If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs legislation permitting employers to interrogate female employees about contraception use. Do you object? You must be a harlot   (rawstory.com) divider line 380
    More: Asinine, Jan Brewer, female employees, RH Reality Check, ovarian cancer, TPS, Christian College, contraceptives, health information  
•       •       •

5460 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2012 at 5:56 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



380 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-14 01:30:04 PM

pciszek: So a company could decide not to provide health coverage for sickle cell anemia, and claim that their decision was not racist because it's just a coincidence that sickle cell anemia primarily affects people of African descent?


As long as their lawyers wrote it up convincingly. You have to show actual discrimination, not just that it sure LOOKS like it. Of course, racism is a much easier pattern to find evidence of than sexism usually. If they had evidence that the bosses were saying 'Screw these women', that would be one thing.
 
2012-05-14 02:24:28 PM

lohphat: What percentage of men vs women use pharmacological solutions for BC? Oh yeah. That.

"We're not targeting women, just people who use tampons."

Could the veil be any thinner?


I'm not trying to defend them, just playing devil's advocate and saying that I can see how they would get away with it.
 
2012-05-14 02:25:55 PM

CheatCommando: The courts have looked at discrimination by proxy (which is what you are describing) and found it wrong in at least some cases. It is hardly as open and shut as you make it out to be.


As I pointed out to lophat, I'm just seeing where they could wiggle out of it, not taking their side in any way. It's just that I can see the rationalization they would use if anyone asked Leatherface why she didn't think it was discrimination.
 
2012-05-14 02:26:22 PM

keylock71: Dog Welder: keylock71: Johnny Swank: Dog Welder: That said, there are very reasonable Republicans out there,.


Nope. Sorry chief, but anyone still supporting the party at this point is clearly endorsing the nutbag brigade that's taken it over. You're not getting a pass on this.

Yeah, seems like all the "reasonable" Republicans have retired... The party as it exists now is completely devoid of morals, commonsense, and integrity. They're nothing more than a collection of mean-spirited, greedy plutocrats, shameless bigots, anti-intellectual zealots and religious fascists, from what I can see.

Like I said, they do exist, but I think they're afraid to speak out for fear of being run out of town. Sadly, your perception isn't too far off the mark.

Unfortunately, if they disagree with the direction the party is taking, and they are silent about it for fear of losing their status in the party, then they are just as responsible for this bullshiat as the whack jobs and I would question their reasonableness.

I wonder if they realize they are losing a lot of potential voters with this regressive nonsense?

I'm sure I'm not the only American, who has come to the decision to never vote for another Republican again... Like I've said many times in the last year or so, the GOP has made it quite obvious they do not give a shiat about people like my family living in the lower middle class. They've done absolutely nothing to earn our votes and they will not get them.


Well, some of them are getting out while the getting is still good. Olympia Snowe basically grew tired of this crap and is retiring. Good for her. But it's likely the GOP will lose that seat to Angus King, an independent who is very left leaning (similar to Jeffords in Vermont). And, really, who knows what's going to happen with Lugar's seat now that it's up for grabs, but I'm hoping Indiana votes Democrat to replace him because whats-his-face seems like another obstructionist douchebag.
 
2012-05-14 02:27:39 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So can you point to the section in the bill that is the topic of this thread that states where the employer (if not also the health insurance provider) can ask these questions?


Obviously if they are going to allow it for medical reasons, but not allow it for NON medical reasons, they either have to ask or access your records. The HIPPA Fairy doesn't just drop the information off.
 
2012-05-14 02:36:39 PM

Mikey1969: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So can you point to the section in the bill that is the topic of this thread that states where the employer (if not also the health insurance provider) can ask these questions?

Obviously if they are going to allow it for medical reasons, but not allow it for NON medical reasons, they either have to ask or access your records. The HIPPA Fairy doesn't just drop the information off.


And that has dick all to do with the employer getting the information. They inform their insurance carrier that they will only cover contraception for medical purposes. At the point that the employee purchases the contraception, they send their receipt in for reimbursement to the insurance carrier. The carrier then makes a determination about the reimbursement. The employer is not involved.

Again, you seem to be woefully underinformed about the actual bill.
 
2012-05-14 03:35:01 PM
Democracy at work!
 
2012-05-14 03:42:31 PM

pciszek: T-Cubed: That said, if the same company would not cover birth control but cover vasectomies, then you know they are full of crap.

