The last company I worked for had a health plan that covered viagra if I wanted it but not birth control for my wife.

how do you veto birth control?
can an employee now prevent someone from buying and using birth control? How do they do that?

tenpoundsofcheese: how do you veto birth control?
can an employee now prevent someone from buying and using birth control? How do they do that?

Typically by firing and denying jobs for using the birth control. It is the small government thing to do.

tenpoundsofcheese: how do you veto birth control?
can an employee now prevent someone from buying and using birth control? How do they do that?

The health insurance they give employees doesn't cover it?

Doesn't stop employees from buying it on their own, I suppose.

Arizona = the NEW Florida, only sh*ttier.

/sorry,you wrinkled old hag, FDCPA still trumps your state's laws...........

That article is light on details, but I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't they be able to get information on exactly what's owed when they're buying an account on the basis that something is owed....

/ yet, the fact that Brewer signed it suggests heavily that it's idiotic and should be despised because I'm pretty well convinced at this point that she's pure, untapped evil

Satanic_Hamster: Troll response:
Maybe you should just pay your debts, subby, then you wouldn't have to worry about this law.

LandOfChocolate: The last company I worked for had a health plan that covered viagra if I wanted it but not birth control for my wife.

Troll response:
Yeah, seeing your wife I could understand the need for viagra. And a blind fold.

Word to the wise; on this site you don't need to explicitly state when you're trolling, it's already assumed.

Splinshints: That article is light on details, but I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't they be able to get information on exactly what's owed when they're buying an account on the basis that something is owed....

That is not what the article says.

Michigan is worse. Here if you don't object to statements in a timely manner, you are barred from defending against a suit based on the theory of account stated. You lose by default, and they don't even have to prove the existence of a contract. All the creditor has to do is sign an affidavit that you owe the debt. Debt collectors abuse this law so often it's sickening.

The derp in Arizona makes you almost wish for a nuclear winter.

I'm sure the multitudes of Snowbirds that spend the minimal time in the state to qualify to vote, that are old, shrived, spent of life and love, retired, bitter, harboring the prejudices the elderly hang on to, will continue to vote for this fine woman as she keeps the near pants-shiatting fear they live in daily, or for 4 months a year in Arizona, at bay.

You're an embarrassment, Arizona. Even the South is starting to look sideways at you, along with the rest of the nation, in that way people do in a room when the biggest douche finally arrives at the party.

limeyfellow: tenpoundsofcheese: how do you veto birth control?
can an employee now prevent someone from buying and using birth control? How do they do that?

Typically by firing and denying jobs for using the birth control. It is the small government thing to do.

Nice try, but refusing to enter into a work relationship with someone because they use birth control isn't the same thing as preventing them from buying and using birth control.

If I refuse to hire a leftist idiot that posts to fark, for example, am I preventing that person from being a leftist idiot? I wish, but no.

basemetal: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x479]

The republicans just want things they way they used to be, in a kinder gentler time....

They'd like to go much much farther back than that.

tenpoundsofcheese: how do you veto birth control?
can an employee now prevent someone from buying and using birth control? How do they do that?

They can have insurance plans which do not cover birth control for birth control reasons. Because birth control pills are used for many other medical reasons too (endometriosis or example) the plans still cover their prescription but the law AZ passed and Brewer signed allows employers to basically interrogate their employees to check and see if they really need the pills for a medical reason, and if they aren't satisfied I guess they notify the insurance plan to cut coverage or something.

I can't see how it isn't a massive HIPAA violation, no to mention issues of equal protection and sexual discrimination.

Seriously, young people, just leave. Educated people, just leave. Ladies, just leave. The retired snowbirds are bent on voting for every possible awful people in power and making AZ into a depression-era shiathole. Just let them have it, cuz man, it's gone. When there's nobody there to keep the utilities running properly, roads maintained, the grocery stores stocked, restaurants and tourist destinations going, etc., these old hateful bigots can spend the remainder of their days living in the shiathole they created.

