Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration’s Birth-Control Rule

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I live in California. And would never work in a place, that cares if I have BC in my insurance. Good luck to Conservative, that have bosses snooping into their BC business. They are welcome to use their Christmas bonuses for abortions.

 

[blackribbon]

I live in California. And would never work in a place, that cares if I have BC in my insurance. Good luck to Conservative, that have bosses snooping into their BC business. They are welcome to use their Christmas bonuses for abortions.

If the company is subsidizing the insurance, I am guessing they know what the policy covers. And abortion is not a form of birth control...

(It is kind of ironic to be having this conversation of the horrors of pregnancy and motherhood with someone who has a precious newborn as her avatar....)

 

[TLK Valentine]

I live in California. And would never work in a place, that cares if I have BC in my insurance. Good luck to Conservative, that have bosses snooping into their BC business. They are welcome to use their Christmas bonuses for abortions.

Conservatives have always been of the opinion that your employer has power over your body... everything from BC to drug tests.

Of course, now that corporations have religious beliefs which their employees are subject to, I should say that your boss now owns you body and soul...

 

[DaisyDay]

Again...how is this related to the OP?

Seriously? You don't see how birth control is health care even as pregnancy can be fatal? There's nothing I can do about deliberate obtuseness.

The reason the US has a higher maternal death rate is related to a greater of older women getting pregnant, more co-morbid conditions that aren't under control at conception, more obese women getting pregnant, less compliancy with recommended self-care by pregnant woman, etc...

Which has what do do with women who want to reduce their risk via birth control?

And although I wish that no woman ever died of a pregnancy related condition, .025% is not a huge number of women dying, especially when you consider the number of high risk pregnancies that are in the US pool of pregnant women

Not a huge number, but ever-increasing while the rate has fallen in other developed countries. Do any of the other countries' women have the same problems as American women that you listed above or is all of that unique to us?

Your argument almost seems to say that minority women are not intelligent enough to prevent pregnancy if we don't force their employers to pay for their birth control....or that maybe we should control the number of minority women who are allowed to get pregnant and have minority children.... (safe sex? no, pregnancy prevention is not about safe sex...it is about limiting births and if you are focused on minority women, this means limiting births in the minority population...)

Seriously!? My argument says no such thing - that is simply your blatant attempt to cast aspersions on an argument for which you have no valid answer. Shame on you.

 

[jayem]

No, I am not mistaken. I know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. I also know that although most doctor accept Medicare, there is a maximum number of patients that a doctor can handle and only so many of those can be Medicare. They may limit some insurances as well.

The only thing that becomes a non-issue is that care will become rationed and limited. Wealthy people will be the only ones getting cutting edge and "the best" medical care ... while the rest of the country will be waiting 6 months for important critical care or "won't qualify" for the needed care. And nurses will quit even faster than they are now because they will be asked to care for too many patients and the best young minds won't be going into medicine but rather professions that actually pay well without the stress of residency. And you won't even get to see a doctor until you have gone through a mid-level provider such as a Physician Assistant or a Nurse Practioner.

Show me any comprehensive private health coverage that doesn't restrict care now. Do any such plans not have a preferred panel of providers and facilities? You've related several anecdotes. So here's mine. My wife has degenerative lumbar disc disease with some spinal stenosis. She's not a surgical candidate, so she gets periodic epidural steroid injections to manage her pain. When I had group health insurance, it was always a struggle. Because the pain specialist she liked and trusted, wasn't an in-network provider. And the facility she used for procedures (which was nearby and very convenient) was also out-of-network. So I'm paying a hefty premium for health coverage, and I'm still paying about half of her care out of pocket. But since we've been on Medicare, that's all gone away. None of her injections have ever been questioned or denied, and she's covered at any outpatient surgery center that accepts Medicare. And I know of none that don't.

And BTW, what do you have against NPs and PAs? I worked with them for years. They've all been well-trained, dedicated, caring professionals. I 've heard far more complaints about physicians than about mid-level providers.

