Perhaps something to ask yourselves is why birth control pills cost more than a fraction of a cent each to buy?
Agree or disagree with trumpâs move, the elephant in the room is the massively inflated prices Americans pay for access to cheap basic drugs. If the system was fixed, things like this just wouldnât be a big issue.
I share your concern about the cost of basic drugs but your argument isnât relevant here. The administration is not objecting to the cost of birth control - they are giving employers the right to deny basic medications because of "moral âobjections.â This means that, soon, blood transfusions might not be covered (or other procedures that anyone claims to object to.) Youâre trying to distract from the issue at hand.
And the same people who want to ban abortions are the same people who do not want women to have access to birth control.
My point is that basic medications that are incredibly cheap to manufacture at scale should reflect this in their price, and so be cheap enough that the poorest in society can access them without having to rely on their employer or insurer at all. If that was fixed, the argument over this weird position weâre in -unique in the developed world if not the world - where employers are in some way linked to peopleâs birth control would be moot.
Well, blood transfusions arenât cheap and some religious groups object to those. Trump is opening a door (based on the GOP false sense of âmoralityâ) which many employers will be happy to walk through. I hope no one in your family needs any of the medication or services which will be labeled âobjectionableâ by some employer.
Agree. Cheaper costs on all medical care is an important, but separate, issue. This is a move to establish some so-called moral ground to oppress women. Odd that nothing outside of female autonomy is defined by this âmoralâ lens.
⌠on top of your head, under the Russian-supplied white hood
Thatâs what trolls do.
Perhaps an employer who is an anti vaxxer will refuse to cover vaccinations in a medical plan. No flu shots, and most of staff is out with the flu. And one person dies from complications such as pneumonia. Another employer could deny vaccinations to prevent cervical cancer believing they promoteâ sexual activity. It is a slippier slope than we may imagine.
I have a moral objection to bypass surgery or any other invasive treatment for cardiovascular disease. Shoulda eaten better or chosen fitter parents.
The whole religious accommodation thing is really the government establishing religion through the courts, because a judge always gets to say whose religion and âmoral objectionâ counts and whose doesnât.
The broadening of employersâ right to âmorally objectâ to certain medication or treatments is absolutely frightening. I donât for one minute think that employers wonât be looking for many more examples of standard medical treatments which they will refuse to cover. Think of all the money theyâll save as people suffer. . . .and the power they gain over their employees.
@brissy you ainât no missy since it is not the cost of the birth control pills or other not so cheap contraceptives. The pills are relatively cheap, whatâs not cheap is being charged a co-pay to see the doctor for the perscription, their not cheap if you are getting an IUD, shot or other non-daily form. What is also not cheap is if your visit is about b/c your employer insurance will not cover the cost of the visit.
And please donât start on âwell just sell them over the counter.â Some women take b/c for other issues besides preventing pregnancy.
And for your information it is cheaper to cover b/c, even the non oral type as compared to a pregnancy.
Which should be a great way to strengthen the individual market, but then since health insurance is suppose to be a benefit to the employee the employer doesnât raise that employeeâs wage/salary if they donât take the offered insurance.
I live in one of those weird countries where healthcare provision isnât dependent whatsoever on who my employer is. Youâre missing the wood for the trees. Not to mention scaremongering about transfusions: birth control is a fundamentally different type of medicine to transfusions - namely it isnât (for the vast majority of women) treating a disease or injury. Donât get me wrong - Iâm all ok favour of it being easily and cheaply available, but not a just so weird to tie it to someoneâs employer.
As a genuine question, do employers have to cover vasectomys?
Which one? Just curious. Like we were saying earlier, some of the gang have wondered.
Iâm NOT scaremongering. An employer could easily argue (under the new definitions put out by the Trump administration) that a blood transfusion interferes with the bodyâs normal process (just like preventing a pregnancy is interrupting a ânormalâ bodily process) and is against his religion, so insurance at his company wonât cover it. One would have to be naive not to see this opening up all kinds of possibilities for coverage denial.
⌠youâre trying to derail the discussion to avoid any discussion of what is actually taking place, since youâd prefer not to face that. Itâs rather transparent, actually, and itâs one of your favorite tactics.
Since we live in the real world, weâll continue to point out the utterly stupidity, not to mention cruelty, of such actions of the Trump administration. Should you care to discuss that topic, feel free to join us.
Youâre missing the wood for the trees.
Nah, weâre just staying focused on what is happening here in the real world, as compared to that fantasy world you live in.
Which employers have said theyâre going to do this? If none or just a couple tiny weirdo ones, then youâre scaremongering. If loads have said theyâre going to do this, I apologise.
Hobby Lobby successfully lobbied that they woundnât have to provide birth control over moral objections. Itâs already been done, and it doesnât matter the size of the company or the number of companies. When any can break the mandate, the mandate dies.