Missouri lawmakers override Gov. Nixon's birth control bill veto

There are 20 comments on the Sep 13, 2012, SanLuisObispo.com story titled Missouri lawmakers override Gov. Nixon's birth control bill veto. In it, SanLuisObispo.com reports that:

Missouri lawmakers voted Wednesday to override Gov. Jay Nixon's veto and allow employers to refuse to provide health insurance coverage for birth control if doing so violates their religious convictions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at SanLuisObispo.com.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Tom

Kansas City, MO

#1 Sep 13, 2012
Welcome to the theocratic state of Missouri.
guest

United States

#2 Sep 13, 2012
Theocratic my ass. It's a clear example of the people, speaking through their elected representatives, refusing to allow government to dictate what benefits a private employer chooses to offer its employees.

The truth is that a package of condoms just isn't very expensive. Why is it you liberals think everyone else ought to chip in so you can get birth control for free? Have you no shame in shirking your own responsibilities and taking care of yourself?

What has made this the greatest country in the world has been every person's own self reliance and independence. This nation wasn't built by cowardly liberal leeches who are nothing more than parasites on the back of society, sucking away the life blood and killing our economy.
spin doctor

Overland Park, KS

#3 Sep 15, 2012
guest wrote:
Theocratic my ass. It's a clear example of the people, speaking through their elected representatives, refusing to allow government to dictate what benefits a private employer chooses to offer its employees.
The truth is that a package of condoms just isn't very expensive. Why is it you liberals think everyone else ought to chip in so you can get birth control for free? Have you no shame in shirking your own responsibilities and taking care of yourself?
What has made this the greatest country in the world has been every person's own self reliance and independence. This nation wasn't built by cowardly liberal leeches who are nothing more than parasites on the back of society, sucking away the life blood and killing our economy.
You mean makeing laws on religious whims is not theocratic? You are nuts.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#4 Sep 15, 2012
Missouri has legislated pure discrimination. Now any male employer can deny his female employs full access (as men have) to prescription drug coverage under the guise of religion.

For the women like myself who took BC as a twofold remedy, first to reduce difficult menstrual cycles (starting at age 15) and second for family planning now can have their health needs evaluated and dictated by theocrats who practice male superiority religions.

Welcome to the new Dark Ages a repeat of era of conservative/right wing.
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#5 Sep 15, 2012
guest wrote:
Theocratic my ass. It's a clear example of the people, speaking through their elected representatives, refusing to allow government to dictate what benefits a private employer chooses to offer its employees.
The truth is that a package of condoms just isn't very expensive. Why is it you liberals think everyone else ought to chip in so you can get birth control for free? Have you no shame in shirking your own responsibilities and taking care of yourself?
What has made this the greatest country in the world has been every person's own self reliance and independence. This nation wasn't built by cowardly liberal leeches who are nothing more than parasites on the back of society, sucking away the life blood and killing our economy.
Birth control is life saving medicene for some women. Tumor growth, hormone imbalances, endometriosis, PCOS, the hormones are used for more than just contraception.

Should people get to deny them coverage for their medications just b/c the feel like it? Because they see some moral issue with it? One group gets to legally sit in judgement on someone else and restrict their medication coverage?
guest

United States

#6 Sep 16, 2012
spin doctor wrote:
You mean makeing laws on religious whims is not theocratic? You are nuts.
It's not a religious law. It's a law that limits the power of the federal government to mandate what pay and benefits a private employer wishes to offer his employees.

We have a free market economy, or at least we're supposed to. That means employers and employees are free to negotiate their own salary and benefits packages without government coercion.
guest

United States

#7 Sep 16, 2012
Morgana 9 wrote:
Missouri has legislated pure discrimination. Now any male employer can deny his female employs full access (as men have) to prescription drug coverage under the guise of religion.
Bullshit. No one is stopping anyone, male or female, from walzing into any Walmart and buying a box of condoms. The only issue is who should be paying for it.
For the women like myself who took BC as a twofold remedy, first to reduce difficult menstrual cycles (starting at age 15) and second for family planning now can have their health needs evaluated and dictated by theocrats who practice male superiority religions.
More bullshit. No one is stopping you from using any form of birth control you desire. But, YOU should be paying for it, not your employer who will pass that cost along either in the form of higher prices on his products or in a reduction of dividends to the stockholders of his company.

