Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception

[Uncensored2008]

The lack of insurance coverage for birth control will lead to more unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and additional cost to the tax payer.

Liberty outrages the fucking liars (formerly democratic) party.

The idea that people be free to negotiate what coverage they will or will not purchase is one the left will not abide.

 

[whitehall]

This is an example of erroneous thought process promoted by the union based education system and reinforced by blind hatred on the left. The law in question allows employers to refuse to cover prescriptions that are not used for their intended purpose. Now here's the kicker and all you left wing whiners listen up, women in Arizona would still be able to ....gasp....spend the ten bucks a month and buy their own damn pills.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is an example of erroneous thought process promoted by the union based education system and reinforced by blind hatred on the left. The law in question allows employers to refuse to cover prescriptions that are not used for their intended purpose. Now here's the kicker and all you left wing whiners listen up, women in Arizona would still be able to ....gasp....spend the ten bucks a month and buy their own damn pills.

This is a continuation of the Obama war on the Catholic Church - pure and simple.

The scumbag left has torn a page out of Hitler's war on the Jews and is engaging in the "Big Lie" technique. There is zero truth to the claims the scumbags are making, it's just a concerted campaign of demagoguery.

 

[Syphon]

This is an example of erroneous thought process promoted by the union based education system and reinforced by blind hatred on the left. The law in question allows employers to refuse to cover prescriptions that are not used for their intended purpose. Now here's the kicker and all you left wing whiners listen up, women in Arizona would still be able to ....gasp....spend the ten bucks a month and buy their own damn pills.

apply that logic to any other drug now. what if you are prescribed any drug by your doctor and all of a sudden your employer decides that your health care shouldnt cover that. is that ok if its heart medication, seizure medication or cancer medication?

 

[Uncensored2008]

apply that logic to any other drug now. what if you are prescribed any drug by your doctor and all of a sudden your employer decides that your health care shouldnt cover that. is that ok if its heart medication, seizure medication or cancer medication?

More Big Lie from the shameful left.

{But that has not been the case. Negotiations broke down and since Jan. 1, Walgreens, the nation's largest drugstore chain, has refused to do business with Express Scripts Inc., a company that manages the drug benefits for employers, insurers and other groups.

As a result, tens of thousands of Californians, including members of one of California's largest insurers, Anthem Blue Cross, have been unable to get their prescriptions filled at Walgreens, by far the largest pharmacy chain in the Bay Area.

Read more: Walgreens spat sends millions to new pharmacies
}

I guess Dear Leader better send in troops to FORCE Walgreens to fill those prescriptions, SOME may even be birth control pills, so Dear Leader better act quick.....

 

[koshergrl]

Apparently irresponsible women (usually bleeding heart liberals) believe that "birth control" and "abortion" are the SAME THING.

I have NO PROBLEM with TRUE birth control, aka "contraception" (pills, IUDs, condoms, etc.), and I believe that state legislatures have no business telling medical insurance companies what they can and can't cover under their medical plans, when it comes to TRUE birth control.

A woman taking precautionary measures to prevent pregnancy should not be discouraged by the lack of insurance coverage. It is in the best interest of every taxpayers that a woman have access to reliable birth control. If employers are allowed to drop birth control from their health insurance plans, the results will be more unwanted children, abortions, and additional costs to tax payers.

they think they're going to force adult women to be abstinent... it's that whole harlot thing.

you see what they think of women.

No, we don't think women are harlots. Which is why we don't believe contraceptives are a "right". We actually believe women have the fortitude and intelligence to either say "no" or pick up their free birth control (if they can't afford it) at the nearest health department...usually within walking distance.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Apparently irresponsible women (usually bleeding heart liberals) believe that "birth control" and "abortion" are the SAME THING.

I have NO PROBLEM with TRUE birth control, aka "contraception" (pills, IUDs, condoms, etc.), and I believe that state legislatures have no business telling medical insurance companies what they can and can't cover under their medical plans, when it comes to TRUE birth control.

A woman taking precautionary measures to prevent pregnancy should not be discouraged by the lack of insurance coverage. It is in the best interest of every taxpayers that a woman have access to reliable birth control. If employers are allowed to drop birth control from their health insurance plans, the results will be more unwanted children, abortions, and additional costs to tax payers.

they think they're going to force adult women to be abstinent... it's that whole harlot thing.

you see what they think of women.

You have inspired a thread jillian! http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/213336-online-liberals-are-more-intolerant.html

 

[Flopper]

Read the post again, it mentioned buying group plans, but delivered through different venues.


>>>>

I don't see the benefit of having a religious or fraternal organizations offer group health insurance. So to get reasonable priced insurance a person has to join a church or fraternal organization? If the church I belong decides not to offer health insurance, I should join a different church to get insurance. I don't think that makes much sense.