 

[DaisyDay]

If the company is subsidizing the insurance, I am guessing they know what the policy covers. And abortion is not a form of birth control...

(It is kind of ironic to be having this conversation of the horrors of pregnancy and motherhood with someone who has a precious newborn as her avatar....)

Knowing and caring are two different things.

And for some women, abortion is a form of birth control whether you find it abhorrent or not. I knew a Catholic woman back in the 80s for whom this was her preferred method - her reasoning was that birth control was a sin, but she sinned less often having an abortion every few years than by using birth control every time.

 

[jayem]

Insurance carriers will never admit it. But most will have no problem covering elective abortion. It's much cheaper to pay for a 1st trimester abortion than to cover 9 months of prenatal care, labor, and delivery.

 

[blackribbon]

Does nobody understand what the Trump rule is that this court blocked? It isn't "will birth control be covered be medical insurance". It isn't anything about abortion or women's health issues. It is just concerning if a company that has a moral stance against birth control has the right to not be mandated buy it for their employees (protecting their right to exercise their religious beliefs). All the affected employees (very small group of employed Americans) have the right to change employers or buy private medical insurance that will cover birth control OR pay the small fee required to buy it out of pocket. This doesn't affect anyone who does not work for a company that takes a strong religious stand based on the beliefs related to birth control of its owners. It doesn't provide "safe sex" for anyone (because no insurance I know of covers condoms). It will cover pregnancy for anyone who does get pregnant (hopefully, because they want to be pregnant) at these few companies which is more expensive as people have no problem pointing out.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

If the company is subsidizing the insurance, I am guessing they know what the policy covers. And abortion is not a form of birth control...

(It is kind of ironic to be having this conversation of the horrors of pregnancy and motherhood with someone who has a precious newborn as her avatar....)

My little niece is a result of someone being to stupid to use BC. And not respecting 2 plus men, that didn't want children. So she has had 3 live births. She's cute. but constantly cries, spits up. And has bad kidneys. But if the mother had more brains, she would have used BC. Instead of getting rid of unwanted kids by abortions.Who knows if she had the BC option, by insurance in the pass. But kids are a night mare that keeps giving. I never said I didn't want nightmares of my own. But I should get BC in my insurance. If I need it.

 

[Belk]

Does nobody understand what the Trump rule is that this court blocked? It isn't "will birth control be covered be medical insurance". It isn't anything about abortion or women's health issues. It is just concerning if a company that has a moral stance against birth control has the right to not be mandated buy it for their employees (protecting their right to exercise their religious beliefs). All the affected employees (very small group of employed Americans) have the right to change employers or buy private medical insurance that will cover birth control OR pay the small fee required to buy it out of pocket. This doesn't affect anyone who does not work for a company that takes a strong religious stand based on the beliefs related to birth control of its owners. It doesn't provide "safe sex" for anyone (because no insurance I know of covers condoms). It will cover pregnancy for anyone who does get pregnant (hopefully, because they want to be pregnant) at these few companies which is more expensive as people have no problem pointing out.

No, that is not what this is about. You are equating two separate concepts. Compensating employees with insurance benefits that cover birth control is not the same thing as buying contraception for their employees. Why should my employer be able to modify my compensation based on their religious beliefs? Are we going to allow companies to offer healthcare in which blood transfusions are not covered? How about ephedrine? At what point do stop allowing peoples religious views to affect others?

Tell you what, if this is such a huge issue how about we just move to a nationalized health care so employers can concentrate on their business and not what their employees are doing with their compensation?

 

[blackribbon]

My little niece is a result of someone being to stupid to use BC. And not respecting 2 plus men, that didn't want children. So she has had 3 live births. She's cute. but constantly cries, spits up. And has bad kidneys. But if the mother had more brains, she would have used BC. Instead of getting rid of unwanted kids by abortions.Who knows if she had the BC option, by insurance in the pass. But kids are a night mare that keeps giving. I never said I didn't want nightmares of my own. But I should get BC in my insurance. If I need it.