Stop being a leech on society and pay for your own needs out of your own pocket.
guest

United States

#8 Sep 16, 2012
a voter wrote:
Birth control is life saving medicene for some women.
Then THOSE WOMEN should pay for it themselves.
Should people get to deny them coverage for their medications just b/c the feel like it? Because they see some moral issue with it? One group gets to legally sit in judgement on someone else and restrict their medication coverage?
Yep. It's called a free market economy. No one is stopping you from purchasing medications on your own. The only issue is whether employers and insurance companies should be forced to pay for that coverage, and then pass that cost along to every other person in the form of higher premiums.

Think about it like this. Let's suppose you are an excellent driver and qualify for a good drivers insurance pool with very low premiums. Then, government mandates that the insurance company no longer will be allowed to deny drunk drivers with multiple DUIs from being in that same pool.

The insurance company's only response would be to raise the premiums for everyone in order to cover the much higher risk and much higher claims costs due to the drunk drivers.

Now, is that fair to you and all the other excellent drivers? Nope. Shouldn't the drunk drivers be in a high risk pool and pay higher premiums than you and all the other excellent, low risk drivers? Yes they should.

And it's the same with medical insurance. People who don't need nor want birth control should not be forced to purchase that coverage. And employers who are trying to limit insurance costs so they can offer plans to all their employees should not be forced to include coverages that only drive up the cost, especially when Obamacare is mandating that they provide insurance to begin with.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#9 Sep 16, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. No one is stopping anyone, male or female, from walzing into any Walmart and buying a box of condoms. The only issue is who should be paying for it.
<quoted text>
More bullshit. No one is stopping you from using any form of birth control you desire. But, YOU should be paying for it, not your employer who will pass that cost along either in the form of higher prices on his products or in a reduction of dividends to the stockholders of his company.
Stop being a leech on society and pay for your own needs out of your own pocket.
Speaking of bullshit that is all you got Spanky.

What does any of your rant have to do with pure discrimination? Matter of fact you proved my point, and further you proved that discriminatory practices are fine by you.

My BC was covered under my healthcare plan which I am sure pisses you off. Is your Viagra covered under healthcare? If so why are you being a leech?

Denying 99% of prescriptions will certainly lower cost even more right Spanky?

But according to you (and you being a rocket scientist) the company will go bust by providing this one coverage specific unto women. I say we cut prescription coverage that is specific unto males in order to support BC so men won't be saddled with feeling like leeches. Okey dokey Pokey?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10 Sep 16, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Then THOSE WOMEN should pay for it themselves.
<quoted text>
Yep. It's called a free market economy. No one is stopping you from purchasing medications on your own. The only issue is whether employers and insurance companies should be forced to pay for that coverage, and then pass that cost along to every other person in the form of higher premiums.
Think about it like this. Let's suppose you are an excellent driver and qualify for a good drivers insurance pool with very low premiums. Then, government mandates that the insurance company no longer will be allowed to deny drunk drivers with multiple DUIs from being in that same pool.
The insurance company's only response would be to raise the premiums for everyone in order to cover the much higher risk and much higher claims costs due to the drunk drivers.
Now, is that fair to you and all the other excellent drivers? Nope. Shouldn't the drunk drivers be in a high risk pool and pay higher premiums than you and all the other excellent, low risk drivers? Yes they should.
And it's the same with medical insurance. People who don't need nor want birth control should not be forced to purchase that coverage. And employers who are trying to limit insurance costs so they can offer plans to all their employees should not be forced to include coverages that only drive up the cost, especially when Obamacare is mandating that they provide insurance to begin with.
Why shouldn't a medicine used to treat a medical condition be covered under and insurance policy that the employee is alread paying premiums into?
guest

