• Trump Admin adds moral/religious exception to law requiring employers to provide birth control
    16 replies, posted
[QUOTE]WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday undermined requirements under the Obamacare law that employers provide insurance to cover women’s birth control, keeping a campaign pledge that pleased his conservative Christian supporters. New rules from the Department of Health and Human Services will let businesses or non-profit organizations lodge religious or moral objections to obtain an exemption from the law’s mandate that employers provide contraceptives coverage in health insurance with no co-payment. Within hours, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the administration in federal court in San Francisco to try to halt the rule, claiming among other things that it violated the U.S. Constitution’s requirement for separation of church and state. The state of Massachusetts also sued, and the California attorney general said he planned to. “This is a landmark day for religious liberty. Under the Obama administration, this constitutional right was seriously eroded,” Republican House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan said.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In its reasoning for the move, the administration said among other things that mandating birth control coverage could foster “risky sexual behavior” among teens and young adults. It overturned the Obama administration’s view that the birth control requirement was necessary to meet the government’s “compelling interest” to protect women’s health.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-religion/trump-undermines-u-s-birth-control-coverage-requirement-idUSKBN1CB1XZ[/url] :stop:
This is some professional-grade bullshit. Why would anyone think this was a good idea? [quote]It overturned the Obama administration’s view[/quote] Oh.
i hope the christian evangelicals are happy because they're going to be driven out of washington at this rate
suddenly, a lack of female employees in some companies.
[QUOTE]In its reasoning for the move, the administration said among other things that mandating birth control coverage could foster “risky sexual behavior” among teens and young adults.[/QUOTE] Ah, there's that good ol' sexual oppression the U.S. is known for. :ok:
[QUOTE=c:;52754034]Ah, there's that good ol' sexual oppression the U.S. is known for. :ok:[/QUOTE] Abstinence-only sex ed causes risky sexual behaviour among teens but that's fake news so carry on oppressing. :downs:
[QUOTE=c:;52754034]Ah, there's that good ol' sexual oppression the U.S. is known for. :ok:[/QUOTE] "If we give kids birth control, they might have sex and be at risk of teen pregnancy.. So let's take away the drug that prevents 99.9% of pregnancies.. You know, to reduce the risk." Every single decision this administration makes is a disaster.
Ah yes, religious exemptions. John 14:23 - And God said unto man, "Hey, in about a couple thousand years, people are gonna be able to benefit from access to drugs that let women have sex without getting knocked up. Don't do that shit, okay? I want grandchildren."
The common argument that im seeing is "if your wanting birth control for sex than pay for it yourself! but health reasons then maybe" Honestly im seeing a bigger divide between women on facebook.
I'm feeling really dumb trying to understand this article. So you guys get medical insurance from your employers? And this new rule let's them single out birth control as something they don't have to pay for? Why do they get to have any say in your healthcare to begin with? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something, your boss having control over your health is just, what.
The government shouldn't have a say on what people do to their bodies
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52754441]I'm feeling really dumb trying to understand this article. So you guys get medical insurance from your employers? And this new rule let's them single out birth control as something they don't have to pay for? Why do they get to have any say in your healthcare to begin with? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something, your boss having control over your health is just, what.[/QUOTE] for your average american that can't afford their own insurance, your employer will offer some form of insurance package based on the insurance they have to get as a requirement of owning a business with employees. It's not mandatory but many americans rely on employer provided healthcare insurance, and it is up to each company what they do and don't cover
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52754441]I'm feeling really dumb trying to understand this article. So you guys get medical insurance from your employers? And this new rule let's them single out birth control as something they don't have to pay for? Why do they get to have any say in your healthcare to begin with? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something, your boss having control over your health is just, what.[/QUOTE] The government mandates that corporations with a certain number of workers or more provide the option of a company health insurance package, as well as other benefits. Some companies used to do this on their own to attract talent before it became mandatory, and others still hold to this idea by offering additional benefits not required by law. The Affordable Care Act put a few more lines into that mandate further defining the services that must be provided by all company llans that fall under its definitions. What the administration has done here, in my understanding, is just to create an exemption to a part of the ACA's lines for those eligible corporations that choose to take advantage of it. Our corporate healthcare laws are not so much giving the boss control of an employee's health insurance as it is requiring them to provide the option to their employees. Those who find the company package insufficient can pursue their own private options either fully or as a supplement to an existing plan, though this can be prohibitively expensive depending on the employee's needs.
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52754451]for your average american that can't afford their own insurance, your employer will offer some form of insurance package based on the insurance they have to get as a requirement of owning a business with employees. It's not mandatory but many americans rely on employer provided healthcare insurance, and it is up to each company what they do and don't cover[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Chonch;52754925]The government mandates that corporations with a certain number of workers or more provide the option of a company health insurance package, as well as other benefits. Some companies used to do this on their own to attract talent before it became mandatory, and others still hold to this idea by offering additional benefits not required by law. The Affordable Care Act put a few more lines into that mandate further defining the services that must be provided by all company llans that fall under its definitions. What the administration has done here, in my understanding, is just to create an exemption to a part of the ACA's lines for those eligible corporations that choose to take advantage of it. Our corporate healthcare laws are not so much giving the boss control of an employee's health insurance as it is requiring them to provide the option to their employees. Those who find the company package insufficient can pursue their own private options either fully or as a supplement to an existing plan, though this can be prohibitively expensive depending on the employee's needs.[/QUOTE] I think I understand, thanks for the explanations. It's still strange to me but the US having a pretty poor healthcare system is quite a well known thing these days. The article makes mention of companies including birth control in their insurance before the mandate, and suspects that most if not all employers will continue to do so, either because they offered it anyway or because now effectively saying "we hate women" is a bad PR move for any company. Or to use the language from the article, "our religious beliefs are more important to us than our employee's wellbeing"
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52755089]I think I understand, thanks for the explanations. It's still strange to me but the US having a pretty poor healthcare system is quite a well known thing these days. The article makes mention of companies including birth control in their insurance before the mandate, and suspects that most if not all employers will continue to do so, either because they offered it anyway or because now effectively saying "we hate women" is a bad PR move for any company. Or to use the language from the article, "our religious beliefs are more important to us than our employee's wellbeing"[/QUOTE] both of those answers are technically right but you're basically right in your suspicion. before these regulations up to 20% of insured women were not covered and paid out of pocket for contraception. after, it was reduced to 4%. if you add to that the number of americans who weren't insured in the first place you get a higher number. again, thanks to the ACA that latter number is smaller, but republicans are working on making that number higher again too. it's a nightmare.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52755089]I think I understand, thanks for the explanations. It's still strange to me but the US having a pretty poor healthcare system is quite a well known thing these days. The article makes mention of companies including birth control in their insurance before the mandate, and suspects that most if not all employers will continue to do so, either because they offered it anyway or because now effectively saying "we hate women" is a bad PR move for any company. Or to use the language from the article, "our religious beliefs are more important to us than our employee's wellbeing"[/QUOTE] ya, even after the ACA was taken to the SCOTUS what, three times? only about a dozen companies have actually applied for waivers which kinda shows that the courts greatly overestimated the harm the ACA was doing, only like 2 actual large companies, its almost exclusively a hobby lobby carve out and they've already had plenty of HR issues regarding their overtly religious corporate heads.
Yeah I wonder if there's a "moral exception" to tearing down the cunts in the GOP and anyone else who would intentionally fuck over their constituents.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.