the latest birth control compromise in Obamacare...

Two Peas is Closing
Click here to visit our final product sale. Click here to visit our FAQ page regarding the closing of Two Peas.

Posted 2/1/2013 by PunchPrincess in NSBR Board
 

PunchPrincess

PeaNut 17,063
June 2001
Posts: 12,706
Layouts: 0
Loc: where 71 and 70 meet

Posted: 2/1/2013 6:34:59 PM

Churches and religious organizations that object to providing birth control coverage on religious grounds would not have to pay for it.


What do the Peas think of this? Any woman could get birth control without going through her employer insurance plan. The costs would be carried by the health insurance companies if they want to participate in the marketplace.

I suppose some employers will not like this because up until now they have been able to control their employee's birth control decisions. That has to stop. Return that decision to the women involved. If you can't convince a woman not to use birth control, making it against the law isn't going to do anything but create a bunch of law breakers.

New York Times

[ETA] This from the 6th paragraph of the story

The new health care law generally requires employers to provide women with coverage at no cost for "preventive care and screenings." Under this provision, the administration says that most health plans must cover contraceptives for women free of charge.


BCP would be covered at no cost since they are part of preventive care and screenings.


<*********************************************************************>

PunchPrincess ( def. A long, long time ago when I first started scrapping I discovered punches -- round, square, squiggles, cars, etc. You name it. Like coat hangers they multiplied, under the bed I think until they were threatening to take over that precious space that we all covet and refuse to cede to other family members. Thus I became PunchPrincess. )


Aggiemom92
PeaFixture

PeaNut 90,200
June 2003
Posts: 3,313
Layouts: 2

Posted: 2/1/2013 6:46:43 PM
I understand it, and don't think business should have to finance actions they are morally opposed to. However, I think it opens the door for businesses to suddenly be opposed to paying for certain things on "moral grounds." Plus, if you are using the Bible to justify not paying for birth control, I hope to see your business closed on Sundays.

Captain K
AncestralPea

PeaNut 247,594
February 2006
Posts: 4,495
Layouts: 0

Posted: 2/1/2013 7:07:14 PM

Churches and religious organizations that object to providing birth control coverage on religious grounds would not have to pay for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What do the Peas think of this? Any woman could get birth control without going through her employer insurance plan. The costs would be carried by the health insurance companies if they want to participate in the marketplace.

I suppose some employers will not like this because up until now they have been able to control their employee's birth control decisions. That has to stop


How is this any different than how it is now? If an employer doesn't provide birth control coverage (or vasectomy, or gastric bypass, or or or), the employee is free to go get it without going through their insurance - go to a doctor and pay the cash rate.

I'm sure there is a change, I just don't understand it from your OP. Is it that the employee can buy that coverage separately from the insurance company?

MikeWozowski
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 174,400
October 2004
Posts: 7,956
Layouts: 20

Posted: 2/1/2013 7:33:28 PM
i think the issue of companies/insurance paying for birth control is SO dumb. when i was on the pill many moons ago, the pill was NOT covered on my insurance anyway. i had good insurance from an oil company.

companies are not controlling employees birth control decisions, they are just saying we will not be PAYING for your birth control.

all jobs come with pluses and minuses. every employee has the choice to accept them or look for a different job. simple.


PunchPrincess

PeaNut 17,063
June 2001
Posts: 12,706
Layouts: 0
Loc: where 71 and 70 meet

Posted: 2/1/2013 7:43:35 PM

companies are not controlling employees birth control decisions, they are just saying we will not be PAYING for your birth control.

all jobs come with pluses and minuses. every employee has the choice to accept them or look for a different job. simple.


Insurance companies have realized that making it easy for women to plan their families is cheaper than paying for "oops."

It's a hoot to respond to a "Mike" who takes BCPs!


<*********************************************************************>

PunchPrincess ( def. A long, long time ago when I first started scrapping I discovered punches -- round, square, squiggles, cars, etc. You name it. Like coat hangers they multiplied, under the bed I think until they were threatening to take over that precious space that we all covet and refuse to cede to other family members. Thus I became PunchPrincess. )


Pea-T-A-Mom
Scrapmaven is stalkin my Kitteh!

PeaNut 159,334
July 2004
Posts: 14,077
Layouts: 0
Loc: Left Coast

Posted: 2/1/2013 7:44:27 PM

i think the issue of companies/insurance paying for birth control is SO dumb. when i was on the pill many moons ago, the pill was NOT covered on my insurance anyway. i had good insurance from an oil company.


I cannot imagine why a secular business would not want their insurance to cover birth control (with the same copay as other medications.). Pregnancy and childbirth are SO much more expensive than BCP.


~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~


Edgy Coolness
PeaFixture

PeaNut 365,853
March 2008
Posts: 3,514
Layouts: 0
Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted: 2/1/2013 8:08:34 PM
Chip, Chip, Chip...

{sarcastically said} So much better than a National Universal Healthcare plan which should have been enacted and forced onto "the people" freeing them from their employer's "religious" beliefs, whims, and intrusions into their employees personal lives and life decisions.

It never ceases to amaze me the false sense of "personal responsibility" that is bandied about by those that dislike forcing the employer to provide a "level playing field" in healthcare through Obamacare but are too ignorant to understand that the "Nanny State" they fear IS the reality they live with employer based healthcare insurance.

Chip, Chip, Chip...









MikeWozowski
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 174,400
October 2004
Posts: 7,956
Layouts: 20

Posted: 2/1/2013 11:47:01 PM
yeah, it really didn't make sense that a company would rather pay for a pregnancy (and a lifetime of medical expenses for the baby) than a few hundred dollars for birth control pills, but that used to be the norm. :/

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 2/2/2013 12:52:53 AM
I'm with Edgy.

I think health insurance is far too tangled with employment for anyone's ultimate good.





If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



lovestorun

PeaNut 90,754
June 2003
Posts: 7,128
Layouts: 38
Loc: So Cal

Posted: 2/2/2013 1:10:23 AM
I actually experienced this:


The new health care law generally requires employers to provide women with coverage at no cost for "preventive care and screenings." Under this provision, the administration says that most health plans must cover contraceptives for women free of charge.


On Wednesday I went for my annual check up. I didn't get charged the usual $50 copay. I also was able to switch birth control from a $95+ name brand to the pill and it will only cost me $9, and in July it may become free according to my provider.

Kind of cool to see it "in action", and experience it first hand. I really appreciated having that copay in my pocket.
Show/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}