Trump plans to roll back Obamacare birth control mandate

[Nilly]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/31/15716778/trump-birth-control-regulation

The Trump administration is apparently preparing to overhaul Obamacare’s birth control mandate, purportedly allowing any employer to seek a moral or religious exemption from the requirement, according to a draft regulation obtained by Vox.

The Affordable Care Act requires nearly all employers to offer health insurance that covers access to a wide array of contraceptive methods. The draft proposal, if finalized, would significantly broaden the type of companies and organizations that can request an exemption. This could lead to many American women who currently receive no-cost contraception having to pay out of pocket for their medication.

[...]

The Trump administration’s draft regulation would allow any employer to request an exemption based on moral or religious objections. This would widen the exemption to apply to any company from a small, religiously affiliated business to a large, publicly traded company.

Universities that provide students health coverage are considered employers for health insurance purposes and could also seek the same exemption. Employers could cite any religious or moral reason for their exemption.

More than 20 percent of US woman of childbearing age had to pay money out of pocket for oral contraceptives prior to the Obamacare mandate, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That shrunk to less than 4 percent a few years after the mandate took effect.

The rule only applies to religious and morality-based objections to female contraception. It does not apply to other things a religion may find morally objectionable, like psychiatric drugs, blood transfusions, or Viagra.

No war on women, indeed.

Conservatives once again ignoring that birth control reduces incidence of abortion. It makes you wonder whether this kind of thing really is about moral objection and not simply about control.

 

[Mycroft]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/31/15716778/trump-birth-control-regulation





The rule only applies to religious and morality-based objections to female contraception. It does not apply to other things a religion may find morally objectionable, like psychiatric drugs, blood transfusions, or Viagra.

No war on women, indeed.

Conservatives once again ignoring that birth control reduces incidence of abortion. It makes you wonder whether this kind of thing really is about moral objection and not simply about control.

Absent the best solution, which is getting the government out of the health insurance market in total, this is a good thing.

A company that has issues with providing this service has a means of dealing with it. And, as always, an employee who wants this service, but can't get it at a particular company, is free to find employment elsewhere.

 

[Harshaw]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/31/15716778/trump-birth-control-regulation





The rule only applies to religious and morality-based objections to female contraception. It does not apply to other things a religion may find morally objectionable, like psychiatric drugs, blood transfusions, or Viagra.

No war on women, indeed.

Conservatives once again ignoring that birth control reduces incidence of abortion. It makes you wonder whether this kind of thing really is about moral objection and not simply about control.

"Control" of . . . what?

 

[Cigar]

I hear him talking every week but I see nothing getting done ...

Trump has The Presidency, The Senate and The House.

Nothing would make me happyer than to see Trump kick 25 Million from their Healthcare. Just Git-R-Done before the next Election please.

:lol:

 

[Nilly]

"Control" of . . . what?

Women.

 

[Harshaw]

Women.

. . . how?

 

[Cigar]

"Control" of . . . what?

Banning Abortions will not stop Abortions, it will just force the poor into dangerious situations and into Emergency Rooms, where guess what and guess who will still pick up the cost?

 

[Harshaw]

Banning Abortions will not stop Abortions, it will just force the poor into dangerious situations and into Emergency Rooms, where guess what and guess who will still pick up the cost?

No one said anythings about abortions, my man.

 

[Nilly]

I hear him talking every week but I see nothing getting done ...

Trump has The Presidency, The Senate and The House.

Nothing would make me happyer than to see Trump kick 25 Million from their Healthcare. Just Git-R-Done before the next Election please.

:lol:

Why is the suffering of people for political points funny to you?

 

[Nilly]

. . . how?

Read the OP. By restricting access to contraceptives.

 

[Harshaw]

Read the OP. By restricting access to contraceptives.

No one would be "restricting access" to anything. Everyone involved is still perfectly free to procure whatever birth control they like to their heart's content.

 

[Nilly]

No one would be "restricting access" to anything. Everyone involved is still perfectly free to procure whatever birth control they like to their heart's content.

Lol whatever you say.

 

[Harshaw]

Lol whatever you say.

Who's being stopped from getting birth control?

My last full-time employer didn't pay for my favorite Friday lunch - the chicken-fried steak at Lola's across the street. Did they "restrict my access" to it?

Yes, or no?

 

[Nilly]

Who's being stopped from getting birth control?

My last full-time employer didn't pay for my favorite Friday lunch - the chicken-fried steak at Lola's across the street. Did they "restrict my access" to it?

Yes, or no?

Swing and a miss harshaw, as per usual.

Irregardless of your position on govt mandated healthcare/pharmaceuticals (which we could get in a whole different argument about)

Why does this proposed legislation specifically allow for moral/religious objection to a specifically female item but not to other items that males can use but that are also the cause of religious objection?

 

[Whythink]

"Control" of . . . what?

Vagina's

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Harshaw]

Swing and a miss harshaw, as per usual.

Irregardless of your position on govt mandated healthcare/pharmaceuticals (which we could get in a whole different argument about)

Why does this proposed legislation specifically allow for moral/religious objection to a specifically female item but not to other items that males can use but that are also the cause of religious objection?

That's entirely beside what I asked.

Who is being prevented from acquiring birth control? Whose "access" is "restricted"? How, exactly?

These are the claims you made. You need to answer these questions, or your claims don't hold water. Are you interested in supporting what you said, or aren't you?

