Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If it is used for hormonal imbalance, it is being used to treat a problem, not prevent one.
Try again.
By that logic, insurance shouldn't have to cover hypertension medication, cholesterol medication, antibiotics, analgesics, etc...
Funniest post ever.
Show me where I ever said that prescribing a pill to treat a medical condition is wrong and that insurance shouldn't pay for it.
I would certainly rather chip in for her birth control than chip in to incarcerate her unwanted child.
Just sayin'
Straw man argument..And a moot point. There is no such belief.So she didn't want the government to pay for it. Point proven. Thanks.
She simply wanted the government to mandate an employer to pay/provide for something they may not agree with.
That's so much better
Well, in part yeah. What if the company believed in natural childbirth without drugs....would you be for the insurance not paying for Cesarean delivery, Demerol, spinal taps, etc...? If you are not for that, please explain why.
By the way, Elementary is great. Hope it stays on the air.
Well, in part yeah. What if the company believed in natural childbirth without drugs....would you be for the insurance not paying for Cesarean delivery, Demerol, spinal taps, etc...? If you are not for that, please explain why.
By the way, Elementary is great. Hope it stays on the air.
I would be for a prospective employee not choosing that company to work for if it didn't align with what coverage they would like.
And if you work there already....I guess you should just quit. Or I guess you can decide just not to have kids, check the owner's religion preferences etc...
Very well.
Still, Ms. Fluke wasn't asking for government money.
We all have choices. If a prospective employer is not a good fit then that person should go elsewhere. It's the only logical choice to make.And if you work there already....I guess you should just quit. Or I guess you can decide just not to have kids, check the owner's religion preferences etc...
Very well.
Still, Ms. Fluke wasn't asking for government money.
So you purchase the extra rider.
A company like McD's, that hires mostly teenagers, probably doesn't provide very comprehensive geriatric coverage.
I'm just sating every company shouldn't be required to provide everything for everybody
How would this be any different than a company deciding it didn't want to pay overtime for more than 40 hours in a work week...if it tells you at the interview that you get paid strait wages through out?
You know the deal going in; you can decide not to work there and seek a more worker friendly company...
Sandra Fluke wanted contraceptives to be part of her presciption drug plan. Not the government to pay for it.
She has you guys scared shitless...so nice.
She wanted the government to FORCE an employer to include it in the coverage plan they chose and they partially pay for, even if it was against their beliefs or stance for whatever reason... Nothing stopped Slutty McMuffin from going and buying her birth control all on her own
Exactly. Why should insurance pay for the small stuff? The purpose of any insurance is to cover the big costs due to accident or illness and now they are supposed to pay for every little thing.
Yes, make stuff up to justify another entitlement.Sandra Fluke wanted contraceptives to be part of her presciption drug plan. Not the government to pay for it.
She has you guys scared shitless...so nice.
She wanted the government to FORCE an employer to include it in the coverage plan they chose and they partially pay for, even if it was against their beliefs or stance for whatever reason... Nothing stopped Slutty McMuffin from going and buying her birth control all on her own
it does not cost more, so you and the employer does not pay ANYTHING FOR IT Dave....
The cost savings for insurers to not cover other things covers the pill.
As example, the insurance actuaries have found savings with providing birth control, that the insurance company won'[t have to pay for such as pregnancies and prenatal care... will cost less with fewer unwanted pregnancies as well....
There is no increase in insurance premiums AT ALL for including birth control coverage.
So, my dear Dave, there is no forcing ANYONE to contribute to another's birth control. Read up on it, pretty please.
Why are we getting away from the real objection? The real and only objection is the first amendment violations. All the other cost vs cost is just smoke....
We either have freedom of religion or we don't, which is it?
If your religion is against violence, should you have to pay taxes that go for tanks, apache helicopters, Navy SEALs?
So who was stopping her from going out and finding just such a plan? Oh, that's right, she wanted the GOVERNMENT to force her existing plan to carry it because she didn't want to be bothered with doing anything for herself.
Well, I don't know her motivation or level of apathy but essentially you're right; she wanted the insurance offered to her to include preventative health drugs like contraception.
What illness does Birth Controll prevent?
By that logic, insurance shouldn't have to cover hypertension medication, cholesterol medication, antibiotics, analgesics, etc...
Funniest post ever.
Show me where I ever said that prescribing a pill to treat a medical condition is wrong and that insurance shouldn't pay for it.
Apparently, according to you, insurance should not have to cover something that is used to treat a medical condition such as hormonal imbalance but should be used to treat other medical conditions such as hypertension, high cholesterol, infection, or pain.
Do I have your position on the topic down right?
I'm sure Sandra Fluke would throw a fit over this picture.
What about Viagra and penis pumps?
Sandra Fluke wanted contraceptives to be part of her presciption drug plan. Not the government to pay for it.
She has you guys scared shitless...so nice.
She wanted the government to FORCE an employer to include it in the coverage plan they chose and they partially pay for, even if it was against their beliefs or stance for whatever reason... Nothing stopped Slutty McMuffin from going and buying her birth control all on her own
Typical male conservative...if a woman wants birth control, she must be a slut!
Can't imagine you are too popular with the ladies.
The pill has more benefits than just being able to bang like a rabbit. But if you guys are against that then that must suck.
Yep, it helps with endometriosis. I had to take it myself when I was a teenager (and no, I wasn't sexually active). Funny, we had to beg and plead for BC to be covered. Viagra was, but BC wasn't. Interesting, no?