Considering the high moral conduct of banks and the unquestionable integrity of the debt collection agencies, I feel no fear of them having excessive amounts of my personal information and laws favoring them against me. Banks never make mistakes and collection agencies are always kind and considerate...alright my own sarcasm is scaring me.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Seriously, young people, just leave. Educated people, just leave. Ladies, just leave. The retired snowbirds are bent on voting for every possible awful people person in power and making AZ into a depression-era shiathole. Just let them have it, cuz man, it's gone. When there's nobody there to keep the utilities running properly, roads maintained, the grocery stores stocked, restaurants and tourist destinations going, etc., these old hateful bigots can spend the remainder of their days living in the shiathole they created.

Splinshints: That article is light on details, but I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't they be able to get information on exactly what's owed when they're buying an account on the basis that something is owed....

/ yet, the fact that Brewer signed it suggests heavily that it's idiotic and should be despised because I'm pretty well convinced at this point that she's pure, untapped evil

The law doesn't say they get info, just that the final bill is enough info to go after someone, which is BS.

And nobody is forcing them to buy that debt, if they aren;t getting enough info don't buy the debt.

Derigiberble: tenpoundsofcheese: how do you veto birth control?
can an employee now prevent someone from buying and using birth control? How do they do that?

They can have insurance plans which do not cover birth control for birth control reasons. Because birth control pills are used for many other medical reasons too (endometriosis or example) the plans still cover their prescription but the law AZ passed and Brewer signed allows employers to basically interrogate their employees to check and see if they really need the pills for a medical reason, and if they aren't satisfied I guess they notify the insurance plan to cut coverage or something.

I can't see how it isn't a massive HIPAA violation, no to mention issues of equal protection and sexual discrimination.

I think they're banking on the fact that a law isn't unconstitutional (in a legal sense) until it is ruled so. Any challenge to this law will take years of stalling tactics, appeals, etc. before it is ruled unconstitutional at a federal level. It's the same thing Walker was hoping to achieve with his voter ID law, he just needed it to not be struck down until after the recall election.

After talking with some guys who work for some legislative agencies, I can sort of see how congressmen(and women) help out their constituents more than the "common folk," because they're the ones that go to the offices every day for support. At the same time I wonder if legislators realize that they're screwing over their own people and possibly themselves. There are a lot of people in government that have outrageous debt because they're business owners. I guess they won't care until it comes back to bite them in the ass.

So employers both want to complain that women take too much time off for pregnancy/birth AND keep them from taking a cheap pill to not need to take time off?

My head asplode!

vsavatar: Michigan is worse. Here if you don't object to statements in a timely manner, you are barred from defending against a suit based on the theory of account stated. You lose by default, and they don't even have to prove the existence of a contract. All the creditor has to do is sign an affidavit that you owe the debt. Debt collectors abuse this law so often it's sickening.

I'm also a big fan of the MCCA surcharge that protects insurance companies from having to pay unlimited medical bills. We pay them for unlimited medical and then we pay again into a fund that protects them from having to pay unlimited medical. Gotta love it.

The moral of the story is: Don't go into debt.

Can't afford something with the funds you have available? Don't buy it.

CSB:

Back when I had a CCTV business, we had just bought (on credit) two DVR video recorders (about $1,200 each). Shortly thereafter the company that sold them to us went out of business. Closed up shop and turned off the phones. Well several months go by and some other company calls us. Said they bought the old company, and they would very much like their money, thank you. I asked if they were gonna honor the warrenty and they were all like "wut?". So I told them to go screw.
The sent a letter which said "something something lawsuit" I asked if they had our orignal purchase order or if they were just going by whatever was in the computer. They said the computer showed a balance. I asked if they had any contract or even a record of us buying those two devices. They said "Well, no, but..." I respond "Remember when I said you can go screw?" "yes...." "Well take your mother with you"

They didn't bother us anymore.

The supposed CCTV company that bought them out was nothing more than a debtor cash grab company. Just aquired the closed business to see who they could get to pay.

Nurglitch: The moral of the story is: Don't go into debt.

