Missouri Republicans Pass Two Anti-Abortion Bills Allowing Employers And Doctors To Deny Women Birth Control

Karla - posted on 04/11/2012

I just shared this on another thread. From "Old Fart Rants" this Old Fart explains how insurance works - he's specifically addressing people who support Rush Limbaugh's verbal attack of Sandra Fluke, but I think much of his "rant" or information applies to this thread as well. Happy listening!

Karla - posted on 04/10/2012

HM "Now, do I think employees freely have the right, with out having their jobs jeapordized, to speak to their employer and appeal to them? DEFINITELY! But it is not the gov'ts job to do it."



That's the thing though, isn't it? The Arizona government is telling businesses/employers in essence that they can fire an employee for using birth control if they find out SHE did!



This is interesting... (caps not mine.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/13...

AN EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE DOES NOT FAIL TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION IF THE EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE OF SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES REQUIRED UNDER SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION IS BECAUSE PROVIDING OR PAYING FOR COVERAGE OF THE SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES IS CONTRARY TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE EMPLOYER, SPONSOR, ISSUER, HEALTH CARE SERVICES ORGANIZATION OR OTHER ENTITY OFFERING THE PLAN OR IS BECAUSE THE COVERAGE IS CONTRARY TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE PURCHASER OR BENEFICIARY OF THE COVERAGE. HB2626



But it's more than that. In his Arizona Republic column today , Ed Montini points out that the revised legislation omits a short but important section that was part of the original bill's language. Twice in the current bill, the one that's already passed the House, you'll see this sentence deleted near the end. Here's the way it appears in the bill now:



(this part is crossed out)"A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source."



Got that? They removed language that said employers cannot discriminate against workers who use contraception, unless the employees can show proof they're only using birth control for medical reasons. As it stands, the current bill not only exempts employers from having to provide contraceptive coverage in their healthcare plan, it also removes protections for employees who seek their own birth control remedies elsewhere. What kind of protections? You name it: your job, promotions, raises, benefits, working conditions.



According to ACLU of Arizona Public Policy Director Anjali Abraham, it means that an employer will be able to fire an employee if he finds out that she (or he?) is using contraception.



"I think this just goes to what we've been saying about the bill," she said. "It isn't really about guaranteeing an individual's religious liberty but ultimately is about eliminating access as much as possible to basic health services for women." Arizona Republic



In light of this I'd say the government IS NOT protecting any rights of the employee in regards to using birth control... I'm wondering if this applies to condoms as well as the pill.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 04/10/2012

Nice try Karla, but people like HM don't believe that the Preamble of the Constitution really applies to health care. I've tried that myself in a few debates on why the US is violating its constitution as well as UN mandates.



HM, I'm not fond of men in Washington DC deciding that my grandparents shouldn't expect to have medicare simply because they believe it's become an entitlement while these same men in DC have tax payer funded health care and will never have to worry about choosing between paying for their medications or paying for groceries. I guess that's part of the reason I'm glad I live in Canada now instead of the US where we don't have to worry about making such choices and I'm PRAYING to the God you're thanking that my grandparents and my parents will soon enjoy the same FREEDOM I have when it comes to health care.

Karla - posted on 04/04/2012

HM,

Fine, you don't like international law... how about he United States Constitution which begins:



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



What do you think "promote the general Welfare" means? How about "insure domestic Tranquility?"



You want to fight the US government then you have to start with the Constitution. You are blessed, but no one else should be? You have fun in that boat, I on the other hand will support better health services and coverage for our populace, if not for you then for my prodigy.

Johnny - posted on 04/04/2012

Were you aware that Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the drafter's of that declaration? Not to mention that the United States is a signatory. Although I'm sure you don't care about that since the evil government and it's agents were involved, lol.



So you don't want anyone telling you or anyone else what to do? I'm guessing you are willing to give up your food safety in the form of FDA inspections? You are willing to give up all law enforcement organizations and just let vigilantes run the law?



I think I'm going to stop bothering with this line of debate because it is just impossible for me to find blanket anti-government, anti-legislation, anti-regulation arguments anything but absurdly ridiculous. Sure, there are plenty of problems with the government, I have no problems with people who have specific critiques, but blanket "FREEDOM!" bullshit is just meaningless ideology with nothing constructive to add to any issue.

