Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's none of the employer's business why you are prescribed a medication. That is information they are not entitled to receive. Period. This potential new law would force employees to disclose private medical information, which is an end run around HIPAA, and certainly violates the spirit of HIPAA.
It's not about the money. It's about being able to safeguard your own private medical information. Employers are not only not entitled to the information, they are not required to keep your medical information private.
You seem to be under a misconception.
The employer could care less. It's the INSURANCE that the employer provides. If the insurance they get doesn't cover contraception, so they can save all the employees some money, then that's the way they go.
If they cover it for medical reasons, then you WORK WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY, the employer could care less. You aren't disclosing anything to the employer, UNLESS the employer is the insurance company itself.
Contraception should not be a insurance matter, unless it's a medical necessity. What's the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Time we stop incentivising sex without consequence and subsidizing bad choices (unwanted children).
I vote for common sense.
Agreeing matter-of-factly...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
It's a flagrant violation of HIPAA...
I guess that came from the idiot talking point bulletin. You might want to actually read HIPPA.
Legally...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden
It's none of the employer's business why you are prescribed a medication.
Yes it is, since they are paying for it and since they are coordinating and administration the program.
If you don't like it, then here's a novel common sense prescription: buy your own health care plan and take the employer out of the loop.
Eliminating the employer from the loop would resolve dozens of problems, uh, but then you would be responsible and we all know how *******s shirk and despise responsibility.
Dictating morals is forcing everyone to pay for the contraception of a few
The few, you say? So you'd leave it to an insurance provider and a woman's employer to override any decisions that they make regarding use of hormones to treat a wide variety of conditions, including acne? To imply that the full gamut of females from 12 to 120 be denied contraceptives for any reason is unconscionable. You'd deny a woman with ovarian cancer hormonal treatment because you don't want to pay for it? Right...I'm sure that Christ would be down with that.
The few, you say? So you'd leave it to an insurance provider and a woman's employer to override any decisions that they make regarding use of hormones to treat a wide variety of conditions, including acne? To imply that the full gamut of females from 12 to 120 be denied contraceptives for any reason is unconscionable. You'd deny a woman with ovarian cancer hormonal treatment because you don't want to pay for it? Right...I'm sure that Christ would be down with that.
So, what part of MEDICAL CONDITION are you having a problem comprehending, since the 2 conditions you noted, require the medicine for a MEDICAL CONDITION.
Like I said...it would just become "medically necessary" for everyone. This is a stupid "medical condition" game....
QUESTION: How will anyone know it's REALLY medically necessary or if the woman really has bad cramps or irregular cycles or acne?
ANSWER: You can't. Janes got acne so she can get bcp coverage and have have sex without getting pregnant, but Jonie can't have coverage since she just wants to have sex without getting pregnant. Really ?????
Why would ANYONE WITH A BRAIN want to go down this ridiculous road? Micromanaging a womans reproductive intentions...wow. I can't think of anything more offensive.
The employer could care less. It's the INSURANCE that the employer provides. If the insurance they get doesn't cover contraception, so they can save all the employees some money, then that's the way they go.
If they cover it for medical reasons, then you WORK WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY, the employer could care less. You aren't disclosing anything to the employer, UNLESS the employer is the insurance company itself.
Quote:
Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.
So, what part of MEDICAL CONDITION are you having a problem comprehending, since the 2 conditions you noted, require the medicine for a MEDICAL CONDITION.
Nearly anything could be a 'medical condition'.... I know for a fact that my Gyno would prescribe bc pills if I went in and said I had mood swings, whether I had them or not. Honestly, I don't think this bill will be a problem because as a woman, I'd simply make something up that required a bc prescription if I wanted one. Problem solved.
So, what part of MEDICAL CONDITION are you having a problem comprehending, since the 2 conditions you noted, require the medicine for a MEDICAL CONDITION.
Did you read Ms. Fluke's testimony? It concerned a friend with polycystic
ovarian syndrome, a lesbian, who'd been denied contraception because the good priests at Georgetown couldn't accept that it was needed medicinally. Students pay for their health care at colleges and universities; it's included in tuition and fees. Yet this young woman was denied treatment and the result was a very large cyst on one ovary. That is the reason that religion has no place in making decisions of this nature. Guaranteed, Georgetown paid more for her surgery than they would have spent on contraceptives. My family has a history of endometriosis, and I had it when I was of childbearing age. Because of the adverse reactions I had to oral contraceptives, I chose to use an IUD. Doctors weren't treating endometriosis with hormonal therapy yet, and as a result I had an ectopic pregnancy and my left fallopian tube ruptured. Ever had one of your organs blow up? It's literally a killer. Keep other people's beliefs out of decisions made by females and their doctors, period. As the Georgetown incident shows, having clerics make decisions of that nature isn't wise.
Nearly anything could be a 'medical condition'.... I know for a fact that my Gyno would prescribe bc pills if I went in and said I had mood swings, whether I had them or not. Honestly, I don't think this bill will be a problem because as a woman, I'd simply make something up that required a bc prescription if I wanted one. Problem solved.
Then it shouldn't be a bill. It's stupid, end of story. If we make a bunch of pointless rules then all rules will become pointless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
