ST Alpha - "the article says as much. They're taking it further and assuming that an employer will fire you after forcing you to disclose that info. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 165

In response to "I'm assuming you read the 1.5 pages of the bill to see what it does, right? -- (link)" by spamlet

the article says as much. They're taking it further and assuming that an employer will fire you after forcing you to disclose that info. -- nm

Posted by loosilu (aka loosilu2) Mar 13 '12, 14:19

(No message)

Responses:

"This is a direct violation of my third amendment rights!" -- nm - Beryllium Mar 13, 14:22
And if the employer has access to your medical information seems to me HIIPA would have something to say about that? -- nm - MojaveMeg Mar 13, 14:21 16
- yeah,I don't get that. -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:23
- It's not your employer. It's the medical plan. - spamlet Mar 13, 14:22 14
  - which, also only covers businesses, these sections do not apply to plans sold - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:33
  - so, actually the employer would never know? -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:23 12
    - Right - which completely negates the argument being made in the article, -- nm - MojaveMeg Mar 13, 14:30
    - It says employers can opt out of coverage for contraceptives if they have religious reasons. - spamlet Mar 13, 14:24 10
      - I'll try to c&P the actual language - spamlet Mar 13, 14:26 9
        
        there's more.. women could have to pay in advance, then submit a claim with proof of a non-pregnancy-related need; and they can be charged a fee. - b. Mar 13, 14:31 5
        
        Actually, that's pro-woman. They could just say no contraceptive medicine would be paid for no matter the reason. - spamlet Mar 13, 14:32 3
        
        it's pro some women, except for the ridiculousness of the hoop-jumping being required for women with common medical conditions. - b. Mar 13, 14:35
        
        ok, explain this - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:34
        
        well, they are. The exception is for a noncontraceptive medicine. -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:33
        
        ayup -- nm - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:32
        
        basically, it says an employer must file an affidavid stating its objection to coverage of contraceptives for - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:29 2
        
        Yes and that women can submit proof that the contraception medicine is for non-contraceptive purposes to still get reimbursement. -- nm - spamlet Mar 13, 14:30 1
        
        Which is the case in many instances, yes - it can help with acne and other hormone-related issues. -- nm - Beryllium Mar 13, 14:32
Because it's right to work? - spamlet Mar 13, 14:21 1
- right, they are just taking it further, because AZ is an at will state. it's a stretch. -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:22

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.