quote:

I was fantastic, I'm sure of it, although I don't remember that much myself

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

You don't remember? What do you think the fucking Margarita's is for?

I was fantastic, I'm sure of it, although I don't remember that much myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Did you really "look into" this? Did you read the entire bill?

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2625h.htm&Session_ID=107

It has nothing to do with lying on insurance claims, which is insurance fraud and already illegal and has everything to do with getting around the 2000 mandate that companies that provide health insurance provide contraceptive coverage and the 2012 mandate that said contraceptive coverage is provided with no co-pay. Both mandates, btw, the insurance companies are willing to provide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

You don't remember? What do you think the fucking Margarita's is for?

I was fantastic, I'm sure of it, although I don't remember that much myself.

Im sure you were:) LMAO But if it had been me, you would have scars:)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

We are in crazy times. People need to stand up for their rights, or they will piece by piece, bit by bit, be eroded away, and we will 100 years down the road wonder what exactly happened....

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Thanks tazzy...the bill still does not give the OK to terminate however

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

".lying to an employer's insurance representative in order to get contraceptives paid for when they would not normally pay for them"

That's called INSURANCE FRAUD via filing a false claim. And it's always been illegal.

Why are the people who are screaming about Big Government passing laws which aren't needed because the 'crime' they create is already covered under existing legislation?

If I were to GUESS... there's likely no current provision/exemption in the law (for privacy reasons) for an employer to request an employee covered under their health plan provide documentation showing the purpose/need of certain meds -- but again, that's just a guess?!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Right bill.. wrong area.

HERE is what has everyone up in arms... Its not what is in it, its what was stricken from it...

E. A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.
F. For the purposes of this section, "religious employer" means an entity for which all of the following apply:
1. The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
2. The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
3. The entity is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(2)(A)i or iii of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended.

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2625h.htm&Session_ID=107

This section is at the very bottom of the document... and this part was stricken from the bill. Section E.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

I've looked into this. This bill prevents someone from lying to an employer's insurance representative in order to get contraceptives paid for when they would not normally pay for them just for contraceptive purposes. It requires a prescription supported by a non-contraceptive diagnosis. I also point out this is not a hippa issue since you will be giving this information to the insurance company representative and such information may always be required for any type of insured health care compensaton by a diagnosis and not only just for contraceptives . A diagnosis for "not wanting children" is not exactly what some companies or organizations who do not believe in contraceptives will pay for and so they are protected from misrepresenting the contraceptive purpose, from employees lying (imagine that) to get around policies whose purose is to prevent payments for contraceptives used just to prevent pregnancy. So, no issues exist as presented here or in the article linked to in the OP. Much to-do about absolutely nothing except enforcing truth when filing insurance claims.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


"At will" states allow companies to fire an employee with out cause, but they still cannot be fired for sex, race, etc. and so otherwise cannot fire a person when doing so falls outside the law. As long as the reason does not conflict with any law, firing with out cause is allowed.

Firing a woman for using contraceptives while not doing likewise for men makes it arguably a XIV amendment issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

I was fantastic, I'm sure of it, although I don't remember that much myself

Next time you'll mark the glass you dump the ruffies into

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

I've made no bones about being a die hard liberal bordering on socialist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

I've made no bones about being a die hard liberal bordering on socialist.

How do you manage to place those two 'bordering' on each other?

Is this one of those things where the term refers to the ones that at some point used the term before departing from the ideology, kind of like how 'conservative' and 'radical' swapped meaning in the double aughts, or how 'Christian' means 'fear-driven hatemonger' now?

Health,
al-Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah


...............True, and this law makes about as much sense as saying "I can fire someone for not drinking milk." They're not doing anything illegal. They're not breaking any existing law. The most the employer could say was that "they were doing something I don't approve of," and the SCOTUS would just LOVE to take a case like that. Talk about a classic case for Freedom of Religion...Freedom from Religion. Heck, even Clarence Thomas might join in that opinion.

Okay...maybe I was being too extreme. I'm not sure about the Clarence Thomas thing...since I don't know where he stand on drinking milk.

quote:

We need to limit churches to operating just churches. Sorry, but that's all the accommodation you're getting. If you want to operate an business and employ people, that's not a church, so you get to obey all the rules, pay property tax, etc....

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

I'm a social liberal, in that I believe that society, which includes the government, are responsible to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. It also requires that society (government included) protect the environment, freedoms, etc. Socialism, as I was taught, is the social ownership of the means of production, etc. I believe there are times when social ownership is not only necessary, but optimal as in the auto bailout, but usually these necessary steps should be necessary. There are, however, times when I believe the near-total social and/or governmental ownership of certain industries would be optimal--as in health insurance coverage. I am a big proponent of a public option, Medicare-for-All, but that would not preclude the choice for people chose a private insurance.

Perhaps you see no distinction in my phrasing, but I see a fine line between liberal and socialist