I underlined the part :Here is what the actual insurance coverage at Fordham states:
Contraceptive Services Expense Benefit:
TheInsurer is required by law to offer this coverage andpay the Covered Percentage of the Covered Chargesfor Contraceptive Drugs and Devices. Such Drugs andDevices must be approved by the United States Foodand Drug Administration and prescribed legally by anauthorized health care provider. Covered services
are subject to applicable copayments under the
Prescription Drug Benefit Plan. (Questionsconcerning these benefits should be addressed to theInsurer’s Third Party Administrator, Administrative
Concepts, Inc.)
Yes, I agree, it is a "game". It's also revealing that you infer apologizing to a women for insulting remarks is a "stoop to Palin's level", whatever in the world that means. Insulting is insulting, no matter who the woman is. Would you agree with that statement or not?
The fact that you find that website to be a valuable source of information, certainly indicates your lack of education. I'll bet you have an MBA from Harvard Business School too, dontcha?
I think the women who bought the university health insurance thought since Fordham was in New York the Fordham University Insurance would cover BC pills.
I underlined the part :
prescribed legally by an authorized health care provider.
The only authorized health care provider is the university clinic.
If the clinic does not authorize the BC pills than the insurance does not have to cover them.
is because our health centers, where students with University insurance are meant to receive our primary and gynecological care, will not prescribe contraception. So, whether a student needs contraception to prevent pregnancy, treat a medical condition or both – she has to pay a $100 deductible to visit a doctor off-campus for a prescription
Obama Birth Control: Religious Groups Exempted From Contraception RuleMyth #1) Ms. Fluke wants somebody else to pay for her contraception
No. Ms. Fluke is not asking for other people to pay for her birth control, any more than others might want somebody else to pay for their allergy pills.
What any of us want is for the services we value to be part of our health coverage. As we are paying into a risk pool, we would like for our preferred preventative care to be covered. By speaking out, Ms. Fluke wants to encourage all of us to arrive at a public consensus that says birth control is considered of value to enough people (NOT 100%) but enough people that it is included in the coverage she has.
Myth #2) Adding birth control to an insurance plan drives up costs for everyone
No. It will not. There is ample evidence to suggest that including cost free birth control in insurance plans does not raise the overall cost of health care because it reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. See an article here: Why Free Birth Control Will Not Hike the Cost of Your Insurance | Moneyland | TIME.com
Myth #3) Obama’s Recent HHS mandate will force religious organizations who oppose birth control on religious grounds to provide it
No. Obama’s HHS mandate, which was revised in February, provides an exclusion for all faith-based organizations — not just houses of worship but also hospitals and universities — from covering employees’ contraception costs.
Here are 3 myths about the current BC debate:
Obama Birth Control: Religious Groups Exempted From Contraception Rule
Myth #3) Obama’s Recent HHS mandate will force religious organizations who oppose birth control on religious grounds to provide it
No. Obama’s HHS mandate, which was revised in February, provides an exclusion for all faith-based organizations — not just houses of worship but also hospitals and universities — from covering employees’ contraception costs.
Others object that many religious groups self-insure to save money, and so having the insurer pay for contraception coverage rather than the employer made no difference because insurer and employer are one and the same.
Now you've taken to just repeating things? Oy. You already posted this, and I posted a rebuttal.
Just to remind you, and because it's easy:
This is not a myth. Many religious organizations moved to self insurance so that they wouldn't have to provide BC in those 26 states that require it. The Obama administration did not make an exception for them, so they will now have to provide it.
Obama is proposed a change just a couple of days ago to exempt them. Although they will still be technically paying for it, through increased premiums. But the new proposal is not yet in effect and at the time the link you provided was written, w as not even a thought. So, the Time article is a biased peice of trash.
Obama giving religious groups more say in birth-control mandate | The Salt Lake Tribune
Coming after a month of continued opposition from the U.S. bishops to the mandate, which was first revised in early February to exempt certain religious organizations, today’s announced changes from the Department of Health and Human Services make a number of concessions, including allowing religious organizations that self-insure to be made exempt.