You really sould try reading my posts for content and stop making assumptions, I said - and I quote - "religious organization, civil organization, professional organization, union, credit union, etc..."

So it could be a Church or fraternal organization, could also be a bank, union, credit union, could be through bulk retailers (like Sam's Club or Costco).


So no, it wouldn't have to be through a Church.


>>>>

Ok, a church, or any other organization open to the public, but I think you're missing a very important point. Employers are allowed to screen applicants for jobs. They can and do require drug tests, employment physicals, and are allowed to ask questions about an applicant's health. In other words, employers screen their employees to make sure they are healthy enough to do the job, which makes them a preferred risk in the eyes of the insurer. That is not the case for other groups such as churches, buying clubs, and other organization. Selling a group policy to Costco members would be little difference than selling policies to individuals. Costco would be just a retailer.

Employers have a financial interest in keeping their employees healthy and thus absorb some of the costs of the plan. Retailers and churches have no such interest.

 

[Barb]

>

Interesting, I've reviewed the text of the law here -->> Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist


This is what is seems like to me:

1. Any employer can not cover contraceptives, all they have to do is claim it's based on religious beliefs. Even if that employer is a non-religious entity.

2. If an employer makes such a claim, then they can obtain an insurance policy which excludes "contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes" (from here on out I'll just use "contraceptives" for brevity) and not be in violation of the law.

3. If an employee needs hormonal (or other treatments) that would normally be used as a contraceptive, then the employee will not be covered by insurance for such a prescribed health care treatment and must pay out of pocket, regardless.

4. However, if (**IF**) the prescription or procedure was for NON-contraceptive purposes, then the employee can submit a claim with the employer who will then be required to reimburse the employee for the health care.

5. The employer would be able to charge an administrative fee to the employee for the privilege of getting something covered by their health care insurance which would have been covered anyway as long as it wasn't used for contraception. Basically the employee is paying an additional administrative fee for non-contraceptive items just because it can be used for contraception.​

As someone who works in Human Resources, I can see a couple of problems with the law.

1. It states that the employee may "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", but it does not define the content of the claim. IF the supporting evidence is a doctors official statement that the individual needs the medication for non-contraceptive reasons - and that is it - then there will likely not be an issue about the claim. However, IF the employer does not want to accept the medical opinion of the doctor and then requires that the doctors affidavit include specifics of the medical condition THEN there will a whole bunch of lawsuits based on the employer requiring the employee to disclose medical history information that has no bearing on their job performance.

2. Secondly, you will have cases of employers who have a religious objection to pre-marital sex. By requiring females only to provide written confirmation they are taking a prescribed medication which can be used for contraception, even though it's officially for other purposes, then you are going to see a slew of lawsuits based on (a) employer requiring non-work related medical history, and (b) wrongful termination suits because the impact of the law will be discriminatory against females since males are not required to provide information which might provide insight into their sex life.

3. Finally I see claims of unequal employer treatment, which have a certain validity to them, based on the fact that males would (pretty much) never have a claim where they had to pay out of pocket for expenses, then submit a claim, and then have to pay an administrative fee on top of that to have covered health care items processed. Only females would have that additional hurtle.




>>>>

As to the bolded and underlined, how TF does this not clash with federal HIPPA law?

The last bolded part, THAT, in answer to a really stupid question somebody asked, is what the "left" (and thinking women in general) is up in arms about.

 

[Barb]

This is an example of erroneous thought process promoted by the union based education system and reinforced by blind hatred on the left. The law in question allows employers to refuse to cover prescriptions that are not used for their intended purpose. Now here's the kicker and all you left wing whiners listen up, women in Arizona would still be able to ....gasp....spend the ten bucks a month and buy their own damn pills.

apply that logic to any other drug now. what if you are prescribed any drug by your doctor and all of a sudden your employer decides that your health care shouldnt cover that. is that ok if its heart medication, seizure medication or cancer medication?

some religions, I think Christian scientists, don't believe in medical treatments (at least of some sorts), what's to stop them from telling the insurer that they object to their employees getting coverage of say, a blood transfusion? Where does this stop?

I'm pretty sure it stops at the female uterus, as that is where it started. Arrested development: it's been stuck there for decades, centuries, and simply can't grow out of the need to restrict other peoples choices.

 

[Emma]

Cool, more lies from a proud member of the fucking liars party.



Big lie time.

I loves you too (closest thing to a heart I could find)

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't see the benefit of having a religious or fraternal organizations offer group health insurance. So to get reasonable priced insurance a person has to join a church or fraternal organization? If the church I belong decides not to offer health insurance, I should join a different church to get insurance. I don't think that makes much sense.

You really sould try reading my posts for content and stop making assumptions, I said - and I quote - "religious organization, civil organization, professional organization, union, credit union, etc..."

So it could be a Church or fraternal organization, could also be a bank, union, credit union, could be through bulk retailers (like Sam's Club or Costco).