United States

#11 Sep 16, 2012
Morgana 9 wrote:
What does any of your rant have to do with pure discrimination?
Not a thing. And neither does an employer's right to choose what salary and benefits packages he wishes to offer to his employees.
My BC was covered under my healthcare plan which I am sure pisses you off.
It doesn't piss me off one bit UNLESS your employer is only providing that coverage because of a government mandate.
Denying 99% of prescriptions will certainly lower cost even more right Spanky?
I'm sure it would, and if an employer wishes to offer a plan that doesn't cover prescription meds, that should be his choice. It is also your choice whether to work for an employer who doesn't offer prescription med coverage. What's wrong with that?
But according to you (and you being a rocket scientist) the company will go bust by providing this one coverage specific unto women.
I never said that a company would go broke. The point I made is that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The cost for birth control is paid by someone. In the case of insurance coverage, that cost is passed along to every customer in the form of higher premiums.

The thing is this, employers should be free to offer whatever benefits packages they want. That may include a cadillac medical insurance plan, no insurance plan at all, or anything in between. It's wrong for government to mandate what a private business and a private employee agree upon for a wage and benefits package.

As I said, you aren't forced to accept employment that does not include a medical insurance plan that includes birth control if you don't want to. I should likewise be able to purchase a medical insurance plan that does not inlcude coverage that I don't need, such as birth control.
I say we cut prescription coverage that is specific unto males in order to support BC so men won't be saddled with feeling like leeches. Okey dokey Pokey?
I think that would be great for women! In fact, I think we should go a step further and let insurance companies offer hundreds of different policies so consumers can find one that is tailored to their specific needs. That way we don't have people forced to pay for a myriad of coverages they neither want nor need.

IOW, what we need is a free market, not more government mandates like the ones you are advocating and which only drive up medical costs.
guest

United States

#12 Sep 16, 2012
Bitner wrote:
Why shouldn't a medicine used to treat a medical condition be covered under and insurance policy that the employee is alread paying premiums into?
If it's an employer provided plan, then the employer should have the right to decide what is covered in the plan. If we take away that right, the employer has no control over the costs. If government mandates coverage of every exotic treatment, employers may not be financially able to provide insurance coverage at all.

If a woman wants birth control and it isn't covered under her employer provided medical insurance plan, she is free to purchase insurance from any number of companies, or pay for her birth control out of her own pocket.

Like I said before, a box of condoms at Walmart just ain't that expensive. Do you really need insurance to cover it?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#13 Sep 16, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
If it's an employer provided plan, then the employer should have the right to decide what is covered in the plan. If we take away that right, the employer has no control over the costs. If government mandates coverage of every exotic treatment, employers may not be financially able to provide insurance coverage at all.
If a woman wants birth control and it isn't covered under her employer provided medical insurance plan, she is free to purchase insurance from any number of companies, or pay for her birth control out of her own pocket.
Like I said before, a box of condoms at Walmart just ain't that expensive. Do you really need insurance to cover it?
I said nothing about "exotic treatment". It's a common treatment for a medical condition suffered by nearly half of all women. Again, why should that NOT be covered? You still haven't given a reason. Stop dancing around, and just answer the question.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#14 Sep 16, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a thing. And neither does an employer's right to choose what salary and benefits packages he wishes to offer to his employees.
<quoted text>
It doesn't piss me off one bit UNLESS your employer is only providing that coverage because of a government mandate.
<quoted text>
I'm sure it would, and if an employer wishes to offer a plan that doesn't cover prescription meds, that should be his choice. It is also your choice whether to work for an employer who doesn't offer prescription med coverage. What's wrong with that?
<quoted text>
I never said that a company would go broke. The point I made is that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The cost for birth control is paid by someone. In the case of insurance coverage, that cost is passed along to every customer in the form of higher premiums.
The thing is this, employers should be free to offer whatever benefits packages they want. That may include a cadillac medical insurance plan, no insurance plan at all, or anything in between. It's wrong for government to mandate what a private business and a private employee agree upon for a wage and benefits package.
As I said, you aren't forced to accept employment that does not include a medical insurance plan that includes birth control if you don't want to. I should likewise be able to purchase a medical insurance plan that does not inlcude coverage that I don't need, such as birth control.
<quoted text>
I think that would be great for women! In fact, I think we should go a step further and let insurance companies offer hundreds of different policies so consumers can find one that is tailored to their specific needs. That way we don't have people forced to pay for a myriad of coverages they neither want nor need.
IOW, what we need is a free market, not more government mandates like the ones you are advocating and which only drive up medical costs.
An employer is not free to discriminate based on sex. Therefore they are not free to offer a higher wage or benefit package to a male or female doing the same job.....not free to discriminate! The same goes for healthcare coverage by eliminating female prescription drugs while offering a full range of male specific drugs is and will always be discrimination no matter how you twist and turn. When hoping to obtain a civil society there are rules and laws that are in place to function accordingly. What you are suggesting is discriminatory practices, you more than likely feel comfortable as long as the discrimination does not apply to you.