From only 2002
Erections Get Insurance; Why Not the Pill? - ABC News
Show me where I ever said that prescribing a pill to treat a medical condition is wrong and that insurance shouldn't pay for it.
Apparently, according to you, insurance should not have to cover something that is used to treat a medical condition such as hormonal imbalance but should be used to treat other medical conditions such as hypertension, high cholesterol, infection, or pain.
Do I have your position on the topic down right?
You couldn't be further off.
That is why you are an idiot. You think you know what others believe without reading and comprehending what they are saying. You simply assign positions to them that you think they have.
To put it simply...
If a person needs a specific approved drug to treat a medical condition, they should get it and Insurance should cover it as they cover other medicines, co-pays and all. I would include Birth Control pills being prescribed for conditions which the FDA has approved it's use for. I would also include Viagra as it is used by both men and women to treat a physical problem.
If a person wants a drug to order to inhibit their body from performing as it naturally would, then the drugs should not be covered under Government mandated Insurance requirements. In this I would include Birth Control that is being prescribed for use as birth control and not as treatment. I would also include medicines used for gender re-assignments. If a Doctor were to be caught prescribing medicines under this and claiming that it was for treatment of medical conditions, they would lose their license and have to reimburse the insurance company for all the claims.
And yes, I do believe that Marijuana should be able to be prescribed for specific illnesses and physical conditions and covered under medical insurance.
She wanted the government to FORCE an employer to include it in the coverage plan they chose and they partially pay for, even if it was against their beliefs or stance for whatever reason... Nothing stopped Slutty McMuffin from going and buying her birth control all on her own
Typical male conservative...if a woman wants birth control, she must be a slut!
Can't imagine you are too popular with the ladies.
She put herself out there. Whatever criticism went her way was deserved.
I think she created a lot of hysteria with the left. Obama's timing was impeccable. He used Fluke as a prop for his socialized medicine agenda and she was quickly tossed to the gutter when people stopped paying attention.
We all have choices. If a prospective employer is not a good fit then that person should go elsewhere. It's the only logical choice to make.So you purchase the extra rider.
A company like McD's, that hires mostly teenagers, probably doesn't provide very comprehensive geriatric coverage.
I'm just sating every company shouldn't be required to provide everything for everybody
How would this be any different than a company deciding it didn't want to pay overtime for more than 40 hours in a work week...if it tells you at the interview that you get paid strait wages through out?
You know the deal going in; you can decide not to work there and seek a more worker friendly company...
We all have choices. If a prospective employer is not a good fit then that person should go elsewhere. It's the only logical choice to make.So you purchase the extra rider.
A company like McD's, that hires mostly teenagers, probably doesn't provide very comprehensive geriatric coverage.
I'm just sating every company shouldn't be required to provide everything for everybody
How would this be any different than a company deciding it didn't want to pay overtime for more than 40 hours in a work week...if it tells you at the interview that you get paid strait wages through out?
You know the deal going in; you can decide not to work there and seek a more worker friendly company...
That I'll agree with. The law and (more often) an organization's rules is/are often on the wrong side of what is "right".You know it is, doesn't always make it right......
But if we can agree that the law trumps religion in some instances and that you can't opt out of obedience to the law based on religious beliefs, I don't think that business owners shouldn't be able to opt out either.
More importantly, why would you want to? I mean, seriously, is it going to cost company X THAT much more to offer insurance that covers 5-10 more drugs; there are only so many contraceptive choices much like you're OTC analgesics, Aspirin, Acetaminophen, Ibuprofen, Alieve (the generic name escapes me)?
I understand going to battle over capping costs per employee. We run into that all the time at my hospital system. But going to war over nickles--nickles that will prevent the insurance company from having to cover child birth procedures AS WELL AS THE EMPLOYER HAVING TO COVER FOR AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS TAKING MATERNITY LEAVE...is frankly stupid.
Try a little logic people.
Stop making up stuff. Your argument is weak. It's barely standing.By that logic, insurance shouldn't have to cover hypertension medication, cholesterol medication, antibiotics, analgesics, etc...
Funniest post ever.
Show me where I ever said that prescribing a pill to treat a medical condition is wrong and that insurance shouldn't pay for it.
Apparently, according to you, insurance should not have to cover something that is used to treat a medical condition such as hormonal imbalance but should be used to treat other medical conditions such as hypertension, high cholesterol, infection, or pain.
Do I have your position on the topic down right?
Endometriosis is a debilitatingly painful condition. I should know, I had a severe case of it when I was young. BC pills helped immensely, and are still the main medication perscribed for this. Viagra is not a real medication for a real medical problem. Impotence is not a painful medical condition that affects your life, won't let you function or go to school and work - so what if old men can't get it up anymore - is that a crisis? No, it isn't, yet IT was covered long before BC pills were.
Ok..Lets not get into "my condition is worse than your condition"..That's a childish argument.
The fact is erectile dysfunction can be devastating to marriages and to men's psychological well being.. Medicine is not just for physical maladies.
With that said, my idea is to allow for coverage when the Pill is used for medicinal purposes. NOT for birth control.
There should be a medically acceptable distinction so that women who suffer from medical conditions such as the one you faced can purchase BC pills through a prescription benefit just like other medicines.
So would the employer be paying for it? Because they should be.