So no, it wouldn't have to be through a Church.


>>>>

Ok, a church, or any other organization open to the public, but I think you're missing a very important point. Employers are allowed to screen applicants for jobs. They can and do require drug tests, employment physicals, and are allowed to ask questions about an applicant's health. In other words, employers screen their employees to make sure they are healthy enough to do the job, which makes them a preferred risk in the eyes of the insurer. That is not the case for other groups such as churches, buying clubs, and other organization. Selling a group policy to Costco members would be little difference than selling policies to individuals. Costco would be just a retailer.

Employers have a financial interest in keeping their employees healthy and thus absorb some of the costs of the plan. Retailers and churches have no such interest.

I disagree, as an employer if you routinely ask about a persons health conditions as a condition of employment - then you are likely to be sued and will most likely loose.

An employer can describe the working conditions and then ask the employee if they will be able to perform the duties required.

An employer cannot ask, as part of the screening process:

• Are you married?
• Do you have chidlren?
• Will you be adding anyone besides your self under our benefits program?
• Does you, your spouse, or your children have any medical conditions that require routine treatment or perscriptions?
• Are you sexual active outside of marriage?
• Do you have diabetes?
• Do you have a heart condition?
• How old are you?
• etc.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

2. Secondly, you will have cases of employers who have a religious objection to pre-marital sex. By requiring females only to provide written confirmation they are taking a prescribed medication which can be used for contraception, even though it's officially for other purposes, then you are going to see a slew of lawsuits based on (a) employer requiring non-work related medical history, and (b) wrongful termination suits because the impact of the law will be discriminatory against females since males are not required to provide information which might provide insight into their sex life.

>>>>

As to the bolded and underlined, how TF does this not clash with federal HIPPA law?

Because HIPPA, as it pertains to patient privacy, is about doctors sharing information without your consent with third parties. The doctor isn't sharing anything with anyone without your consent. The doctor is providing the information to you, as in the form of a written letter, and then you provide that information to the employer as evidence the claim is not being filed in "whole or in part" for the prevention of pregnancy.

If you are not willing to share the information with your employer you can choose not to file the claim. (Ya, I know, it sounds lame to me to - however, from a legal perspective in terms of HIPPA it is you providing the information so HIPPA does not apply.)



>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

A woman taking precautionary measures to prevent pregnancy should not be discouraged by the lack of insurance coverage. It is in the best interest of every taxpayers that a woman have access to reliable birth control. If employers are allowed to drop birth control from their health insurance plans, the results will be more unwanted children, abortions, and additional costs to tax payers.

they think they're going to force adult women to be abstinent... it's that whole harlot thing.

you see what they think of women.

No, we don't think women are harlots. Which is why we don't believe contraceptives are a "right". We actually believe women have the fortitude and intelligence to either say "no" or pick up their free birth control (if they can't afford it) at the nearest health department...usually within walking distance.

A hundred million women have free birth control available within walking distance?
You don't realize that most birth control is used by married women?

Do your lies ever get less bizarre?

 

[Uncensored2008]

As to the bolded and underlined, how TF does this not clash with federal HIPPA law?

It doesn't clash because it isn't true. When you of the fucking liars party tell your Big Lie, that has no bearing on reality.

Let's review:

Q. Does the proposed bill outlaw birth control?

A. No, it does not.

Then why do the democrats claim it does? Because they are fucking liars using the big lie technique.


Q. Does the proposed bill prohibit health care plans from providing birth control?

A. No, it does not.

Then why do the democrats claim it does? Because they are fucking liars using the big lie technique.

Q. Does the proposed bill require women to file an affidavit with anyone to get birth control?

A. No, it does not.

Then why do the democrats claim it does? Because they are fucking liars using the big lie technique.

Q. Do women have recourse if an employer doesn't cover birth control based on religious grounds?

A. Yes, they can buy it themselves or file a claim of medical necessity.

Then why do the democrats claim otherwise? Because they are fucking liars using the big lie technique.

The last bolded part, THAT, in answer to a really stupid question somebody asked, is what the "left" (and thinking women in general) is up in arms about.

What answers all the questions on this is that democrats are fucking liars using the big lie technique.

 

[Flopper]

>

Interesting, I've reviewed the text of the law here -->> Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist


This is what is seems like to me:

1. Any employer can not cover contraceptives, all they have to do is claim it's based on religious beliefs. Even if that employer is a non-religious entity.

2. If an employer makes such a claim, then they can obtain an insurance policy which excludes "contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes" (from here on out I'll just use "contraceptives" for brevity) and not be in violation of the law.

3. If an employee needs hormonal (or other treatments) that would normally be used as a contraceptive, then the employee will not be covered by insurance for such a prescribed health care treatment and must pay out of pocket, regardless.

