Great Poster
Member
6/10...would have scored higher, but not yet into the pun phase of the thread...haven't gotten past the angst yet
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Arizona Legislature "Employers can fire you for using birth control"
- Thread starter Chumly
- Start date
- Status
6/10...would have scored higher, but not yet into the pun phase of the thread...haven't gotten past the angst yet
War is exempt because Jeezus is the real God and he fucking loves war. Mars ain't got shit on this guy.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
There is no financially sound argument for not covering birth control medication. Unwanted pregnancies are a huge financial burden on employers, employees, and the state.
Edit: I should ad that, as has been pointed out above, this isn't even the worst part of this proposal. They are also attempting to remove 'people who use contraception' from employee non-discrimination clauses.
As for your notion that it's ridiculous that you should have to pay for women's health, by that same notion is it not ridiculous that people have to pay for heart disease and diabetes medication, most of which would be easily preventable with proper diet and and exercise? Or Dental care? Why don't these stooges just brush and floss? A broken leg? Why are you engaging in risky behavior like playing sports? The entire point of insurance is collectively reducing the penalty for risk, thereby promoting collectively promoting health.
Edit 2: The name calling isn't contributing to the discussion guys. It's just going to lead to a thread derail.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Reason will find no place among them. They abandoned it a long, long time ago.
No need for intelligent posting or reading the Goddamn OP either, it would seem.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Obama trying to work on exemptions for special cases like with the self-insured Catholic Church to facilitate women being able to still get birth control via third-party measures so sidestep the entire issue and make everyone happy?
I kind of thought the whole issue here -- i.e. that you see stupid legislation like this -- is that people didn't let it be and decided to seize this moment to make the government mandate sound worse than it actually is and fight back against a phantom threat of perceived big government trampling on morality?
So, a post like this:
I'll hear you out. But your current rhetoric strikes me personally as really disingenuous.
I kind of thought the whole issue here -- i.e. that you see stupid legislation like this -- is that people didn't let it be and decided to seize this moment to make the government mandate sound worse than it actually is and fight back against a phantom threat of perceived big government trampling on morality?
So, a post like this:
really mischaracterizes the current climate. This bill is really overreaching compared to what is currently in place pre-Obamacare.xavi42 said:
I'll hear you out. But your current rhetoric strikes me personally as really disingenuous.
Come on, man. You're better than that.
He has a moral objection to you being so dense as to not even understand what the debate in this thread is about.
You can't force him to not tell you that you're an imbecile.
Fascist.
Hell no. We have our own shit to deal here. Your war on drugs specifically.
I think you and a lot of people here are missing the point. This is a clear attack on women's rights, especially considering viagara is covered and is primarily used for procreation, where as the birth control pill has NUMERIOUS medical benifits outside procreation.
I think this quote from the article puts it all in perspective:
It is not as simple as employers simply refusing to not cover contraception it is basically applying a corperation's moral rights over the rights of individual female employees and terminating them based on those needs.
StopMakingSense
Member
Anyone should be absolutely fucking terrified by the prospect of an employer being allowed to fire an employee over their private medical needs. /cancer survivor
Dude Abides
Banned
The lawless always claim the law is unjust. Sometimes they are right but not here.
Yea yea I know. People with different opinions get shouted down around here. Name calling is someone being lazy, unable to articulate any reasonable argument.
Great Poster
Member
That makes the whole thing different. A prescription is a prescription. Then I agree it's discriminatory. I always did agree that it is, I was just trying to ask if we'd ever be surprised by companies trying to save money.
My entire post was written in a matter of asking for clarification on my current understanding of the issue. It's like you're mad at me for asking for clarification. I mean, feel free to continue hating my ignorance, but why respond at all if you don't want to help someone that's asking for help?
It's still a good day not to be an American.
Yes, I was merely asking if we can be surprised that companies want to get out of paying as much as they can - and when they have the argument of "I shouldn't have to pay for the fact that you sleep around" or similar, they'll use it to its fullest. I'm not saying they are in the right to do so, but companies get big by fucking over competition and paying as little as they can to everyone, so my biggest qualm here is that someone thought it was a good idea to push the expenses of this onto companies that we know always wants to save money.