Government has a role in mandating law that allows for equal rights. The market does not get to make the rules they need to play by them. Don't like it? Leave.
guest

United States

#15 Sep 16, 2012
Bitner wrote:
I said nothing about "exotic treatment".
That's true, but if we allow government to mandate what coverage is required, there is nothing to prevent them from forcing insurance companies and employers from covering anything they can dream up.
It's a common treatment for a medical condition suffered by nearly half of all women.
Pregnancy is not a medical condition that women suffer from. Not being pregnant is not a medical condition at all. I'm having trouble following your logic.
Again, why should that NOT be covered? You still haven't given a reason. Stop dancing around, and just answer the question.
I never said it shouldn't be covered. I said that it's wrong for government to force employers to provide insurance coverage that includes it.

If an employer, insurance carrier and employee all agree that birth control coverage is to be provided as part of the employee's pay and benefits package, I'm all for it. However, forcing any one of the three into such an agreement against their will is wrong. That's the issue.

My turn. None of you who support the mandate have stated any valid reason why men and women can't pay for their own contraceptives. Why shouldn't you be able to pay for your own condoms?

Neither have any of you stated any valid reason why the people speaking through their elected representatives via the laws passed by the Legislature should not be honored. Explain that too.
guest

United States

#16 Sep 16, 2012
Morgana 9 wrote:
An employer is not free to discriminate based on sex. Therefore they are not free to offer a higher wage or benefit package to a male or female doing the same job.
Yes they are. It happens at every company in the country. Every employee does not receive the same pay and benefits even if they are doing the same job. Some people are more productive, efficient and just plain better, and if an employer wants to reward that person more than the next, that is his sole right as the employer.
The same goes for healthcare coverage by eliminating female prescription drugs while offering a full range of male specific drugs is and will always be discrimination no matter how you twist and turn.
Again, that is an issue to be decided between the employer and the employee. If your employer offers a male employee an insurance plan as part of his benfits package that includes coverage for viagra, yet the insurance plan he offers to you doesn't cover birth control pills, you are under no obligation to remain employed there and are free to find employment elsewhere. That's called individual choice and free market enterprise.

Involuntary servitude ended in this country almost 150 years ago. You don't have to work for pay and benefits that you find unacceptable. Likewise, an employer should not be forced to offer a pay and benefits package that he finds unacceptable. It's all about mutual agreement without government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
What you are suggesting is discriminatory practices
No I'm not. I'm advocating freedom, liberty, and a limited government. You know, those very things that form the bedrock of American culture.
Government has a role in mandating law that allows for equal rights.
What I'm advocating is the essence of equal rights. You have the right not to accept what the employer is offering. The employer has the right to offer what he believes is acceptable and not be held hostage by an unfunded government mandate.
Don't like it? Leave.
I guess you'll have to leave then, because the government intrusion sought by Gov. Nixon was overriden by the voice of the people. As it stands, employers have the right not to provide insurance coverage that includes birth control.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#17 Sep 16, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
...
My turn. None of you who support the mandate have stated any valid reason why men and women can't pay for their own contraceptives. Why shouldn't you be able to pay for your own condoms?
..
Some people can use Advil, Some must use stronger medication. Prescription strength. Covered by insurance.

