here are a couple of fascinating articles on some recent developments post the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision. the Wonkette piece is particularly well done. what i find amazing about the story is the awesome display of projection. this pro-life nurse who wanted a job at a family planning facility is suing simply because she didn't get the job! largely because her religion forbids her for doing said job. meanwhile, the same bible beaters are legally allowed to FIRE and employee they want because of their religious beliefs. that they are fine with. yet not hiring a person who is simply not capable (admittedly!) is generating a lawsuit from these twisted dimwits. you really need to read it to appreciate it. and Wonkette really knocks it out of the park with the introduction.
Yes Booklover taking birth control pills is so much more than not getting pregnant....It helps many women control their menstrual flows and problems with their cycle, after all birth control pills are Hormones......They are legitimate medications that deserve to be covered on all insurance policies....Just because you don't believe in them does not mean it should be excluded.....Your whole argument is as bad as the fundys in congress and the Supreme Court....
No booklover I am quite serious!!!!
Methinks Freethinker doesn't know how to use commas or simply omitted these two:
Yes, Booklover, taking....
Addressed to Jay H, the post would make sense.
Proofreading helps, F...31. Your bad.
Uh-oh, I forgot. Peacemaking can be dangerous; it can anger both sides.
Jay, medical insurance is much much more than catastrophic care. It's a lot closer to the idea of auto insurance providing for oil changes and tire replacement, and accident avoidance by, say, nagging people to clean their windshields, testing drivers for alcohol, drugs, and dementia, and mandating that all drivers undergo drivers ed. The medical insurance policies and corporate requirements are for insurance to cover all evidence-based preventive care, screening for health conditions, care for chronic conditions that are not immediately catastrophic. There was a recent newspaper article here about health plans drug testing pain patients, and refusing to give pain medications if people test positive, even when people demand opioids - which they often do. Some employers are also demanding health screening to reduce health insurance costs, and urine testing for nicotine metabolites, to prove patients are not smoking.
I'm not arguing whether that is right or wrong, or even the definition of insurance, but medical is far, far, far more comprehensive than auto or home.
Also I can't think of much better insurance cost reduction than birth control. Babies and obstetrics are very very expensive, and a major generator of lawsuits when things go wrong. I imagine birth control is a major savings for the insurance company. I have no idea why a health insurance company would be reluctant to pay for that. Pregnancy is also something some women can't handle, health-wise. For them, birth control may be life saving.
Medical insurance is also impacted by customer service surveys that push it even further - Press-Ganey, which may raise costs and/or be bad for health,but advocates and the govt push heavily as a means to give customers a voice.
quite the comprehensive explanation, SB. you hit multiple nails on multiple heads. there is a reason that our healthcare industry is multiple times more expensive than other countries. all other western nations have recognized healthcare as an essential human right in modern times. America isn't on board yet. and that leads to perversion in the free markets if not regulated. The ACA attempts to regulate the hell out of the free market to bring it in line with principles that keep costs down in other countries with universal health coverage. so far it seems to be working. watch this space.
...all other western nations have recognized healthcare as an essential human right in modern times. America isn't on board yet.
Right, Matthew! So very right!
And thinking Americans see its nonrecognition as an essential human right as a result of an attitude in those who run America toward those who don't run America.
Wake up folks, and smell the coffee that has been brewing since a few oligarchs in 1787 wrote a constitution that favors two groups:
* Alexander Hamilton's rich and well born, and
* James Madison's minority of the opulent.
If anyone wants my sources, say so and I will post the URLs.
you said it just right, Mel. and more succinct than i could.
Booklover ....read my post again.....I said birth control pills do belong on insurance...I resent you calling me a troll....If you do not agree with me at least try to be respectful of a difference of opinion....
Freethinker, it appears you mistakenly thought booklover (Mel to me) was against having birth control covered. she is not, it was Jay who seemed to disagree.
OOPS!!!!!!!! Thanks my bad........Please accept my sincere apology booklover (Mel)......
no problem, and i will let her know (i think she left the thread).
The problem with any kind of post-Hobby-Lobby legislation is all too simple: the House of Representatives and its "leader" (if you can call him that), John Boehner. His opposition to anything not having to do with the 1% and the Republican majority in that body virtually guarantees that NOTHING WILL HAPPEN ... until the House is no longer red.
The real shame is that Democrats are so ill-focused on so many issues (witness the period between 2009 and 2011) that it might not happen even then, though the odds would be somewhat better.