Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception

My dear fellow conservatives. Before this topic goes even further off the track, you need to look again at what this Arizona law does.

This law prevents employers from providing full contraception coverage to their employees. This law requires a woman prove to her boss that she has a medical condition in order to get contraception through her employer's health care plan.

And that is pretty fucked up. If you don't like government mandating what benefits an employer MUST provide to their employeess (which I most certainly do not), why would you like government mandating what benefits they MAY NOT provide to their employees?

This law is attempting to force employers to stop providing contraception to their employees, even if they want to.

Government interference with the way someone runs their business is COMPLETELY CONTRARY to conservative principles.

If that's indeed the case, they're saying that employers cannot choose to offer contraceptive coverage in their health care plans, then I completely agree with you. I thought it was saying that if you do choose to not offer contraceptive coverage in your health care plan, there has to be an exception for those who need it for medical reasons. And if so, then their doctor would have to validate that scenario.

Wow... so now you guys want EMPLOYERS to decide what the Health Care plans that their employees pay for covers and what it doesn't? Why should they have so much power over the employee?
 
Why do we even accept the premise that our private health insurance needs to be tied to our employment? :dunno:

Exactly.

It shouldn't be. We should be buying our health insurance the same way we buy our auto, home, and life insurance.

And that way, if you want the Pill covered, by golly, go right ahead!

You can tailor your coverage to your own personal desires, wants, needs, and belief system.

No muss. No fuss.
 
No it's normal for an employer to provide, at time of hire, a benefits guide (usually provided "free" of charge by the insurance company) which provides the details of coverage, deductibles, co-payments, network access, etc., etc., etc. This same type of information in normally also provided to existing employees if there are major changes in the plan coverage and/or if the policy carrier is changed.

I've been employed at the same place about 11-years now (before that I was military so it didn't matter). We've changed health care carriers at least twice and dental carrier at least once that I can remember off the top of my head. For all new employees we provide benefit information at time of hire. For existing employees we mail to their home a benefits package each summer containing all that information and providing them will upcoming open enrollment information if they wish to make new elections.

Most employees who have a lick of sense :)D) will call the insurance carrier with their insurance card handy and ask such questions, I find it's typically the older employees that will tend to call us directly. We help them when we can, but if we are not sure of the answer, we direct them to the insurance carrier.


>>>>
Okay. I'm not seeing how the employer would be able to interfere with the woman's relationship with her doctor or her insurance company. It would seem to violate privacy laws to have to get a note from your boss to use birth control.

:confused:


Because you don't have to have a note from your boss to use birth control. You have to have a note from your doctor that the use of birth control is for none pregnancy prevention reasons.


I think this will be very dangerous territory from an employment law situation and requiring them to disclose private medical information will cause many lawsuits.



>>>>
And the insurance won't pay for it if they don't get an okay from the employer....which is a note from your boss or hr department.

Next HR will be deciding which employees are sluts and posting that information in the break room.
 
Wow... so now you guys want EMPLOYERS to decide what the Health Care plans that their employees pay for covers and what it doesn't? Why should they have so much power over the employee?


The employer is paying 90 percent of the cost of the health benefit. So of course they should be the decider as to the nature of that benefit.

If they give you a company car, they decide what kind of car you get, too! Amazing, huh? You want to force them to give you an SUV?

The government damn well does not belong in the benefit decision tree.


But we would all be better off if employers got out of the employer-provided health insurance business.

It is bending the cost curve up.
 
Next HR will be deciding which employees are sluts and posting that information in the break room.

Yes, because that is HR's job. To incorporate sexism in the workplace. That is why they exist.
:lol:
 
Wow... so now you guys want EMPLOYERS to decide what the Health Care plans that their employees pay for covers and what it doesn't? Why should they have so much power over the employee?


The employer is paying 90 percent of the cost of the health benefit. So of course they should be the decider as to the nature of that benefit.