Happy - posted on 04/04/2012

Do you know who those words were actually first written about? Not a big fan of international law. I don't want the US gov't telling what to do or not do much less some group of men thousands of miles away.

Johnny - posted on 04/04/2012

Actually, it is enshrined in international law as a basic human right. See article 25:



http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/



All of those things you listed are considered basic rights. It is sadly true that many people have not been granted those inalienable rights, but that does not change their nature to being a special privilege.



Only the most backward countries on this earth have rejected the above declaration, such as North Korea. I am sure that you wouldn't think that the United States wants to join such company. For a nation that was once considered "the shining city on the hill" it is rather sad to see such rejection of our basic humanity.

Happy - posted on 04/04/2012

I do not agree that health care is a basic human right. Neither is housing or access to food or anything like that. But for the grace of God I could have been born in a country where NONE of those are available. It is a privelage to have the blessings I have, not a right.

Johnny - posted on 04/04/2012

Well, for starters, healthcare is a basic human right, not a privilege. Something that almost all modern, developed nations recognize save an extremist element in the United States. Currently, the United States spends the most on health care per capita and has one of the worst outcomes for the general population of all developed nations. I can not imagine that providing less insurance is going to improve that situation.



Your Congressional Budget Office just released some figures suggesting that health care costs for the government are going to skyrocket if the Heatlh Care mandate is struck down by SCOTUS. That will be a result of so many more people losing their insurance coverage and being bankrupted by illness, then turning to medicaid in desperation. Uninsured people actually cost significantly more to treat. Of course, you can just let them suffer and die if that's your bag.



Allowing employers to find ways around covering various treatments and medications will just exacerbate the problem. Even insurance companies are opposed to laws allowing "conscientious objections" because they well know that if you don't treat a woman for endometriosis with birth control, she may end up having the far more expensive hysterectomy and resulting necessary medications down the road. This does not benefit the employee, the employer, the insurance company, they all end up paying more and raising premiums.



The opposition on this issue seems to completely lack pragmatism and common sense. They are not offering an argument that money can be saved or that healthcare outcomes will improve. They are simply putting forth a blind ideological diatribe that a certain segment of the population who holds power should be able to make any decision it feels like while the rest of the population has its rights removed and its choices limited. That does not sound like freedom.

Karla - posted on 04/04/2012

Speaking of people staying out of my business... how about corporations staying out of my business... such as my employer or the Insurance Company?



If my employer offers health insurance coverage.. and I actually pay a portion of that plus a deductible and a co-pay, then why the hell do they have any say into what is covered and what is not covered? Why can't they trust me and my doctor to make the best decisions for my health? Wait, don't answer that, I already know the answer... profits. That would hurt their profits. money, money, money -- it was a big mistake when health care was allowed to became a corporate power.

Karla - posted on 04/04/2012

While we're at it, let's just throw mama off the train, or under it into it's path... or, hey, let's just throw the whole family out there.

Happy - posted on 04/04/2012

Absolutely! I may not like it but it is not my business, nor should it be the government's business, to tell a coompany what BENEFITS it offers and which ones it doesn't. Our insurance doesn't pay for BC but pays for sterilization, makes no sense to me, but it's not my business. Now, do I think employees freely have the right, with out having their jobs jeapordized, to speak to their employer and appeal to them? DEFINITELY! But it is not the gov'ts job to do it. Stay out of my business, stay out of my home, stay out of my bedroom. Clean up your (the gov't) house before you come knocking on my door. Then, MAYBE then, we'll talk!

Johnny - posted on 04/04/2012

I can't wait until insurance stops covering viagra. Or prescriptions for heart problems caused by obesity. Or medication for diabetes caused by obesity. Or blood transfusions. Or lung cancer caused by smoking. Or injuries from accidents caused by gross negligence.... after all, if insurance is a privelege, employers should have the absolute right to refuse to cover ANY condition or preventative care on things that they disagree with morally or for any other reason.

Happy - posted on 04/04/2012

Why do employers HAVE to pay for anything? Insurance is not a right, it is a privelage.