How about a company that will cover viagra but will not cover birth control?

In any case, can someone explain in simpler terms how this law differs from the federal bill that led to the whole Rush Libaugh "slut" incident?
If an insurance plan does not cover birth control, but does allow the use of the same pills for ovarian cysts and so forth, then somebody somewhere has to be asking the question of what the pills are being used for. Does the Arizona go above and beyond this? Does the Arizona law really allow an employer to find out if an employee is using birth control and paying for it out of pocket?


I would agree, one that covers Viagra and not birth control under "religious concerns" is asinine. My employer (who I believe covers birth control) does not cover Cialis. It doesn't mean that you can't get it or use it, just that they aren't paying for it.

As to the Arizona law, I believe it does nothing to the rights of the individuals. It just says that companies that have a religious objection to the concept of birth control don't have to pay for someone to have birth control for non-medically necessary reasons. At least that is my understanding of it.

Stupid? Yep. Not cost effective? Absolutely. Will it be abused? Potentially.

Absolute evil and giving employeers the right to have any say in an employee's sex life? Nope.

As to Rush, well we all know he's a tool but the knee jerk, alarmist reaction to this is amazing. No one is taking anything away. The companies that won't cover birth control in the future are probably not covering it now. I think this is in reaction to a Federal mandate that states all employers MUST provide free birth control. Obviously some people (and therefore some people who own businesses and will in the future HAVE to provide insurance) think that this is a sin and immoral. I think they are ignorant.

In other words, I think their actions (not providing birth control) are dumb but I do understand their position and support their freedom to be ignorant and backward.

//now I've pissed off everyone
 
2012-05-14 04:05:35 PM

Mrbogey: badLogic: Can't wiat until Christain Scientist employers refuse to provide coverage for blood transfusions.

Subsection Y refers to the practice of offering coverage for contraception. No dice.


So then this is just about bumping uglies and not about "religious freedom".

www.pitch.com
 
2012-05-14 06:12:08 PM

badLogic: Mrbogey: badLogic: Can't wiat until Christain Scientist employers refuse to provide coverage for blood transfusions.

Subsection Y refers to the practice of offering coverage for contraception. No dice.

So then this is just about bumping uglies and not about "religious freedom".

[www.pitch.com image 325x214]


There's never been an argument that religious freedom would allow businesses to deny life-saving medicine or treatment.
 
2012-05-14 06:28:41 PM

Mrbogey: badLogic: Mrbogey: badLogic: Can't wiat until Christain Scientist employers refuse to provide coverage for blood transfusions.

Subsection Y refers to the practice of offering coverage for contraception. No dice.

So then this is just about bumping uglies and not about "religious freedom".

[www.pitch.com image 325x214]

There's never been an argument that religious freedom would allow businesses to deny life-saving medicine or treatment.


The business is not denying anything, they simply don't want to pay for it. The heathen employees can pay for it out of their own pockets.
 
2012-05-14 07:40:01 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet that there is nothing moral at all about denying BC coverage?
 
2012-05-14 08:32:41 PM

quatchi: Has anyone mentioned yet that there is nothing moral at all about denying BC coverage?


Is there anything immoral about not being willing to pay for it for someone else if you believe that the use of birth control is immoral?

Is it moral to force me to pay for your birth control?

If you are, say a Catholic based corporation, your Mission Statement clearly defines you as a Catholic organization and your market is Catholics and as part of the Catholic faith you believe that using birth control is "sinful" is it moral for you to be forced to provide BC coverage? I believe the argument fits if we substitute "abortion" for "birth control". I also think that, in the long run it's a stupid position to take. If *I* was an employer, I would want to pay for such medical benefits because in the long run it is cheaper to pay for prevention than it is to pay for the medical costs. (and I think religion is stupid).

Companies contract with insurance providers all the time and base their rates on what they will choose to cover or not. I don't believe as it stands now ALL insurance plans cover birth control.

However, a smart insurance company, I believe, will have higher group premiums for plans that don't cover BC because in the long run their medical costs will be higher.
 
2012-05-14 09:57:35 PM

badLogic: The business is not denying anything, they simply don't want to pay for it. The heathen employees can pay for it out of their own pockets.


Okay smart alec.

There's never been an argument that religious freedom would allow businesses to deny [insuring for] life-saving medicine or treatment.
 