If they give you a company car, they decide what kind of car you get, too! Amazing, huh? You want to force them to give you an SUV?

The government damn well does not belong in the benefit decision tree.


But we would all be better off if employers got out of the employer-provided health insurance business.

It is bending the cost curve up.

yeah.... like a Public, or Non-profit option would be great.
 
*sniffle*

"I...I...I went to work for the Catholic Church and...*sob*...they won't give me the Pill! Talk about a SURPRISE! I mean...how was I supposed to see that one coming? Someone should make those bastards pay."
 
For the sake of fairness under the law we need a bill bill that forces men to pay for their own hard on pills and vasectomies.

What's good for the goose....
 
Wow... so now you guys want EMPLOYERS to decide what the Health Care plans that their employees pay for covers and what it doesn't? Why should they have so much power over the employee?


The employer is paying 90 percent of the cost of the health benefit. So of course they should be the decider as to the nature of that benefit.

If they give you a company car, they decide what kind of car you get, too! Amazing, huh? You want to force them to give you an SUV?

The government damn well does not belong in the benefit decision tree.


But we would all be better off if employers got out of the employer-provided health insurance business.

It is bending the cost curve up.

yeah.... like a Public, or Non-profit option would be great.



No. Private. Just like your auto, home, and life insurance.
 
link to text of bill...

Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist

The ONLY ones who need to file any affidavit are the employer if they have an objection to providing insurance that covers contraceptive services.

The offending passage regarding the covered employee and needing to discuss their contraceptive use WAS REMOVED FROM THE BILL BEFORE IT WAS VOTED ON.

It's a moot argument.


Scroll down in your link to a big blue paragraph "Z", it requires that employees pay for contrastive services themselves and then submit a claim to the employer if the service was not for the prevention of pregnancy. And as part of that claim they have to provide evidence that it was not for contraceptive purposes.


>>>>
 
Why do we even accept the premise that our private health insurance needs to be tied to our employment? :dunno:
the rules put in place provide tax benefits to employers who provide health insurance. that is why. they also possess buying power and can get better rates than individuals.
 
Why do we even accept the premise that our private health insurance needs to be tied to our employment? :dunno:

Exactly.

It shouldn't be. We should be buying our health insurance the same way we buy our auto, home, and life insurance.

And that way, if you want the Pill covered, by golly, go right ahead!

You can tailor your coverage to your own personal desires, wants, needs, and belief system.

No muss. No fuss.
why cant everyone simply have access to the same services for the same price? if you get sick you use services, if you dont get sick you wont need services. youre never forced to use any services, but then again you always have access to them if needed.
 
The employer is paying 90 percent of the cost of the health benefit. So of course they should be the decider as to the nature of that benefit.

If they give you a company car, they decide what kind of car you get, too! Amazing, huh? You want to force them to give you an SUV?

The government damn well does not belong in the benefit decision tree.


But we would all be better off if employers got out of the employer-provided health insurance business.

It is bending the cost curve up.

yeah.... like a Public, or Non-profit option would be great.



No. Private. Just like your auto, home, and life insurance.


I agree with G5000, I think a lot of our problems are employement and group policies being tied together.

OK, here is my compromise...

The biggest problem with the current health care insurance system is that plans are tied to employment (for the vast majority of people) and the entanglements that causes because if they loose their jobs they loose their coverage (and no most people that loose their jobs can't afford COBRA because they have to pay the full premiums) and it changes the market dynamic because its not the individual consumer that is doing the shopping.

Maybe the employer provides (if they choose) a "health care stipend", from a business perspective they get the deduction as a business expense. The individual takes the stipend and then uses it (along with some of their own money) to purchase an individual plan or other independent group plan (I'm think through a religious organization, civil organization, professional organization, union, credit union, etc...). The employers W-2 indicates the amount of the stipend. The insurance company issues a statement like mortgage companies with what your insurance premiums were. Both amounts go on the tax forms and any stipend received which is not spent on insurance is charged as income.

This puts the power of choosing a plan the meets the individuals need back where it belongs and makes it the individual’s responsibility.



>>>>
 
Why do we even accept the premise that our private health insurance needs to be tied to our employment? :dunno:
the rules put in place provide tax benefits to employers who provide health insurance. that is why. they also possess buying power and can get better rates than individuals.



Our leaders have long ago sold our best interest down the river and it seems we're about to go over a waterfall! They have us arguing a false dichotomy AS IF any of this stuff should ever be up to our employers... WTF???
 
Why do we even accept the premise that our private health insurance needs to be tied to our employment? :dunno:

Exactly.

It shouldn't be. We should be buying our health insurance the same way we buy our auto, home, and life insurance.

And that way, if you want the Pill covered, by golly, go right ahead!

You can tailor your coverage to your own personal desires, wants, needs, and belief system.

No muss. No fuss.
why cant everyone simply have access to the same services for the same price? if you get sick you use services, if you dont get sick you wont need services. youre never forced to use any services, but then again you always have access to them if needed.

We always have access to them NOW.

What is wrong with people? Are you so ignorant of the current situation regarding birth control? Or are you just mindless pro-population control human memes?
 
The employer is paying 90 percent of the cost of the health benefit. So of course they should be the decider as to the nature of that benefit.

If they give you a company car, they decide what kind of car you get, too! Amazing, huh? You want to force them to give you an SUV?

The government damn well does not belong in the benefit decision tree.


But we would all be better off if employers got out of the employer-provided health insurance business.

It is bending the cost curve up.

yeah.... like a Public, or Non-profit option would be great.



No. Private. Just like your auto, home, and life insurance.

No, Public... just like the rest of the nations we have to compete with in a global market.
 
link to text of bill...

Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist

The ONLY ones who need to file any affidavit are the employer if they have an objection to providing insurance that covers contraceptive services.

The offending passage regarding the covered employee and needing to discuss their contraceptive use WAS REMOVED FROM THE BILL BEFORE IT WAS VOTED ON.

It's a moot argument.


Scroll down in your link to a big blue paragraph "Z", it requires that employees pay for contrastive services themselves and then submit a claim to the employer if the service was not for the prevention of pregnancy. And as part of that claim they have to provide evidence that it was not for contraceptive purposes.


>>>>

An insurer, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the policy may state religious beliefs in its affidavit that require the insured to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the insurer along with evidence that the prescription is (removed from bill)for a noncontraceptive purpose(removed from bill) not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection.
the claim is submitted to the insurer, not the employer. Also, the 'not in whole or in part' line is sufficiently ambiguous as to prevent any negative action on the employee, should the employer somehow obtain the 'evidence' mentioned... which they should not, as it is not sent to them, but to the insurance company.

EDIT

Correction... the claim is indeed submitted to the employer. However, as I stated, the 'not in whole or in part' line is sufficiently ambiguous as to prevent any negative action on the employee.
 
Last edited:
why cant everyone simply have access to the same services for the same price? if you get sick you use services, if you dont get sick you wont need services. youre never forced to use any services, but then again you always have access to them if needed.


I get the feeling that you really don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is like gambling. You can not have any insurance (presently no one is forcing you to buy insurnace) and gamble that you won't get injured and critically ill and rack up hundreds of thousand of dollars in bills. Or you can buy insurance and make a "realtively" small payment each month, if that major injury or illness strikes you have it covered.

The insurance company is like the bookie, they hold the bets and then make the payouts, always skimming a percentage as their profit. They look at actuary tables, demographic tables, and work environment analysis, and historical claims to give them an idea of expected payout for a given population.

Populations vary depending on region and employer and therefore the probability of payout differs for my employer (we typically have a much older employee base) then for a different employer (which may have a younger employee base). So our rates are different.


It's legalized gambling with the house (insurance company) the only one guaranteed to come out ahead.


>>>>
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top