Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Angle]

Hmm, now that is an interesting idea. I don't know about the banning part, I doubt you'd get that through, but the other part could work all on it's own. Perhaps mandate that it someone chooses to pass on their employers health care, their employer instead has to contribute to a plan of their choosing or somesuch? Though I suppose that'd be as hard or harder to pass...

[Frumple]

S'reaching the point I'm kinda' leaning toward just starting to drag insurance and medical providers out into the streets and shooting them until pricing and whatnot becomes sane, personally. Their bullshit is getting people killed and causing tremendous amounts of suffering in the nation. Might be getting near the point of some quid pro quo, y'know? Can throw business owners into the pile, too, sure. And politicians. Whole lot of the bastards, really.

Though... can someone remind me what was stopping these people from just buying an insurance plan that doesn't cover contraception? I vaguely remember the last round of BS related to this was twits refusing to do that and screaming about religious persecution.

[GavJ]

the fact of the matter is that it shouldn't be forced to provide anything regardless of religious freedom or not.

You're right, man. Businesses shouldn't be forced to protect their workers from open, uncovered rotating blades or caustic fumes, either. That's a violation of property rights. Nor should the be forced to clean smoke from their smokestacks. It's their property for the 10 seconds before it floats into the public! They should have a right to spew tons of noxious sulfur fumes into their air and tiny section of streams! I can't be expected to be responsible for what the wind does, pfft. And what if I don't feel like maintaining my roof to make sure it doesn't fall down on my workers out of nowhere? I shouldn't have to on my own property. Nor should I have to bother with fire extinguishers, and I should be able to insulate my walls with fluffy gasoline soaked cotton if I think it might save on energy bills! MY PROPERTY, MY RIGHT TO A FIRE TRAP!

WOO FREEDOM! MURICA!

I vaguely remember the last round of BS related to this was twits refusing to do that and screaming about religious persecution.

Uh the fact that they make minimum wage and can't afford to pay out of pocket is what's stopping them.
Currently (or rather, next year starting) businesses with over 50 employees are obligated to provide health insurance. This effectively raises minimum wage since you have to give a minimum wage paycheck + valuable health insurance.

If the plans offered don't provide the healthcare you need, though, then you either need to pay out of pocket for the treatment or buy a whole new insurance plan out of pocket, neither of which they can afford out of their minimum wage paycheck. And so these people go without medical treatment. Medical treatments which were specifically deemed by law to be included as a basic and important healthcare service that are supposed to be part of the obligate package.

Also, it is very important to mention that contraceptives are used to treat a variety of conditions that have nothing to do with sex. Endometriosis and other reproductive issues or diseases, even auto-immune diseases. In fact, my girlfriend has lupus, and is allergic / has horrible reactions to all hormone based birth controls. However, she can tolerate a copper IUD, which provides contraception, yes, but much more importantly, it stimulates her overactive diseased immune system to attack the copper, which essentially distracts it and prevents it from attacking her organs, extending her lifespan and reducing reliance on other dangerous drugs considerably. It also saves taxpayers and employers a ton of cash by paying for a piece of copper instead of thousands of dollars of immunosuppressants and who knows what all else.

This can be life saving treatment and if her coverage for that were removed, she would be forced to quit her job and have huge difficulty finding another one due to her condition's restrictions, and  probably end up on social security disability, where taxpayers would be paying the equivalent of an IUD to her every single month instead of once. I.e. it would completely and utterly backfire in tax and efficiency and be a far worse alternative for everybody, as well as risking her life and forcing her to live in her car for months or years while trying to get a new unlikely job or disability.

But even if we are just talking about sex itself, you can I'm sure easily imagine the massive healthcare saving and other intangible benefits to the nation of paying a few dollars for birth control versus paying a foster system to take care of some messed up kid for 18 years, and then everybody paying section 8 housing for him/her potentially later on, etc. etc. if born to parents that can't take care of them.

A company's actions in all of these ways affect ALL OF OUR pocket books. Thus, you don't and shouldn't have the right as a company to make whatever the hell decision you want, because it has fallout on America. In such cases, America has a reasonable right to restrict your choices to minimize external damages.