Can't afford something with the funds you have available? Don't buy it.

And how about when they peg you for $250k of corporate debt? Hmmm? Oh, no, don't have an answer for that, farkwit. Go back to hiding under a bridge.

We should really just give AZ back to Mexico and be done with it.

Splinshints: That article is light on details, but I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't they be able to get information on exactly what's owed when they're buying an account on the basis that something is owed....

/ yet, the fact that Brewer signed it suggests heavily that it's idiotic and should be despised because I'm pretty well convinced at this point that she's pure, untapped evil

You've got it backwards--the bill lets them simply use the final billing statement. This gives you little recourse against a mistaken bill.

vsavatar: Michigan is worse. Here if you don't object to statements in a timely manner, you are barred from defending against a suit based on the theory of account stated. You lose by default, and they don't even have to prove the existence of a contract. All the creditor has to do is sign an affidavit that you owe the debt. Debt collectors abuse this law so often it's sickening.

And what happens when they send it to the wrong address?

mc6809e: limeyfellow: tenpoundsofcheese: how do you veto birth control?
can an employee now prevent someone from buying and using birth control? How do they do that?

Typically by firing and denying jobs for using the birth control. It is the small government thing to do.

Nice try, but refusing to enter into a work relationship with someone because they use birth control are black isn't the same thing as preventing them from buying and using birth control being black.

If I refuse to hire a leftist idiot Roman Catholic that posts to fark, for example, am I preventing that person from being a leftist idiot Roman Catholic? I wish, but no.

FTFY

Attention lower and middle class citizens of Arizona...


Pack your shiat, run someplace north, or any direction. At this point moving to Texas would be an improvement. If you stay in Arizona much longer, you will be either in prison or in chains, possibly wearing a burka.

/remember foiks, we ASKED for this.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Seriously, young people, just leave. Educated people, just leave. Ladies, just leave. The retired snowbirds morons are bent on voting for every possible awful people in power and making AZ the US into a depression-era shiathole. Just let them have it, cuz man, it's gone. When there's nobody there to keep the utilities running properly, roads maintained, the grocery stores stocked, restaurants and tourist destinations going, etc., these old hateful bigots can spend the remainder of their days living in the shiathole they created.

Splinshints: That article is light on details, but I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't they be able to get information on exactly what's owed when they're buying an account on the basis that something is owed....

/ yet, the fact that Brewer signed it suggests heavily that it's idiotic and should be despised because I'm pretty well convinced at this point that she's pure, untapped evil

The problem here us lets say you have a service with company Bob. Bob suddenly adds services you didn't authorize and you dispute, refusing to pay. Company Bob sends you to collections. Instead of an itemized billing, the debt collector can now just use a final bill from Bob as a basis to sue you, even if the bill is 10X what you actually purchased with late fees, convenience fees, fee fees, etc.

Step 1: Find ULTRA conservative states to pass Tea Party Legislation
Step 2: See how much can get past "non-partisan" conservative SCOTUS
Step 3: Ta Da! Corporatism and Fascism for all.

Loren: Splinshints: That article is light on details, but I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't they be able to get information on exactly what's owed when they're buying an account on the basis that something is owed....

/ yet, the fact that Brewer signed it suggests heavily that it's idiotic and should be despised because I'm pretty well convinced at this point that she's pure, untapped evil

You've got it backwards--the bill lets them simply use the final billing statement. This gives you little recourse against a mistaken bill.

vsavatar: Michigan is worse. Here if you don't object to statements in a timely manner, you are barred from defending against a suit based on the theory of account stated. You lose by default, and they don't even have to prove the existence of a contract. All the creditor has to do is sign an affidavit that you owe the debt. Debt collectors abuse this law so often it's sickening.

And what happens when they send it to the wrong address?

They do what the Ohio BMV does and say "FARK YOU!" ... supposedly it's now on me to check to see if the state/debtor/grandma sent me anything to another address or if the USPS didn't deliver it on time. Whatever, we're all screwed ...