Since the passing of Obamacare, BC has been free to everyone with insurance and insurance is mandated....so having free BC doesn't meant that people use it or it solves anything.

Just always select a policy that covers BC and you will be golden.

 

[blackribbon]

No, that is not what this is about. You are equating two separate concepts. Compensating employees with insurance benefits that cover birth control is not the same thing as buying contraception for their employees. Why should my employer be able to modify my compensation based on their religious beliefs? Are we going to allow companies to offer healthcare in which blood transfusions are not covered? How about ephedrine? At what point do stop allowing peoples religious views to affect others?

Tell you what, if this is such a huge issue how about we just move to a nationalized health care so employers can concentrate on their business and not what their employees are doing with their compensation?

Did you read the OP?...yes, this is what this thread is about.

 

[Belk]

Did you read the OP?...yes, this is what this thread is about.

I read the OP. No, that is not what this is about.

contraceptive health coverage.

That is different from buying their employees birth control.

 

[blackribbon]

I read the OP. No, that is not what this is about.


That is different from buying their employees birth control.

???
Trump's policy was to not employers to provide (which includes subsidizing payments) for birth control as part of the company provided health insurance if providing violated their personal, religious beliefs.

It doesn't say anything about the insurance bought privately for self or insurance provided through a job which doesn't have that kind of conviction (which is the grand majority of all companies).

Most employee provided insurance is partially subsidized by the company and isn't paid for in entirety by the employee even if they pay part of it. For example, I pay about $400 a month for my family coverage but I know that isn't the whole cost and my employers is also paying part of my monthly premium as a perk.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Since the passing of Obamacare, BC has been free to everyone with insurance and insurance is mandated....so having free BC doesn't meant that people use it or it solves anything.

Just always select a policy that covers BC and you will be golden.

You do realize Trump and Republicans will do everything in their power to get rid of any insurance that helps the poor . Concerning medical insurance and BC. They rather put it in other countries and the rich. Then the poor in the U.S. So you can say good bye to Obama care.

 

[Allandavid]

What a weird medical insurance system.....

 

[DaisyDay]

Does nobody understand what the Trump rule is that this court blocked? It isn't "will birth control be covered be medical insurance". It isn't anything about abortion or women's health issues.

Birth control is a primary women's health care issue.

 

[Belk]

???
Trump's policy was to not employers to provide (which includes subsidizing payments) for birth control as part of the company provided health insurance if providing violated their personal, religious beliefs.

It doesn't say anything about the insurance bought privately for self or insurance provided through a job which doesn't have that kind of conviction (which is the grand majority of all companies).

Most employee provided insurance is partially subsidized by the company and isn't paid for in entirety by the employee even if they pay part of it. For example, I pay about $400 a month for my family coverage but I know that isn't the whole cost and my employers is also paying part of my monthly premium as a perk.

Yes, that correct. What I was objecting to in your post was your claim that this was about "employers buying their employees birth control". The reason I object is I think there is an important distinction between buying your employees birth control and compensating them with health care that happens to cover birth control. Phrasing it the way you did ignores that distinction.

 

[comana]

Yes, that correct. What I was objecting to in your post was your claim that this was about "employers buying their employees birth control". The reason I object is I think there is an important distinction between buying your employees birth control and compensating them with health care that happens to cover birth control. Phrasing it the way you did ignores that distinction.

This exactly. Employer paid or subsidized heath insurance is provided as compensation in conjunction with an actual paycheck. What the employee uses the health insurance for is between them, their provider and the insurance company.

How an employee uses their health insurance benefits should be no more of a moral dilemma for the employer than how that employee spends their paycheck. Both are compensation for labor provided. The employer is not paying for anything but the employees labor.

Picking and choosing what is included in the health insurance based on the employers moral/religious boundaries is ridiculous because the moral decision belongs to the employee alone.