[Frumple]

Hoookaaay, you went off on an entirely different tangent. I was specifically speaking about the employer's* end, not the employee. Which, insofar as I'm aware, is what this entire hullabaloo is (ostensibly) about -- employers not wanting to provide (access to) contraceptives via the health insurance plan they offer employees. Minimum wage and paying out of pocket does not enter the equation pretty much anywhere, in this situation. My question was if they were (still) refusing to just buy and/or negotiate a different goddamn insurance plan instead of doing... what they're doing. And if so, why. I mean, besides trying to set abusable precedent, of course.

*These are the twits in this situation, not the employees.

[GavJ]

My question was if they were (still) refusing to just buy and/or negotiate a different goddamn insurance plan instead of doing...

Okay, if you're referring to employers, then I'm confused what you're talking about? How could they "just buy and/or negotiate" a different insurance plan that covers IUDs (legally required) and yet also does not cover IUDs (they claim religiously necessary)? Such a plan cannot possibly exist. Somebody has to fold, hence a court case.

[Descan]

AFAIK this whole thing is because they're required to buy a plan (or plans are required to have, either way, same result) that has these contraceptives covered. Basically, they're not *allowed* to find a plan that doesn't cover the contraceptives indicated.

[GavJ]

Oh is that the confusion? If so then yes, there are certain things the employer mandated plans are required to cover, and contraception is one of them.

If there were no list of required coverage, then the employer mandate would be completely useless, because you could just be like "Oh hey here you go. This is a special healthcare plan that ONLY covers ear infections and nothing else and has an $800 deductible. It is worth 50 cents a month. Ta da! We satisfied our employer insurance plan mandate."

[palsch]

More specifically;

The ACA says that all employers must supply an insurance plan that meets certain minimum standards otherwise they will be charged a certain amount for every employee (starting at 30 employees). The fine is notably lower than the cost of insurance.

As part of these minimum standards any such policy must cover 20 different contraceptive options. These include the four challenged here.

The three options here;

1) Provide qualifying insurance, despite their 'moral' objections, just as they were doing back before the mandate came into force.

2) Stop providing insurance at all, pay the fine and be financially better off, maybe passing savings onto their employees as compensation for the lack of insurance.

3) Buy insurance policies that don't qualify under the ACA and so have to pay the fine as well.

Note that their objection to 2, as cited in the opinion, was that they view providing healthcare to their employees as a religious obligation separate to their (sudden) belief that (certain) contraceptives are evil, which means they were viewing it as either option 1 or 3.

[Frumple]

There we go -- thanks, palsch. I actually either wasn't aware or had forgotten there was an employer mandate side to the ACA.

Still... the answer I'm seeing, is they actually do (did, whatever) have the option to negotiate for a non-contraceptive insurance plan, it would just mean an extra cost (the ACA related fine) on top of it.* Or dropping health insurance entirely, which plenty of employers do nowadays (if they still felt they had a moral obligation to provide for health coverage, I'm fairly sure they could pay a secondary organization to provide it gratis, or whathaveyou -- be roughly the same as just providing a non-qualifying insurance plan, but eh.). And decided to raise a stink, instead.

*Which, I'd honestly say was fair -- you want to circumvent the law, you can pay for it. Adjust the fine in relation to the degree of non-compliance and you'd be in fairly good shape, imo.

[GreatJustice]

]
You're right, man. Businesses shouldn't be forced to protect their workers from open, uncovered rotating blades or caustic fumes, either.

Truly, the go(d)vernment is the only reason workers today aren't working in the Satanic Mils and having their children eaten by bloodthirsty, cackling capitalists. If not for perfectly crafted regulation, workers would be paid 5 cents an hour with a 50% mortality rate on the job!

Wait, what does this have to do with birth control mandates again?

Nor should the be forced to clean smoke from their smokestacks. It's their property for the 10 seconds before it floats into the public! They should have a right to spew tons of noxious sulfur fumes into their air and tiny section of streams! I can't be expected to be responsible for what the wind does, pfft.

Yeah! And shooting people in the face is covered by property rights because "I can't control what the laws of physics do with my bullet!".

Wait, no, that isn't how property works. Do you live in Venezuela, by any chance? That might explain some of the strange misconceptions.

And what if I don't feel like maintaining my roof to make sure it doesn't fall down on my workers out of nowhere? I shouldn't have to on my own property. Nor should I have to bother with fire extinguishers, and I should be able to insulate my walls with fluffy gasoline soaked cotton if I think it might save on energy bills! MY PROPERTY, MY RIGHT TO A FIRE TRAP!