Also raised is the possibility that the definition given for religious employers in the original mandate could be changed.
And the Obama administration is aware that many self-insure and they have been working on a solution.
Read more: Obama Administration Partially Caves on Abortion Contraception Mandate | Blogs | NCRegister.com
If you read the link I provided, it was discussing the change the Obama admin announced. You didn't really hav eto go find your own link.
But, that wasn't the point. The point was that the Times article was wrong. At the time the article was written, that was not a myth (actually none of them were myths, I just picked a really easy one to show).
...
Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association deservedly got the most attention for immediately going out on a limb to welcome the president’s modified mandate proposal (which provided that insurers themselves would bear the cost of contraception services for employees of religiously-affiliated institutions that objected to paying for the coverage),...
The contrast in responses from Catholic organizations has been more a matter of tone than content. They are all in agreement that certain issues still need to be worked out, like what to do about Catholic institutions that are “self-insured,” meaning that they act as both the insurer and the employer.
I am sorry. I posted the wrong link.
The article was a goodmenproject article and not the Time article.
The link to Three Myths In Our Current National Debate About Birth Control
March 6, 2012 is:
You don't die if you don't take Viagra, so no, it is not a health issue. It is only to make sure that men can have sex.ED is a health issue. I don't know of anyone paying for any man's ED medication.
Why can't every man with ED pay for their own bc? The point being that it is being offered for free because for women, birth control is a health issue. So, why shouldn't Fluke get it for free like every other woman, just because her "employer" or "provider" just happens to be against it? Anyone that is against it, doesn't have to take them. That is the point.So why can't Sandra and her husband pay for their own birth control?
. Birth control to prevent pregnancy should not be mandated to be covered. Just as condoms and viagra for recreational purposes are not mandated to be covered.
Many of you have likely seen the heart rending testimony of Ms. Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University , before a Congressional Committee two weeks ago. She was lamenting that no one would subsidize her birth control expenses, which she claimed would amount to $3000 during her three years in law school.
After watching Ms. Fluke describe her desperate situation I set to thinking of ways to help her out of her crisis.
First, of course I had to pass through the grieving period I experienced after hearing of her inhumane treatment at the hands of the Georgetown administration and our Government – what cruelty lurks in the heart of men that they would leave this poor woman to fend for herself when all she wanted to do was get laid seven times a day (see my analysis below).
Once I recovered from my grief, I set to thinking about ways to help this poor girl. Being a Physicist, I sat down with my calculator and worked through some numbers.
Ms. Fluke’s expense account for birth control (aka sexual entertainment) was claimed to be $3000 for three years at law school. Let’s presume that as an educated woman she wants to be doubly safe and uses both birth control pills to prevent pregnancy and condoms to prevent STD (sexually transmitted disease).
Using the Wal-Mart cost for birth control pills of $9 per month, her birth control pills will cost her $324 for her entire law school career (if you can call it a career – I can think of other names). This leaves only $2676 for her condoms.
I went to Amazon.com, and found quality condoms available for 33 cents each in packages of 60 condoms each. This cost includes tax and shipping. Since she has $2676 for her 33 cent condoms, she will be buying 8109 condoms during her law school “career”.
To use her 8109 condoms (remember, $3000 was Ms. Flukes’ own number) she would have to have sex 7 times a day. This number presumes that she has sex ten times a day on Sundays when she has more free time.
So, having worked through these numbers, I have some suggestions for Ms. Fluke to help her work through her crisis:
1. Find dates that are gentlemanly enough to either provide
their own condoms, or at least split the cost with her. Selection
criteria is the key to this one.
2. Spend more time studying. Even seven “quickies” a day will
seriously cut into quality study time. This would not only save
money but would improve her education as well.
3. Seek funding from the EPA from one of their Wetlands
Protection programs – surely Ms. Flukes’ nether regions would
qualify as wetlands given sex seven times a day.
Just trying to help out a starving student.
By the way, the average starting salary of new Georgetown Law School graduates is $160,000 a year, FYI.
Booth R. Myers, PhD
Interesting email making the rounds...
You don't die if you don't take Viagra,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?