4. However, if (**IF**) the prescription or procedure was for NON-contraceptive purposes, then the employee can submit a claim with the employer who will then be required to reimburse the employee for the health care.

5. The employer would be able to charge an administrative fee to the employee for the privilege of getting something covered by their health care insurance which would have been covered anyway as long as it wasn't used for contraception. Basically the employee is paying an additional administrative fee for non-contraceptive items just because it can be used for contraception.​

As someone who works in Human Resources, I can see a couple of problems with the law.

1. It states that the employee may "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", but it does not define the content of the claim. IF the supporting evidence is a doctors official statement that the individual needs the medication for non-contraceptive reasons - and that is it - then there will likely not be an issue about the claim. However, IF the employer does not want to accept the medical opinion of the doctor and then requires that the doctors affidavit include specifics of the medical condition THEN there will a whole bunch of lawsuits based on the employer requiring the employee to disclose medical history information that has no bearing on their job performance.

2. Secondly, you will have cases of employers who have a religious objection to pre-marital sex. By requiring females only to provide written confirmation they are taking a prescribed medication which can be used for contraception, even though it's officially for other purposes, then you are going to see a slew of lawsuits based on (a) employer requiring non-work related medical history, and (b) wrongful termination suits because the impact of the law will be discriminatory against females since males are not required to provide information which might provide insight into their sex life.

3. Finally I see claims of unequal employer treatment, which have a certain validity to them, based on the fact that males would (pretty much) never have a claim where they had to pay out of pocket for expenses, then submit a claim, and then have to pay an administrative fee on top of that to have covered health care items processed. Only females would have that additional hurtle.




>>>>

As to the bolded and underlined, how TF does this not clash with federal HIPPA law?

The last bolded part, THAT, in answer to a really stupid question somebody asked, is what the "left" (and thinking women in general) is up in arms about.

Aside from the illegal aspects that you point out, accepting a prescription claim for a drug from one subscriber while denying another subscriber who has the same policy is a tricky business for the insurance company. When a claim for a prescription is submitted by the pharmacy, the insurer checks to make sure the drug is part of their formulary and the subscriber is valid. They do not check to make sure that this particular drug is covered for this particular patient. This can be done but it would be an added expense which the customer would bear. Since birth control pills are only about .1% of our healthcare cost, the cost of adding this option to the policy could actually increase the cost to the customer while providing less coverage.

 

[Flopper]

You really sould try reading my posts for content and stop making assumptions, I said - and I quote - "religious organization, civil organization, professional organization, union, credit union, etc..."

So it could be a Church or fraternal organization, could also be a bank, union, credit union, could be through bulk retailers (like Sam's Club or Costco).


So no, it wouldn't have to be through a Church.


>>>>

Ok, a church, or any other organization open to the public, but I think you're missing a very important point. Employers are allowed to screen applicants for jobs. They can and do require drug tests, employment physicals, and are allowed to ask questions about an applicant's health. In other words, employers screen their employees to make sure they are healthy enough to do the job, which makes them a preferred risk in the eyes of the insurer. That is not the case for other groups such as churches, buying clubs, and other organization. Selling a group policy to Costco members would be little difference than selling policies to individuals. Costco would be just a retailer.

Employers have a financial interest in keeping their employees healthy and thus absorb some of the costs of the plan. Retailers and churches have no such interest.

I disagree, as an employer if you routinely ask about a persons health conditions as a condition of employment - then you are likely to be sued and will most likely loose.

An employer can describe the working conditions and then ask the employee if they will be able to perform the duties required.

An employer cannot ask, as part of the screening process:

• Are you married?
• Do you have chidlren?
• Will you be adding anyone besides your self under our benefits program?
• Does you, your spouse, or your children have any medical conditions that require routine treatment or perscriptions?
• Are you sexual active outside of marriage?
• Do you have diabetes?
• Do you have a heart condition?
• How old are you?
• etc.

>>>>

I am well aware of what questions an employer can ask the job applicant. An employer can ask any health questions necessarily to determine whether the applicant is capable of doing the tasks required by the job. I agree you have to be careful in the questions you ask, but as long as the question relate to the job you're ok. However, in many cases the information an employee provides coupled with their appearance and manner is enough to disqualify an applicant who is a health risk. Job interviews coupled with, employment physicals, drug tests, and background investigations create a preferred risk group for the insurance company. Thus the insurance company can offer a better rate since the group carries less risk than the general public.

 

[Ravi]

HR Director to applicant: Are you a slut?

 

[Flaylo]

smaller government haahahahahahahaha

I just picked up fully on what you said, Repugs are hypocrites, they are big government.

 

[Syphon]

smaller government haahahahahahahaha

I just picked up fully on what you said, Repugs are hypocrites, they are big government.

the basic republican argument is, well.................... we've never done it before..... but seriously this time you can totally trust us to do it...