![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
From Statepress:
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.
‘I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,’ Lesko said. ‘So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.’
Jezebel points out that Arizona is an “at will” state. This means that bosses in Arizona will be able to fire women for being depraved enough to take birth control pills to prevent pregnancy.
As we all know, what made the Soviet Union infamous were not the gulags, its treatment of dissidents, and the rigid control over the press, but the fact that women could take pills for the purpose of contraception without fear of losing their jobs over it.
Yes, here it is -- the right wing's idea of "freedom" is a society where a woman has to ask her boss' permission to use oral contraceptives.
Does anyone else find this more than a little weird?
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 20:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 20:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 21:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 21:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 22:34 (UTC)From what I know of insurance claims the employer doesn't get anything medically detailed.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 22:47 (UTC)There doesn't have to be any passing along of information. There just has to be someone who wants birth control. And workplaces being what they are, how soon do you think you can narrow down the pool of who is trying to get birth control?
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 23:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 23:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 23:37 (UTC)What does it matter if the employers knows you're getting a prescription medication? It doesn't know what you're getting and why. The plan provider is the only one who knows. I see no reason to believe they're going to gossip.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 23:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 23:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 23:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 23:23 (UTC)Notwithstanding subsection y of this section, a contract does not fail to meet the requirements of subsection Y of this section if the contract's failure to provide coverage of specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section is because providing or paying for coverage of the specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer, sponsor, issuer, corporation or other entity offering the plan or is because the coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.If an objection triggers this subsection, a written affidavit shall be filed with the {insurance] corporation stating the objection. The corporation shall retain the affidavit for the duration of the contract and any renewals of the contract. This subsection shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider WITH prescriptive authority for medical indications other than for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes. A corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan may state religious beliefs or moral convictions in its affidavit that require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the [insurance] corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection.A corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.------
The law makes it clear that it required employers to file an exemption with the insurer so the insurer can exempt them from the requirements of the law.
What's really happening here is the law is mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives and the usual gang is controlling the spin of mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives by going on the offensive and making up completely the idea that it requires insurers to tell employers why employees want birth control.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 23:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 23:46 (UTC)Any contract between a corporation and its subscribers is subject to the following:
1. If the contract provides coverage for prescription drugs, the contract shall provide coverage for any prescribed drug or device that is approved by the United States food and drug administration for use as a contraceptive. A corporation may use a drug formulary, multitiered drug formulary or list but that formulary or list shall include oral, implant and injectable contraceptive drugs, intrauterine devices and prescription barrier methods if the corporation does not impose deductibles, coinsurance, copayments or other cost containment measures for contraceptive drugs that are greater than the deductibles, coinsurance, copayments or other cost containment measures for other drugs on the same level of the formulary or list.
2. If the contract provides coverage for outpatient health care services, the contract shall provide coverage for outpatient contraceptive services. For the purposes of this paragraph, "outpatient contraceptive services" means consultations, examinations, procedures and medical services provided on an outpatient basis and related to the use of approved United States food and drug administration prescription contraceptive methods to prevent unintended pregnancies.
If a health care services organization issues evidence of coverage that provides coverage for:
1. Prescription drugs, the evidence of coverage shall provide coverage for any prescribed drug or device that is approved by the United States food and drug administration for use as a contraceptive.� A health care services organization may use a drug formulary, multitiered drug formulary or list but that formulary or list shall include oral, implant and injectable contraceptive drugs, intrauterine devices and prescription barrier methods if the health care services organization does not impose deductibles, coinsurance, copayments or other cost containment measures for contraceptive drugs that are greater than the deductibles, coinsurance, copayments or other cost containment measures for other drugs on the same level of the formulary or list.
2. Outpatient health care services, the evidence of coverage shall provide coverage for outpatient contraceptive services.� For the purposes of this paragraph, "outpatient contraceptive services" means consultations, examinations, procedures and medical services provided on an outpatient basis and related to the use of United States food and drug prescription contraceptive methods to prevent unintended pregnancies.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 23:50 (UTC)"If the contract provides for..." meaning that certain arrangements have to abide by standards and rules and contraceptives will be treated as any other drug.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 23:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/3/12 00:09 (UTC)http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
The state mandated it in 2002 and this is just updates to their language.
My reading of it was right but I erred on it being a new thing.
(no subject)
Date: 15/3/12 00:12 (UTC)Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 20-2329 (2002) requires all health insurance plans providing coverage for prescription medications to also provide coverage for all FDA-approved prescription methods of contraception. Religious employers may request exclusion from this requirement.(HB 2234).
So it's a "mandate" in the sense that its mandatory, except if you don't want to.
(no subject)
Date: 15/3/12 00:19 (UTC)I'm reading plain English from the bill and from sites that sum it up and agree with me and you're... just making claims.
The current bill doesn't change much as they still had religious exemptions in the past.
'So it's a "mandate" in the sense that its mandatory, except if you don't want to. '
And for that to kick in you needed to file the objection. Otherwise, it's still an existing mandate.
You're claiming it wasn't a mandate yet here's a site saying it was a mandate since 2002 and I cited language in the bill that supports the assertion that it's a mandate. But you're saying there's no mandate because??
If you're just fucking with me, let me know so I can just go do something else.
(no subject)
Date: 15/3/12 00:33 (UTC)No, it's a regulatory rule, which stipulates that "health insurance" (kind of like "motor vehicles") is subject to the oversight and regulatory provisions of the FDA, (or in the page you linked to, as a result of a regulatory finding or act of an Attorney General).
If you are going to provide "health insurance", you have to abide by what the FDA considers "health insurance", sort of like if you're going to build cars, you're going to build cars according to regulations and oversights are extant to the industry.
You're claiming it wasn't a mandate yet here's a site saying it was a mandate since 2002 and I cited language in the bill that supports the assertion that it's a mandate. But you're saying there's no mandate because??
Think of it like this: If you provide prescription drug coverage, you can't deny covering Aderall because you think kids are over-medicated. You also don't get to choose one drug that gets covered because you're invested in that drug. You don't get to cover only prescription X because you don't think it works. Those decisions are the FDA and only the FDA.
If you call an opt-out policy a mandate, then you're the one fucking with me. And if you want me to think that state GOPs are legislating health-care "mandates" when state GOPs hate health-care mandates, well then, I just ain't that stupid.
(no subject)
Date: 15/3/12 03:46 (UTC)The page specifically states that contraceptive coverage isn't mandated in every state. Arizona is one of 26 states that specify that drug coverage has to include birth control.
'If you call an opt-out policy a mandate, then you're the one fucking with me.'
Opt-out policies can still exist within mandates. Selective service is a mandatory program yet there's still provisions for people to opt out.
'And if you want me to think that state GOPs are legislating health-care "mandates" when state GOPs hate health-care mandates, well then, I just ain't that stupid'
Arizona is not a single party state where everyone has to vote Republicans. Why you're arguing as if the GOP crafted all the legislation is puzzling... well not really. I think I understand your angle.
I don't think you're actually reading anything I link to you and instead you're bouncing around your arguments in an attempt to be clever and make a statement about what you perceive to be stubbornness on the part of others.
Because really, I can't understand what other angle you could be working when you're so clearly wrong in your statements and yet so clearly not giving any ground.
You're wasting my time and arguing just to argue. Every point I've made is clear and properly backed. There's no further need to engage you until you get an argument.
(no subject)
Date: 15/3/12 05:57 (UTC)