I've noticed that's a fairly typical response for you. "I don't believe it, so the people that actually deal with the situation are just wrong or making it up. It's all just a conspiracy."
Look, if a business or church does not offer contraceptives as part of their insurance they will have chepaer premiums. If all of a sudden the business or church starts offering contraceptives at zero co-pay, what do you think will happen? In a democrats mind, it won't cost anything. The blue fairy will pay for it. However, in the real world, the increased costs will result in a higher premium for that business or church.
Not exactly what I said. I gave two possible explanations. As it doesn't affect our premiums at all, I cannot see any reason why it would effect theirs. It's that simple. insurance is usually structure in a bulk way, having standardized packages. It makes no logical sense that this would be a cost issue.
But then cost isn't your issue, as I understand you. Remember I asked.
I used to work in the claims area of a major insurance company. So, you are just wrong. There are many items that if determiend not to be for a medical problem, can be and are denied or they will go back to the doctor for additional, clarifying information.
If a man is having trouble with erection, and he goes to the doctor, are you telling me he has no medical condition?
Yes, there is a physical problem in one case and no physicaly problem in the other. Insurance is used to correct physical problems. It has nothing to do with promiscuity. Instead it is about an abnormal physical condition that has to be corrected. If you want to think it's a normal state for a man not to be able to erect or its abnormal for a women to possibly get pregnant after the act, that's on you. Who am I to argue with your definitions of normal.
Women can decide if they want to use it to prevent pregnancy. Women should not expect a church who's teachings speak against using contraceptives and morning after pills to pay for them to use it. The women can take their compensation they recieved in the form of salary and buy all of the contraceptives and pill induced abortions they want. When they expect the church to directly pay for it, there is clearly a infringement upon their constituionally guaranteed rights.
Yeah, he physically can't get an erection. What is the Churches stance on single men fooling around? You know, premarital sex?
And females can have a medical condition that would require them to use contraceptions. They are denied as well.