If so, answer the questions. If not, then why are you wasting anyone's time?

 

[Josie]

Read the OP. By restricting access to contraceptives.

No one is restricting access to contraceptives. All kinds of birth control methods are readily available. Who won't have access to them?

 

[Absentglare]

No one would be "restricting access" to anything. Everyone involved is still perfectly free to procure whatever birth control they like to their heart's content.

No one is restricting access to contraceptives. All kinds of birth control methods are readily available. Who won't have access to them?

The stupidity of your argument cannot be overstated. You are arguing against the trivially obvious truth that eroding the protection on healthcare plans to include a medically necessarily treatment has the necessary impact of reducing access to that treatment.

My wife has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She requires "birth control" to manage PCOS. Your posts above are ****ing despicable, and you should both be ashamed of your rampant partisanship.

 

[Harshaw]

Swing and a miss harshaw, as per usual.

Irregardless of your position on govt mandated healthcare/pharmaceuticals (which we could get in a whole different argument about)

Why does this proposed legislation specifically allow for moral/religious objection to a specifically female item but not to other items that males can use but that are also the cause of religious objection?

I ask you again:

Who is being prevented from acquiring birth control? Whose "access" is "restricted"? How, exactly?

You simply make declarations, and you don't even attempt to support them.

No, Nilly; an employer not paying for an employee's birth control does not "restrict access" to anything. You can stick your fingers in your ears and belt out "Mary Had A Little Lamb" all you want to avoid the question, but it's still the case.

The argument you make is ludicrous. It's childish, it's entirely illogical, and more than that, it's simply anti-intellectual. You live in a concocted, self-imposed false reality, into which you will not allow any challenge to your thoughts. That's just infantile.

 

[buck]

My wife has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She requires "birth control" to manage PCOS. Your posts above are ****ing despicable, and you should both be ashamed of your rampant partisanship.

Medically necessary birth control for such will still be covered.

 

[Nilly]

I ask you again:

You simply make declarations, and you don't even attempt to support them.

No, Nilly; an employer not paying for an employee's birth control does not "restrict access" to anything. You can stick your fingers in your ears and belt out "Mary Had A Little Lamb" all you want to avoid the question, but it's still the case.

The argument you make is ludicrous. It's childish, it's entirely illogical, and more than that, it's simply anti-intellectual. You live in a concocted, self-imposed false reality, into which you will not allow any challenge to your thoughts. That's just infantile.

Stupid lawyer word games are stupid Harshaw. A restriction can be a limiting condition or measure - which can be defined in multiple ways - not just total prevention.

You asked who/how/why this seems like an attempt to control women. My answer is simple, and specific to that question. This is an (attempted) rescindment of access to a medical treatment that is specifically used by women.

If you want to discuss in general whether the govt should be responsible for mandating that employers should provide access to treatment, then man up and say that's your question rather than twisting what you're asking and moving goalposts.

Like Absent said above, "it is trivially obvious that that eroding the protection on healthcare plans to include a medically necessarily treatment has the necessary impact of reducing access to that treatment."

I'm not gonna prove 2 + 2 for you.

Medically necessary birth control for such will still be covered.

'Medical necessity' is between the woman and her doctor, not the govt or her employer.

 

[Nilly]

No one is restricting access to contraceptives. All kinds of birth control methods are readily available. Who won't have access to them?

Why do I get the feeling that if was talking about restricting access to firearms by imposing a 100000% tax on them you wouldn't be using the same logic of 'it's not a restriction, they're readily available, people still have access!!!'

 

[Josie]

You asked who/how/why this seems like an attempt to control women. My answer is simple, and specific to that question. This is an (attempted) rescindment of access to a medical treatment that is specifically used by women.

But it's not. An employer cannot ban you from receiving any medical treatment. You seem to think that if someone doesn't have insurance coverage for a treatment, then they cannot have that treatment. Don't you see how silly that is?

 

[Harshaw]

Stupid lawyer word games are stupid Harshaw. A restriction can be a limiting condition or measure - which can be defined in multiple ways - not just total prevention.

You asked who/how/why this seems like an attempt to control women. My answer is simple, and specific to that question. This is an (attempted) rescindment of access to a medical treatment that is specifically used by women.

If you want to discuss in general whether the govt should be responsible for mandating that employers should provide access to treatment, then man up and say that's your question rather than twisting what you're asking and moving goalposts.

Like Absent said above, "it is trivially obvious that that eroding the protection on healthcare plans to include a medically necessarily treatment has the necessary impact of reducing access to that treatment."

I'm not gonna prove 2 + 2 for you.



'Medical necessity' is between the woman and her doctor, not the govt or her employer.

It's not a "lawyer game" to say that one doesn't "restrict access" to something by declining to pay someone else's way for it. That's just plain obvious truth.

But you not only feel you need to turn truth on its head, you try to make pointing out the actual truth into a shameful thing.

Truth and logic don't give a crap about your feelings. It is what it is regardless of how "unjust" you think it is, or whatever emotional blackmail you want to appeal to.

 

[Josie]

Why do I get the feeling that if was talking about restricting access to firearms by imposing a 100000% tax on them you wouldn't be using the same logic of 'it's not a restriction, they're readily available, people still have access!!!'

Do you usually have the feels for horrible analogies?

Why are you against choices? The employer can choose what their insurance plan covers - the employee chooses the insurance plan or not. I honestly don't see what the big deal is.