Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan
It has to do with the fact that the US can't afford the utopic nanny-state that Fluke is demanding.
So, having an insurance policy that pays for what the client is willing to pay for is a nanny-state?? It is so annoying when people with religious blindness, seem oblivious of it. Please.......have some regard for actual facts.
The faculty, employees and students are required to pay for the University's chosen group
insurance plan, which the University has stipulated must NOT cover birthcontrol
. The US Health Department recommends this coverage be made available by insurance companies.
The insurance policy under discussion, is paid for by all of the employees, faculty and students, not the University and which that same University made compulsory. Fluke's stance is that any group insurance forced
on the employees, faculty and students, of a University, should at least follow the recommended guidelines laid down by the Health Department of the US.
Those who want prescription coverage for birthcontrol attending this institution, need to carry two
insurance policies or pay cash over and above the cost of the inadequate, by government basic standards, of that chosen
by the University.
Perhaps I can make this clearer for those with religious blindness.
If the company one works for goes for a group insurance which they stipulated would only cover heart attacks for women, because the company's "belief" that men need to be spiritual enough to rely on prayer only, to prevent the condition. Of course, this policy would be compulsory for all. Just how well would that go over?