Is there any other medication that sends a 'flag' that would force you to explain yourself to your employer? Because that's the biggest bullshit. You've already gotten the prescription from your doctor, and the insurance company gets the claim - having to also go to your boss and say "Yeah, well.. my vagina has this problem, here's the proof".
What if a girl just wants to regulate her cycle? What if she takes it to reduce severe acne? What if she has a high chance of passing on a particular disorder and thus does not want to have kids, at least not right now? What if she just likes to fuck bare back?
How the hell this matters to an employer, I have no idea. The employer has already -paid- the insurance company, it doesn't cost them a single extra dollar to provide birth control.
What if a girl just wants to regulate her cycle? What if she takes it to reduce severe acne? What if she has a high chance of passing on a particular disorder and thus does not want to have kids, at least not right now? What if she just likes to fuck bare back?
How the hell this matters to an employer, I have no idea. The employer has already -paid- the insurance company, it doesn't cost them a single extra dollar to provide birth control.
I'm sure all of this nonsense will end up in the Supreme Court one day.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
So are any employers actually going to USE the concepts put forward in these new laws?
Talk about an instant nationwide boycott.
Not only are these laws ridiculous and disturbing, they are also a huge waste of time.. these lawmakers are spending taxpayer dollars to sit around arguing about shit that no company would ever actually do, because they would face WAY too much backlash. Not to mention, only complete MORONS would work for a company or support such practices. Talk about guaranteeing your workforce is mentally inept.
Talk about an instant nationwide boycott.
Not only are these laws ridiculous and disturbing, they are also a huge waste of time.. these lawmakers are spending taxpayer dollars to sit around arguing about shit that no company would ever actually do, because they would face WAY too much backlash. Not to mention, only complete MORONS would work for a company or support such practices. Talk about guaranteeing your workforce is mentally inept.
One does not need a reasonable argument against someone who is completely unreasonable or so astoundingly wrong and ignorant as to BE unreasonable.
Orayn will continue to make reasonable arguments against you but you will continue to obfuscate the point or throw up straw-men. It is completely within means for him to call you an imbecile if true.
companies like mcdonalds or walmart wouldn't but small businesses wouldn't give a damn and wouldn't really suffer from huge backlash. although i don't think mcdonalds or walmart pay for health insurance but you know what i mean.
maniac-kun
Member
America is turning into a extremist shithole. The whole political process in the US is a joke.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Reasonable arguments have been fully articulated. You seem to either dance around them or miss the points (and their underlying implications) entirely. You pick and choose which posts to respond to and what parts of which posts to respond to.
It's clearly a game to you, which you have no intention of discussing honestly. You still haven't offered your thoughts on how frustrated you've been with the decade of Viagra and Cialis coverage employers have apparently been forced to cover without getting any papers to prove to their employers that they were needed for procreation.
Show me the outrage at the prospect that that these have been covered for a more than decade, unchecked. Think of all the money it's cost. All the diseases that insurance had to pay to treat thanks to the infested penises Godless Viagra users waved around, spreading viruses and bacteria to unsuspecting partners. Are you ready to take up arms yet?
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
I guess.. but you'd be surprised what the internet can do, even to a small business.
I just don't see a lot of companies backing this.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I imagine in some communities and in certain states (we know the ones), small businesses would be applauded by local patrons.
agreed, but even the potential is disturbing. and local businesses supported by local, like-minded individuals won't be affected by interwebz.
How many times must he articulate his argument?
He simply doesn't think Women should be in control of their own bodies.
Is that too much to ask?
distantmantra
Member
Move to a big city. We're insulated from this stuff for the most part in Seattle.
With that said, this stuff should still be fought against.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
It's beyond disturbing to me for sure.. it's outright disgusting.
I'm baffled. I couldn't imagine even a single person supporting something like this where I live.. but maybe I'm sheltered from backasswardness.