Yeah, dead workers and burnt down factories literally generate profit for those responsible, so it's a good thing we have trustworthy regulators to keep that to a minimum! It's hard though, since besides generating profit, hilariously unsafe workplaces just attract workers in first world countries even more than safe businesses, and are never held liable for contract violations.

Wait, what does this all have to do with contraceptive mandates again?

Oh, and back to the actual ACA mandate business, it's worth mentioning that similar (if not entirely identical) coverage policies exist in Canada, which don't cover contraceptives because they don't really qualify as "healthcare". It is a bit strange that birth control isn't an over the counter drug and has to be mentioned by insurance at all, though.

[Vector]

don't cover contraceptives because they don't really qualify as "healthcare".

Also, it is very important to mention that contraceptives are used to treat a variety of conditions that have nothing to do with sex. Endometriosis and other reproductive issues or diseases, even auto-immune diseases. In fact, my girlfriend has lupus, and is allergic / has horrible reactions to all hormone based birth controls. However, she can tolerate a copper IUD, which provides contraception, yes, but much more importantly, it stimulates her overactive diseased immune system to attack the copper, which essentially distracts it and prevents it from attacking her organs, extending her lifespan and reducing reliance on other dangerous drugs considerably. It also saves taxpayers and employers a ton of cash by paying for a piece of copper instead of thousands of dollars of immunosuppressants and who knows what all else.

This can be life saving treatment and if her coverage for that were removed, she would be forced to quit her job and have huge difficulty finding another one due to her condition's restrictions, and  probably end up on social security disability, where taxpayers would be paying the equivalent of an IUD to her every single month instead of once. I.e. it would completely and utterly backfire in tax and efficiency and be a far worse alternative for everybody, as well as risking her life and forcing her to live in her car for months or years while trying to get a new unlikely job or disability.

[Descan]

Do prescription drugs, dentists, and opticians not count as healthcare either? Because we don't cover THOSE either.

[GreatJustice]

don't cover contraceptives because they don't really qualify as "healthcare".

Also, it is very important to mention that contraceptives are used to treat a variety of conditions that have nothing to do with sex. Endometriosis and other reproductive issues or diseases, even auto-immune diseases. In fact, my girlfriend has lupus, and is allergic / has horrible reactions to all hormone based birth controls. However, she can tolerate a copper IUD, which provides contraception, yes, but much more importantly, it stimulates her overactive diseased immune system to attack the copper, which essentially distracts it and prevents it from attacking her organs, extending her lifespan and reducing reliance on other dangerous drugs considerably. It also saves taxpayers and employers a ton of cash by paying for a piece of copper instead of thousands of dollars of immunosuppressants and who knows what all else.

This can be life saving treatment and if her coverage for that were removed, she would be forced to quit her job and have huge difficulty finding another one due to her condition's restrictions, and  probably end up on social security disability, where taxpayers would be paying the equivalent of an IUD to her every single month instead of once. I.e. it would completely and utterly backfire in tax and efficiency and be a far worse alternative for everybody, as well as risking her life and forcing her to live in her car for months or years while trying to get a new unlikely job or disability.

Okay, but those side benefits are not the primary reason one gets contraceptives, and those benefits are exceptions to the rule. Marijuana has many perfectly legitimate uses beyond getting high, but getting high is still the main use, and you (generally) wouldn't get weed included in the insurance even if it was legal.

That's all beside the point, though, that there is no rational reason for birth control to not be over the counter. I don't know enough about to intricacies of American healthcare law to be sure, but it seems to me that the solution to the coverage problem would be to save your damn money and just buy the drugs out of pocket. I mean, unless American birth control costs thousands of dollars or something.

Do prescription drugs, dentists, and opticians not count as healthcare either? Because we don't cover THOSE either.

I'm not referring to OHIP or the actual healthcare system when I refer to "coverage", I'm referring to the coverage you get for stuff not covered by OHIP, which would, in fact, cover dentists, opticians, etc etc etc (but not birth control, maybe barring special circumstances).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So Massachusetts can't have buffer zones around their abortion clinics with a recent ruling. The zealots will be able to get all up in an innocent patient's business now.

I can barely even think about this issue, it makes me so inordinately angry. I've seen the videos and stories about what these sick fucks do to people even with the buffers. It makes me feel like doing things I'd regret.

[Angle]

Amusingly enough, of course, the supreme court themselves has a huge buffer zone, and they're not getting rid of theirs any time soon...