We were talking about blood transfusions- which was a specious argument @marby brought up. My position is that unless any significant company has actually indicated it wants to stop covering blood transfusions on religious grounds, then you’re just scaremongering.
Contraception encompasses much more than just birth control pills.
To take an example, I see no reason why companies should be forced to pay for their employees to have an IUD surgically inserted. Nor do I think they should be forced to pay a premium because of the high risk of lawsuits when the IUD goes wrong, as seems to be happening far too often. This is risky, elective surgery. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m in favour of people who are suitable for them having free or cheap access to them. But to cover it ‘as standard’ is absurd.
Back up a step - the only companies paying for IUD insertion are insurers. (Nor is it a surgical procedure.)
The policy change in question is about allowing companies to tell their health insurance providers that they may not cover contraception for employees.
Should employers have to cover maternity and prenatal care?
Given that contraception is much cheaper than pregnancy(for sake of simplicity let’s ignore all costs of neonatal and pediatric care and any others that follow the birth) and significantly safer, the employers are making some poor business decisions.
1 Like
Noted.
2 Likes
!? You need a refresher in how insurance works… The more insurers pay out, the more they charge their customers (ie the employers), and the more money they make through their ACA-mandated 15% gross profit. To say that the only companies paying for IUDs are insurers is ridiculous.
You honestly believe employers cut checks to contraception providers?
I rather doubt that.
It abrogates the entire concept of insurance coverage.
That is reasoning similar to the claim that investment income is double-taxed.
And, again, pregnancy is several orders of magnitude more expensive than contraception. And childcare is orders of magnitude more expensive than pregnancy.
Contraception saves money for employers.
(And, on the establishing religion front, reduces rates of abortion, which the employers in question claim to give a damn about.)
Eh? What’s wrong with you? Employers cut cheques to insurance companies, who skim 15% off the top and then pay on to contraception providers. That’s how insurance works. If a certain type of healthcare isn’t covered, the insurance premiums are cheaper. I can’t quite believe we’re having this conversation.
The far more interesting and fundamental problem, is why is it so expensive for women to obtain contraception. That is the issue that should be addressed. This employer mandate is a fringe distraction.
I have ‘moral’ objections to D. Drumph’s decisions as President.
I, and anyone else who shares my ‘moral’ objections,’ should be allowed to ignore any ‘interim rule’ or ‘Presidential Order’ he mandates.
1 Like
Let’s not feed the troll any more than necessary.
That fringe distraction is front and center at present for any woman whose coverage is now at risk.
Sure, it would be good to address cost issues. But if the emloyer mandate remains in force, the impact of cost for women is not really relevant - it’s only once coverage is denied that costs become the central impediment.
Yeah “odd.” It’s only been going on for about the last 50,000 to a million years.
1 Like
How many of those are there? Tens of millions? And how did you arrive at that figure?
Employer insurance coverage pays for much more than contraception. It’s a small line item on the overall bill.
And, as I stated previously, contraception is much much cheaper than pregnancy and pediatric care.
And employers do NOT pay for contraception - insurance does. Employers may foot the bill for healthcare insurance, but it isn’t the same as paying for care. Period.
Frankly, insurers whose customers refuse to cover contraception would be justified charging more due to the attendant actuarial risks of having to pay for pre–natal, maternity, post-natal and pediatric care.
(Who is it that doesn’t understand how insurance works?)
“Woman” is singular.
Period? That’s not funny, and in really poor taste. There are generation snowflakers who read this website and might get offended,
I agree it isn’t the same, but only because f employers paid directly it would be at least 15% cheaper.
How about in the classic song, ‘No woman no cry’
Singular cries while plural cry. Therefore I think Marley was using woman as plural.
Also,in that famous chant by New Zealand suffragettes *WE ARE WOMAN!”