2012-05-15 12:50:48 AM

Mrbogey: This doesn't authorize an employer to make medical decisions. This deals with the insurance coverage of birth control medicine for contraceptive use. A woman is still free to get birth control. But the employer does not have to offer her a plan that will cover such. I think we should be able to agree that payment for medicine is not the same as denial of a medicine.


No, we can't all agree this. Any woman who lacks the disposable income to pay for the medication out of pocket will be unable to obtain it. And no, she couldn't go to PP either, not for much longer if you and your ilk get their way.

Jorn the Younger: Also, the arguments in favour of this crap are just as blantantly false as the 'reporting' you're decrying. Firstly, Religious Freedom != Freedom to impose your religion on others.

I don't see how you can see it as such. If I work at a Jewish or Muslim business and the cafeteria serves no pork, I don't think of it as imposition of religion on me.

No, that's not, but if your Jewish or Muslim employer charges you for three daily meals at the cafeteria, you might. Especially if they server pork when you got the job and agreed to cafeteria access as part of your compensation, then decided to stop selling pork.

I can't think of anything other than blood transfusions that a religion would object to. And since blood transfusions are medically necessary at times, and never optional I don't see the parallel. Even this bill doesn't grant for the denial of medically necessary birth control.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize the world was limited to what your mind can conceive of. That makes it OK then, and we should never consider other implications or affects of legislation we enact, because you can't think of any examples.

Jorn the Younger: Thirdly, if this were about not forcing an employer to make payments towards health care that voilates their cult's rules, it should include an option for employers to opt out of the employee health coverage, with all money that would be paid directly to the insurer by the employer to be paid directly to the employee instead, allowing them to obtain health coverage independently, preserving holyness of the employers money, and allowing the employee to obtain the heath coverage they want / need / are entitled to.

Employers aren't obligated to offer health care. This bill only amends the law on offering health care. If an employer doesn't want to offer health care they don't.

If employers aren't obligated to offer health care, then any religious institution that objects to how health care coverage might be utilized by their employees should simply not offer it.

My employer has no right to tell me what I do with my compensation, no right to tell me I can't do certain things with it. You seem to believe the opposite, though I'm still waiting for you to explain why.

//please note that I'll be quite disappointed if you come back with "employers shouldn't be forced to pay for things they find objectionable/abhorrent/against their religion because the employers aren't paying for the birth control medication, they're paying an insurance company to provide health insurance.
 
2012-05-15 12:58:46 AM

Mrbogey: badLogic: The business is not denying anything, they simply don't want to pay for it. The heathen employees can pay for it out of their own pockets.

Okay smart alec.

There's never been an argument that religious freedom would allow businesses to deny [insuring for] life-saving medicine or treatment.

So you're saying they don't want to cause people to die, they just want to significantly decrease the quality of their life in countless small ways.

That actually makes sense. The slave religions, Christianity in particular, are all about making life on earth as miserable as possible, then telling you how things will be better after you die- IF you do what they tell you to. It's really about control.

The objection to birth control is because women on birth control are more willing to engange in recreational sexual activity. If people are having recreational sex, they're having a good time. Have enough sex and you realize you don't have to wait until you die to be happy and fulfilled. You get less anxious about getting into Heaven, and therefor become less likely to do what the priest tells you.
 
2012-05-15 05:11:29 AM

T-Cubed: quatchi: Has anyone mentioned yet that there is nothing moral at all about denying BC coverage?

Is there anything immoral about not being willing to pay for it for someone else if you believe that the use of birth control is immoral?


LOL. You think it's about cost?

It not about cost. It's never been about cost or getting someone else to pay for someone else.

The question here is "do or should religious owned schools, hospitals and other businesses have the right to interject their own morality code between a doctor and a patient?"

The answer is no.

Is it moral to force me to pay for your birth control?

The health insurance is either being paid for by the women or is part of a compensation package along with wages. Therefore nobody is forcing anyone to pay for anyone else. that's a stupid, meaningless sound byte.

If you are, say a Catholic based corporation, your Mission Statement clearly defines you as a Catholic organization and your market is Catholics and as part of the Catholic faith you believe that using birth control is "sinful" is it moral for you to be forced to provide BC coverage? I believe the argument fits if we substitute "abortion" for "birth control". I also think that, in the long run it's a stupid position to take. If *I* was an employer, I would want to pay for such medical benefits because in the long run it is cheaper to pay for prevention than it is to pay for the medical costs. (and I think religion is stupid).