Great Poster
Member
It really shouldn't matter...even proposing such a law on the books is reason enough to rage against it. This panders to such a small minority. And as stated, it (almost surely) violates FEDERAL HIPAA law...now I know the whole "state's rights" advocates will show up en masse, but this is a terrible law for so many reasons. An employer "not using it" shouldn't even be an option.
Maleficence
Member
America has to be the only 1st world country where employers seem to have more rights than employees.
Dreams-Visions
Member
The supporters in this thread are fucking me up. A large part of me wishes they'd post a big "SIKE! I was trolling you guys haha" post just so that I can feel better. I don't understand how a rational, reasonable American can be okay with any of this.
It is beyond my scope of understanding, and I can usually empathize with a lot.
Women having the same rights as men is just, like, your opinion man. (This is the part of the discussion where religious nuts deny using the same post-modernist thinking as the liberals they supposedly hate.)
Count Dookkake
Member
Can a fireman choose to not respond to fire at a mosque?
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
I don't disagree.. but the law is passed.. so I was speaking more practically about what it will actually DO. It allows employers to do things, it doesn't require them too.
I'm hoping if/when any company tries to take advantage of this there is a huge story made out of it. It's one way we can MAYBE move past this phase in politics is to really make it clear the public won't stand for such laws.
I'm hoping at least.
Do I think it is just for women to have to go their employer to have to justify their birth control usage? No! My point is that we should not have to be in this position in the first place.
What position is that?
Seems to me it would be your boss requiring that if you try to submit an insurance claim, not the state.
My guess is the "You can be fired for using birth control!" rage is really "You can be fired if you submit a false claim to pay for birth control for a covered condition you don't really have, and then you let the beans spill that you don't have that condition.".
It's no different than any other insurance fraud where you lie to get a prescription or treatment covered and then someone finds out. If your plan doesn't cover something for whatever reason, then lying to get it covered is fraud, and getting caught could get you fired.
The law is about whether or not employers can be forced to cover (through the negotiated insurance plans they offer) specific things.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Pretty sure no doctor is required to perform abortions...
Uh. Perhaps you should read the thread before you talk about these things...
As has been pointed out before, they're trying to take this quote out of the existing law:
Great Poster
Member
Maybe you mistyped, or I'm misunderstanding you...its just a bill right now (remember school house rocks -- I'm just a bill, I'm only a bill...yeah yeah, that was federal, this is state, but same concept).
Until it becomes law, and remember Jan "the man" Brewer...she'd sign this fucker in a heartbeat...
I get your point of consequences in dealing with those who would choose to actively execute such a law, but to me, its far more troublesome that a law would be raised...by a woman no less...I'm having a hard time reconciling in my mind why anyone would even try it, but then I'm brought back to the realization that this is an election year, a black man is the leader of these United States, and the Republican party has turned the crazy to 11.
I'm just going to bold and quote this because I think people are missing just how insane this actually is.
Was trying to make the point that I wouldn't be surprised if the next bill made it harder for rape victims to get abortions but I jumbled everything up.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Ah, thanks.. I read that it passed, but that was only in the house.
Seems almost destined to pass.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
That's what I was thinking too. But how can this be enforced? I can't imagine many employers investigating women for insurance fraud and then having them fired.
Omegasquash
Member
I'm at a loss for words, so I'll just say "Fuck you, Arizona."
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Yeah it doesn't make a lot of sense. They require you to submit some sort of proof, but wouldn't it be illegal for them to verify said proof? Privacy laws and all of that.
None of this makes any sense though in any realm of logic.
I feel like we are living in the new dark ages.. these weird people obsessing over ensuring all sex is had for the purpose of procreation.. it's really sad. I doubt any of these people have ever had anyone be attracted to them, or felt any sort of real sexual excitement. I also suspect a lot of repressed homosexuality.. they've never felt a lot of drive for sex because they have forced themselves into never being engaged with the sex they are actually attracted to.
It's about the only way I can make any sense of this obsession. Tons of repression for sure.
I hope that's why people are defending this.
- Status