see where the ball will roll down THAT slope. As pretty much everything you do is related to your health, there's no end to what can be regulated about your life.

Healthcare is not 100% by the provider of said coverage - the employer does not pay 100%, individuals share their own costs - copay, deductibles, etc. Insurance is (was) optional and for some companies it technically is allotted out of your 'pay' - some of your pay goes to insurance and the rest goes to you.

The only plans I know of that are 100% are extremely expensive - luxury plans. . . and military like Tricare but even then: there are some things just not covered.

 

[liblady]

To be clear, this is the false distinction being pushed. (And it always involves the term "businesses," to make it seem like they sell air conditioners or hamburgers, when the institutions involved are charities, universities, and non-profit hospitals.)






This analogy is considerably less than perfect.

Even so, I'm not sure what you think it accomplishes, as there's no reason to require an employer to cover Viagra, either.

so should every employer be allowed to decide what they will and won't cover as far as drugs go? what about other typical medical procedures? and, i used viagra becasue someone was arguing it was medicinal, and i think if a woman has to prove why she needs bc, (ie NOT for sex), a man should only be covered for the reason i stated previously.

 

[missypea]

I think the war on religious freedom got started when the Obama administration wanted to force religious institutions to pay for things that were abhorrent to their conscience. It continued with the petty backlash of lawmakers introducing bills to equate Viagra with birth control. Since Viagra is used to treat a medically diagnosed deficiency, and ovulation and pregnancy are not deficiencies, but normal processes of a woman's body, this can only be viewed as an opening salvo in a war against men.

The war was started by others.

Incorrectly stated, no doubt, as you intended. Weren't you the one who, in another thread, stated that your wife took birth control pills to regulate her cycle and relieve the pain associated with ovulation?

"Normal processes" of the body, doesn't mean that every woman has the same experience and symptoms from this "normal" processes you're explaining so poorly.

Furthermore, comprehensive insurance coverage should address my needs at each stage of my life.
Example===A 3 year old needs to have vaccines. A 25 year old is concerned with child bearing/prevention issues. A 55 year old is concerned with their cholesterol.

These are issues a person addresses with their doctor, not their employer.

 

[liblady]

Yep - that's what got this stupid ****ing ball rolling.

In the end - I think it will bring down all of Obama Care and might even reshape how our nation views *who* is to provide your insurance altogether.

I hate being right: but for years I've belived that the more we rely on government and employers for such needs the more they'll feel just in sticking their nose in our healthcare business.

Whether you have access via insurance to certain health related measures shouldn't rely on SOMEONE ELSE'S religious or personal opinions.

I had thought this was common sense but I guess not.

Whether you have access via insurance to certain health related measures shouldn't rely on SOMEONE ELSE'S religious or personal opinions.

exactly right.

 

[jambalaya]

I do have a problem with employers having the right to know why women are on birth control for it to be covered. That to me, seems to breach doctor-patient privilage.

Insurance companies have a right to know a diagnosis to determine if it is covered under the policy. That is standard procedure.

Diagnosis: Acne
Medication: Birth Control Pill

 

[Gina]

To be clear, this is the false distinction being pushed. (And it always involves the term "businesses," to make it seem like they sell air conditioners or hamburgers, when the institutions involved are charities, universities, and non-profit hospitals.)




This analogy is considerably less than perfect.

Even so, I'm not sure what you think it accomplishes, as there's no reason to require an employer to cover Viagra, either.

A business is a business, it doesn't matter that it non-profit (United Way is a non-profit charity) or that the business is hospital or university (see the state university system, also non-profit). As an employer in the U.S. they are expected to follow state and federal laws and regulations. 28 states already have mandated coverage of contraceptives. Some of them do not allow for religious exception, Iowa for instance.

 

[Harshaw]

A business is a business, it doesn't matter that it non-profit (United Way is a non-profit charity) or that the business is hospital or university (see the state university system, also non-profit). As an employer in the U.S. they are expected to follow state and federal laws and regulations. 28 states already have mandated coverage of contraceptives. Some of them do not allow for religious exception, Iowa for instance.

You keep saying that as though it matters. At the time of Roe v. Wade, abortion was entirely illegal in 45 states, legal only in the cases of incest/danger to the mother in 4 more, and legal on demand in only 1.

 

[missypea]

You keep saying that as though it matters. At the time of Roe v. Wade, abortion was entirely illegal in 45 states, legal only in the cases of incest/danger to the mother in 4 more, and legal on demand in only 1.

Isn't your argument more to the point that women's rights prevailed?

 

[Mycroft]

It's too bad the article provided in the OP didn't give a link to the actual bill.

Critics say the bill allows employers to violate their worker's privacy.

Under the Arizona bill, employers who opt out could make women provide documentation from their health care provider.

Liza Love, a mental health worker, testified Monday before a Senate committee to oppose the bill, saying she would be required to disclose that she needed contraceptives to treat endometriosis, which is excessive growth of the uterine lining.

"That's nothing that you as my employer ... have a right to know," she said.

I seriously doubt that the employer will get that information. It would typically be sent by the doctor to the insurance company. The employer won't even know that the employee is even taking birth control pills. Therefore, any talk of violating a federal law on confidentiality could be moot. I'd have to see the bill to know for sure.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with this legislation and I don't see it as a "war on women". I see it as a war on government control...and a war that we all should take part in.

 

[Harshaw]

Isn't your argument more to the point that women's rights prevailed?

The spin you have to put on it what I said, and the underlying facts and arguments, to reach that conclusion would make a quasar envious.

 

[xpiher]

That ifs why employers shouldn't buy health insurance directly in the first place.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk