Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Then I'm not knowing where you are getting that paragraph. From the link you provided:

"A corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan may state religious beliefs or moral convictions in its affidavit that require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection."​

This is from your link (that I just refreshed) the big blue paragraph "Z".


Can you direct me to your quote so I can see what the mix up is?


>>>>

 

[Conservative]

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.

Then I'm not knowing where you are getting that paragraph. From the link you provided:

"A corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan may state religious beliefs or moral convictions in its affidavit that require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection."​

This is from your link (that I just refreshed) the big blue paragraph "Z".


Can you direct me to your quote so I can see what the mix up is?


>>>>

the mix up on that point is apparently mine. It does indeed seem the claim is filed with the employer.

However, I do believe that as I said, the 'not in whole or in part' line is sufficiently ambiguous as to prevent any negative action on the employee.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Allso, 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.

I don't find the "not in whole or in part" piece ambiguous at all, if the doctors evidence of condition contains even a hint that it might be for birth control, then the claim will be denied.


For example, if the doctor were to say the hormones were required to control cysts which appear on the ovaries. Then there would be no problem. However if the doctor were to say that the hormones prevent cysts on the ovaries and could cause problems if the woman became pregnant. Then the employer has grounds to deny the claim because in part the doctor indicated that the prevention of pregnancy was a "part" of the reason for the prescription.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

the mix up on that point is apparently mine. It does indeed seem the claim is filed with the employer.

I appreciate that, I was going cross-eyed for a minute. LOL


>>>>

 

[Full-Auto]

I don't get it, people are bitching about poor women having bastard children left and right, and now we want to do away with contraception?

yep you don't get it. no one has ever said to do away with contraception.. what has been said though is if you're an adult you should not ask others to pay for your sexual drive. do you get that now or is you head still in the dark damp place?

How does that apply to this case? A female employee pays for medical insurance that includes birth control, gets the prescription and then is fired by her employer.

And you think that's fine, why?

We are not interested in your imagination.

 

[Conservative]

Allso, 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.

I don't find the "not in whole or in part" piece ambiguous at all, if the doctors evidence of condition contains even a hint that it might be for birth control, then the claim will be denied.


For example, if the doctor were to say the hormones were required to control cysts which appear on the ovaries. Then there would be no problem. However if the doctor were to say that the hormones prevent cysts on the ovaries and could cause problems if the woman became pregnant. Then the employer has grounds to deny the claim because in part the doctor indicated that the prevention of pregnancy was a "part" of the reason for the prescription.



>>>>

Where does it say the 'evidence' has to come from a doctor?

...submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection

 

[Conservative]

the mix up on that point is apparently mine. It does indeed seem the claim is filed with the employer.

I appreciate that, I was going cross-eyed for a minute. LOL


>>>>

unlike most lefties on here like to claim about me, I am perfectly willing to admit mistakes. That was one.

 

[Syphon]

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?

you call $300-$700 a month premiums access? how is the average household of 4 making $49,445 going to afford $300-$700 a month for access to health care?

Household Income Falls, Poverty Rate Rises - WSJ.com

you missed the point where i was talking about all services, not just BC.

 

[Stephanie]

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill now moves to the state Senate for a full vote.

Apparently, the conservative agenda to take away a women's right choice now includes birth control.

Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception For Non-Medical Reasons

for crying out loud...there are a lot of stupid bills out there brought BY BOTH parties..doesn't mean they will see the light of day..
dear gawd you people just really have nothing else...
9%unemployment
economy in the shitter
FOOD prices out the ass
GAS..heading to 5.00 dollars a gallon.

the majority of the women in this country is worried about those thing and not your alls phony baloney "war on women" bullshit

 

[rightwinger]

It all comes down to conservatives believing sex is dirty

 

[Stephanie]

It all comes down to conservatives believing sex is dirty

ok, that really MUST BE IT..
dear gawd..

 

[Conservative]

It all comes down to conservatives believing sex is dirty

I like dirty sex

 

[theHawk]

The Dems are in such panic mode. They have absolutely no ideas, they keep trying to deflect from the Hussein's abysmal record.

First there was the Shitter's "Occupy Wall Street" movement, which failed miserably.

And now the Slutters complaining they need free birth control.

 

[Stephanie]

It all comes down to conservatives believing sex is dirty

I like dirty sex

 

[theHawk]

It all comes down to conservatives believing sex is dirty

...and liberals trying to convice everyone that male on male sex is clean.

 

[Syphon]

It all comes down to conservatives believing sex is dirty

...and liberals trying to convice everyone that male on male sex is clean.

what wrong with 2 consenting adults having sex? you a little homophobic there?

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

And those said nations pay a hell of a lot less for healthcare. The outrageous rising cost of healthcare is a threat to our economy.

"Health Costs Are the Real Deficit Threat"
<snip>
The numbers speak for themselves. The Medicare and Social Security trustees' reports released this week show that health-care costs drive our long-term entitlement problem. An example illustrates the point: If costs per enrollee in Medicare and Medicaid grow at the same rate over the next four decades as they have over the past four, those two programs will increase from 5% of GDP today to 20% by 2050. Despite the attention often paid to Social Security, spending on that program rises much more modestly -- from 5% to 6% of GDP -- over the same time period. Over the long run, the deficit impact of every other fiscal policy variable is swamped by the impact of health-care costs.

Spiraling health-care costs are not just some future abstraction, however. Right now, families across America who have health insurance are seeing their take-home pay reduced and their household budgets strained by high costs and spiraling premiums. ... And the growing weight of health costs on state budgets translates into an inability to make investments in areas such as education, hindering our overall economic growth.

Economist's View: "Health Costs Are the Real Deficit Threat"

Actually, this linked article is very good.

Down with Obamacare and up for single payer!

 

[theHawk]

It all comes down to conservatives believing sex is dirty

...and liberals trying to convice everyone that male on male sex is clean.

what wrong with 2 consenting adults having sex? you a little homophobic there?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Allso, 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.

I don't find the "not in whole or in part" piece ambiguous at all, if the doctors evidence of condition contains even a hint that it might be for birth control, then the claim will be denied.


For example, if the doctor were to say the hormones were required to control cysts which appear on the ovaries. Then there would be no problem. However if the doctor were to say that the hormones prevent cysts on the ovaries and could cause problems if the woman became pregnant. Then the employer has grounds to deny the claim because in part the doctor indicated that the prevention of pregnancy was a "part" of the reason for the prescription.



>>>>

Where does it say the 'evidence' has to come from a doctor?

...submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection

Who else would submit evidence concerning a medical condition?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

the mix up on that point is apparently mine. It does indeed seem the claim is filed with the employer.

I appreciate that, I was going cross-eyed for a minute. LOL


>>>>

unlike most lefties on here like to claim about me, I am perfectly willing to admit mistakes. That was one.

An ability to admit to a mistake is something I appreciate as I've had to do it myself. I wish more people understood that there is nothing wrong with admitting an error and moving on instead of digging in their heals.


>>>>