Plastic surgery is elective.

Birth control is elective.

Lasix is elective.

Sterilization procedures, male or female are elective.

Pills and devices to prevent pregnancy are elective.

Prenatal and birthing care, while the result of an elective choice on the part of the consumer do fall under the umbrella of necessary health care.

I, however, shouldn't have to pay extra on MY premiums because YOU got knocked up, and now have to also insure your offspring. Extra people on your policy should be paid by YOU, not by my employer.

I would hardly put birth control in the same catagory as plastic surgery, and if I were a member of an HMO, I'd rather chip in for birth control pills, rather than labor room costs. I agree that HMO members should pay for the cost of insuring their own offspring.

I understand what you are saying here, but isn't the whole point of insurance to have everyone pay into the system to cover the costs of those who need it? If you really wanted to be responsible for just your own hide, you wouldn't have insurance at all. You would pay out of pocket for the procedures you get yourself, and you would hope you never get cancer, heart disease, etc.

I'm a thin, healthy-food eating, active, non-smoking adult. I don't like my money going to cover the obese, sedentary, McDonald's-eating smokers, but we are all in this boat together. That's the whole point of insurance.

Damn, don't you have any fun? :eyebrow:

Insurance companies cover Viagra, Cialis, etc. So why not birth control?

Only if the need is explained and justified, by a Doctor for a medical condition. :dead:

In an earlier thread a lot of people were posting in defense of an employee who had been fired for persistently breaking company rules and eating pork on the premises. In that instance Lookout if i am not much mistaken you felt that the employers were being unreasonable.

Perhaps the fact that these are Catholics and therefore a part of the Christian spectrum (and as such less alien and more understandable to us than the moslem employers who did not wish their employees to bring forbidden substances into their offices) means we are more forgiving of their ideosyncracies

But the Muslim employers weren't being forced to BUY the woman her pig sandwich. The Catholic employer's not saying their employees can't use birth control on the premises or off, only that they're not going to pay for it.

it may seem a fine line Dana, but i think that is the essence of what bothers me about this.

IIRC the muslim company had no written policies regarding pork consumption, just a word of mouth warning. the employee was fired for eating it during her unpaid lunch break.

the catholic company's insurance rider would spell out in detail what is covered and what isn't. it is the individual's responsibility to decide to work there or not. they can do whatever they choose to do with their body as there is no requirement to be catholic in order work there. but to turn around and sue a company that is tied (but not closely enough) to the catholic church for not including BC in insurance coverage, knowing full well that BC isn't compatible with church doctrine?

Ok, that makes sense.

Why the hell can't Catholics use birth control anyway?

The Pope says only god can determine when a child is conceived. Humans have no right to think for themselves nor control their own body. That is god's domain. All contraception - except the rythm method - is out. Sex is for making kids. This from a man who 'theoretically' does not come from where the work gets done.