Some people can use condoms. Some must use stronger contraception. Prescription strength. Covered by insurance.

The End.
guest

United States

#18 Sep 17, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
Some people can use condoms. Some must use stronger contraception.
Some people "must" use stronger contraception? Isn't it really that some people "desire" to use it? Sounds like a choice to me.

You never did explain why people can't pay for their own contraceptives, or why government must mandate that employers provide such coverage.

I "must" eat to survive. That doesn't mean government should mandate that my employer provide me with three meals per day. Ever heard of individual responsibility?

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#19 Sep 17, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are. It happens at every company in the country. Every employee does not receive the same pay and benefits even if they are doing the same job. Some people are more productive, efficient and just plain better, and if an employer wants to reward that person more than the next, that is his sole right as the employer.
<quoted text>
Again, that is an issue to be decided between the employer and the employee. If your employer offers a male employee an insurance plan as part of his benfits package that includes coverage for viagra, yet the insurance plan he offers to you doesn't cover birth control pills, you are under no obligation to remain employed there and are free to find employment elsewhere. That's called individual choice and free market enterprise.
Involuntary servitude ended in this country almost 150 years ago. You don't have to work for pay and benefits that you find unacceptable. Likewise, an employer should not be forced to offer a pay and benefits package that he finds unacceptable. It's all about mutual agreement without government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
<quoted text>
No I'm not. I'm advocating freedom, liberty, and a limited government. You know, those very things that form the bedrock of American culture.
<quoted text>
What I'm advocating is the essence of equal rights. You have the right not to accept what the employer is offering. The employer has the right to offer what he believes is acceptable and not be held hostage by an unfunded government mandate.
<quoted text>
I guess you'll have to leave then, because the government intrusion sought by Gov. Nixon was overriden by the voice of the people. As it stands, employers have the right not to provide insurance coverage that includes birth control.
Pure bullshit.

Equal rights pertains to the individual, companies/corporations do not get to institute discriminatory practices based on what they feel is appropriate. I have worked in "Human Resources" I know better than the garbage you are peddling.

If a company wishes to hire men only based upon the fact that "they" believe women belong at home, or women do not deserve to be paid for work how do you feel that will work out for them? Of course what you are purposing is exactly what could be enacted under your flimsy ideas. What yThe individual has rights in this country to

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#20 Sep 17, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
That's true, but if we allow government to mandate what coverage is required, there is nothing to prevent them from forcing insurance companies and employers from covering anything they can dream up.
<quoted text>
Pregnancy is not a medical condition that women suffer from. Not being pregnant is not a medical condition at all. I'm having trouble following your logic.
<quoted text>
I never said it shouldn't be covered. I said that it's wrong for government to force employers to provide insurance coverage that includes it.
If an employer, insurance carrier and employee all agree that birth control coverage is to be provided as part of the employee's pay and benefits package, I'm all for it. However, forcing any one of the three into such an agreement against their will is wrong. That's the issue.
My turn. None of you who support the mandate have stated any valid reason why men and women can't pay for their own contraceptives. Why shouldn't you be able to pay for your own condoms?
Neither have any of you stated any valid reason why the people speaking through their elected representatives via the laws passed by the Legislature should not be honored. Explain that too.
I'm not talking about pregnancy. I'm talking about Menorrhagia, which many women suffer from, and for which the number one treatment is a prescrption for hormonal birth control. Why should an employer be allowed to DENY coverage based on religious objection to a legal medical remedy for a very real medical condition?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Insurance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
work place health paid insurance - cannot affor... 19 hr ginnifh 2
News Survey: Nearly 9 in 10 US adults now have healt... Apr 22 Jose A Rodriguez 4
About EHIC Apr 22 kaptanofc 1
News For next president, is there a way out of the h... Apr 21 Go Blue Forever 21
CA Medi-Cal Question Apr 20 Joe Medi-Cal 1
Insurance Marketing in 2015: Tell Us What You T... Apr 16 dnelson 1
Health Insurance Apr 13 Travis Simons 1
More from around the web