DoBeDoBeDo: So employers both want to complain that women take too much time off for pregnancy/birth AND keep them from taking a cheap pill to not need to take time off?

My head asplode!

The entire GOP platform is based on the idea that it's more important to punish people than it is to actually solve problems. That, and owning a vagina is worthy of punishment.

Nurglitch: The moral of the story is: Don't go into debt.

Can't afford something with the funds you have available? Don't buy it.

That doesn't help when cabel companied continue to bill you after you have shut off service and moved. Doesn't help when you go to a hospital for allergies and they bill you for a broken arm.
Etc.

DoBeDoBeDo: So employers both want to complain that women take too much time off for pregnancy/birth AND keep them from taking a cheap pill to not need to take time off?

You write that as if "employers" is some sort of ethnicity or religion.

There's a great deal of variety in what employers are willing to put up with, just like there's a great deal of variety in what employees will put up with.

jayphat: Splinshints: That article is light on details, but I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't they be able to get information on exactly what's owed when they're buying an account on the basis that something is owed....

/ yet, the fact that Brewer signed it suggests heavily that it's idiotic and should be despised because I'm pretty well convinced at this point that she's pure, untapped evil

The problem here us lets say you have a service with company Bob. Bob suddenly adds services you didn't authorize and you dispute, refusing to pay. Company Bob sends you to collections. Instead of an itemized billing, the debt collector can now just use a final bill from Bob as a basis to sue you, even if the bill is 10X what you actually purchased with late fees, convenience fees, fee fees, etc.

Yup ... just pay the man ... found that out YEARS ago with some local cell service ... nice pock mark on my credit history because of a $50 charge I disputed. Who's FICO score went down 50 points when it was time to get pre-approval for a home loan ... sumbiatches ...

Well here in MN, the debt collectors can work as RN's and hit you up in the emergency room. USA, USA, USA.

Nitsu Ryu: After talking with some guys who work for some legislative agencies, I can sort of see how congressmen(and women) help out their constituents more than the "common folk," because they're the ones that go to the offices every day for support. At the same time I wonder if legislators realize that they're screwing over their own people and possibly themselves. There are a lot of people in government that have outrageous debt because they're business owners. I guess they won't care until it comes back to bite them in the ass.

No. They simply file for bankruptcy and move on to their next project. They're JOB CREATORS and therefore must be protected.

Those collection companies are assholes wrapped in evil and dipped in dick sauce. That being said, subby is functionally retarded.

The problem with this is, even without some GOP assistance it's nearly impossible for the common person to fight this sort of thing. If some debt collection company makes a mistake or screws something up, you're on the hook until you can prove otherwise. Usually this involves a lawsuit. Even worse they can bork your credit score and you won't even know about it until you apply for a CC card or something. Again, fixing that also usually takes a lawsuit.

What this does is to make it easier for debt collection companies to bing you for a debt that may very well not be yours, or even exist. An analogy would be in the battle between David and Goliath, giving Goliath a gun with a scope on it. Basically an advantage to an industry that already has an advantage over you, the average consumer.

orclover: /remember foiks, we ASKED for this.

HEY!

I don't vote. I didn't ask for any of this shiat.

/Death for president in 2012
//Lets cut this killed in the war bullshiat and just go straight up Stalin on our people.
///I'm getting tired of waiting to get to the bottom of the barrel.

I love reading the hate...

/one thing farkers are the best at is biatching about something in another part of the country.

Splinshints: That article is light on details, but I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't they be able to get information on exactly what's owed when they're buying an account on the basis that something is owed....


Because debt collectors make shiat up, and make their money on how much a mark pays them. They will pursue anyone, at any time, for any debt. They will file papers in court at old addresses when they have the new one on file. They will lie to get money. They will add bogus fees. They will get money from people who had nothing to do with the original debt. They will misrepresent the law. They will send the police - or pretend to be the police - with threats of arrest.

They are evil. And the worst part is, none of that money goes to party someone originally owed that money to. They already wrote it off.

Freedom of religion and personal responsibility? That place does sound awful.