Yes, it is moral to make religious owned businesses abide by the same standards set for other businesses.

In fact to do anything else would be immoral, impractical and stupid.

Companies contract with insurance providers all the time and base their rates on what they will choose to cover or not. I don't believe as it stands now ALL insurance plans cover birth control.

Yeah, that's the problem. Good eye.

However, a smart insurance company, I believe, will have higher group premiums for plans that don't cover BC because in the long run their medical costs will be higher.

So you see it has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with control and you have no other argument other than the religious organization considers BC a sin because tradition.

So we're back to my original point then. Making BC a standard part of all Health Insurance packages as it is in many countries around the world is neither a sin nor immoral.

Government and religious interference with a very private, personal medical decision is both a sin and immoral and it's a notion that pisses on the ideal of separation of church and state and is thus inherently unAmerican.
 
2012-05-15 08:08:24 AM

Maud Dib: Selena Luna:

You know, I haven't had sex in three years. I WISH I could earn the title of slut or whore.

What the??!?!
I can't go 3 days. I can't imagine 3 years.


It gets easier when you have a job and don't need men to buy you stuff.
 
2012-05-15 09:42:17 AM
Arizona is batshiat crazy. This bill is batshiat crazy... BUT:

i wish everyone would stop calling the governor ugly. People say that about women to be as insulting as possible- and saying that "no one would like to fark her" being the most insulting thing someone could say to a woman means that her most important function is to be farked by a man. in other words- YOU'RE NOT HELPING.
 
2012-05-15 12:54:18 PM
Your vagina is now property of Sony, Inc. Unauthorized access will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, you miserable slut.
 
2012-05-15 01:06:32 PM
Blisterlips 2012-05-15 09:42:17 AM

Arizona is batshiat crazy. This bill is batshiat crazy... BUT:

i wish everyone would stop calling the governor ugly. People say that about women to be as insulting as possible- and saying that "no one would like to fark her" being the most insulting thing someone could say to a woman means that her most important function is to be farked by a man. in other words- YOU'RE NOT HELPING.


Yeah, we know that, and you've made a very valid point.

You can't however expect this place to refrain politely from targeting the low hanging fruit....which in Brewer's case is the low hanging dead fruit bats.

This IS Fark, after all.

Me, I think her "Dorian Gray" portrait has suffered a catastrophic malfunction.
 
2012-05-15 10:24:10 PM

Jorn the Younger: So you're saying they don't want to cause people to die, they just want to significantly decrease the quality of their life in countless small ways.


So you're saying you don't understand the argument. Gotcha. Thanks for being brave enough to admit that.

Jorn the Younger: I'm sorry, I didn't realize the world was limited to what your mind can conceive of. That makes it OK then, and we should never consider other implications or affects of legislation we enact, because you can't think of any examples.


Drop the sophistic snark. You know what I said. Can you think of a non-life-threatening way that a religion besides the presented one, would oppose basic medic issues?

Jorn the Younger: No, that's not, but if your Jewish or Muslim employer charges you for three daily meals at the cafeteria, you might.


No might... I wouldn't. Nor would most reasonable people. But I'm sure you'll find a ton of unreasonable people who'll disagree.

Jorn the Younger: My employer has no right to tell me what I do with my compensation, no right to tell me I can't do certain things with it. You seem to believe the opposite, though I'm still waiting for you to explain why.


Compensation is what the employer and you agree to. If the employer doesn't agree to birth control for non-medically necessary reasons then you've got nothing to demand it.
 
2012-05-16 12:31:29 AM

quatchi: T-Cubed: quatchi: Has anyone mentioned yet that there is nothing moral at all about denying BC coverage?

Is there anything immoral about not being willing to pay for it for someone else if you believe that the use of birth control is immoral?

LOL. You think it's about cost?

It not about cost. It's never been about cost or getting someone else to pay for someone else.

The question here is "do or should religious owned schools, hospitals and other businesses have the right to interject their own morality code between a doctor and a patient?"

The answer is no.


Under this bill they are not.


Is it moral to force me to pay for your birth control?

The health insurance is either being paid for by the women or is part of a compensation package along with wages. Therefore nobody is forcing anyone to pay for anyone else. that's a stupid, meaningless sound byte.


