Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb
Obama's "step back" is nothing of the sort. So now instead of it appearing as a line item that the employer must pay for, it's in the "must provide" section of coverage.
Before Obama's revision, the bill to the employer might look like this:
BASIC INSURANCE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $100
BIRTH CONTROL ADDITIONAL COVERAGE for Jane Doe: $20
Now, after Obama's 'accommodation', the revised bill is:
MINIMUM COVERAGE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $120
It's the easiest shell game to see through. There has been no change, therefore the issue is the same, and I hope he pays a big political price for it.
If you read what I wrote, I'm actually not disagreeing with you on that many points. If the pill is required as treatment for a documented condition, it should be covered.
Pregnancy is not 'punishment' but one of the most common consequences of sexual behavior, as God intended (or Darwin would explain), or both.
The subsidizing of elective behavior is the issue. She wants to be promiscuous and wants us to pay for it.
Different example: Let's say I am a fisherman. I also suffer from extreme motion sickness, and I take an anti-motion-sickness medication. It's better than dramamine, but it requires let's say a week to get into my system and protect me from the motion sickness I might get while out on my fishing boat.
Question: If I am taking the motion sickness medication I described above today, would it be a safe assumption that I plan to go fishing within a week?
The principle is the same with the logic surrounding the assumption for the motivation for using the birth control pill.
|
since many states already have requirements that the church has signed off on, i think it's disingenuous for them to now balk at the fed attempting what many states already have.
as for bc being covered by insurers-they cover surgeries that eliminate potential pregnancy...not exactly consistent to say they won't cover a pill, but do cover tubals and vasectomies.
would it be safe to assume you plan to fish? probably. would i be able to say with exactness the dates and frequencies? no. nor would i give a damn. and therein lies the rub. if this wasn't about sex-some wouldn't give a damn.
and i think you'll find that insurance companies already offer coverage for bc to many-but some employers balk-for their own bs reasons, hence the issue. again, if you open the door under the banner of religious freedom to keep BC from being covered, you're opening a pandora's box of other things that people could attempt to exclude from their employees.