They already negotiated that when they took the job. If the company is not willing to offer BC as part of the insurance, the employee accepted that when they took the position. In fact, from what I understand, this level of compensation is being mandated by a new law. The AZ law is looking to circumvent that.

If you are, say a Catholic based corporation, your Mission Statement clearly defines you as a Catholic organization and your market is Catholics and as part of the Catholic faith you believe that using birth control is "sinful" is it moral for you to be forced to provide BC coverage? I believe the argument fits if we substitute "abortion" for "birth control". I also think that, in the long run it's a stupid position to take. If *I* was an employer, I would want to pay for such medical benefits because in the long run it is cheaper to pay for prevention than it is to pay for the medical costs. (and I think religion is stupid).

Yes, it is moral to make religious owned businesses abide by the same standards set for other businesses.

In fact to do anything else would be immoral, impractical and stupid.
I disagree. Do not companies have a right to have the insurance policy that aligns with their morals?

Companies contract with insurance providers all the time and base their rates on what they will choose to cover or not. I don't believe as it stands now ALL insurance plans cover birth control.

Yeah, that's the problem. Good eye.

However, a smart insurance company, I believe, will have higher group premiums for plans that don't cover BC ...
 
2012-05-16 02:04:37 AM

Mrbogey: Jorn the Younger: So you're saying they don't want to cause people to die, they just want to significantly decrease the quality of their life in countless small ways.

So you're saying you don't understand the argument. Gotcha. Thanks for being brave enough to admit that.

Jorn the Younger: I'm sorry, I didn't realize the world was limited to what your mind can conceive of. That makes it OK then, and we should never consider other implications or affects of legislation we enact, because you can't think of any examples.

Drop the sophistic snark. You know what I said. Can you think of a non-life-threatening way that a religion besides the presented one, would oppose basic medic issues?

Jorn the Younger: No, that's not, but if your Jewish or Muslim employer charges you for three daily meals at the cafeteria, you might.

No might... I wouldn't. Nor would most reasonable people. But I'm sure you'll find a ton of unreasonable people who'll disagree.

Jorn the Younger: My employer has no right to tell me what I do with my compensation, no right to tell me I can't do certain things with it. You seem to believe the opposite, though I'm still waiting for you to explain why.

Compensation is what the employer and you agree to. If the employer doesn't agree to birth control for non-medically necessary reasons then you've got nothing to demand it.


I see you're still happy to tell my why you think I'm wrong, but you still have yet to explain why this is a good and necessary piece of legilslation.

Do you have a response, or are you just an asshole?
 
2012-05-16 02:24:20 AM

Mrbogey: Can you think of a non-life-threatening way that a religion besides the presented one, would oppose basic medic issues?


Scientology and psychiatric/mental health care comes to mind.
 
2012-05-16 07:26:17 AM

Jorn the Younger: I see you're still happy to tell my why you think I'm wrong, but you still have yet to explain why this is a good and necessary piece of legilslation.


Because that's not required. I don't have to justify anything to you at all. Your personal approval is not needed for literally anything here.

apoptotic: Scientology and psychiatric/mental health care comes to mind.


I don't believe any state law has a psychiatric mandate in its insurance regulations.
 
2012-05-16 12:32:40 PM

Mrbogey: Jorn the Younger: I see you're still happy to tell my why you think I'm wrong, but you still have yet to explain why this is a good and necessary piece of legilslation.

Because that's not required. I don't have to justify anything to you at all. Your personal approval is not needed for literally anything here.

apoptotic: Scientology and psychiatric/mental health care comes to mind.

I don't believe any state law has a psychiatric mandate in its insurance regulations.


Ok, so you're just an asshole. Thanks for letting me know, asshole.
 
2012-05-16 07:03:19 PM

Darth_Lukecash: I blame the farking snowbirds retirees for this shiat. Seriously, Arizona was a nice place. Not now, huh?


and yet without the "snowbirds" ariz. would be just an open empty desert.
 
2012-05-16 11:11:30 PM

Jorn the Younger: Ok, so you're just an asshole. Thanks for letting me know, asshole.


I'm not even in the top 10 assholes in this thread. Most of the problem people have with me is I point out where they're wrong and I do so with as much respect as they give others.
 
2012-05-16 11:52:52 PM
but aren't employees more productive if they're not taking time off because they're too reproductive?
 
Displayed 30 of 380 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report