With medical marijuana, it’s a little different. First the idea behind medical marijuana is that it is a being prescribed as a legitimate treatment, not preventive care like ABC. But the better route for an employer is to have a no tolerance policy with regard to marijuana. You don’t have to continue to employ a drug user regardless of why he is using marijuana. Now, if marijuana ever is legal federally, that might change but that’s a different scenario.Normally I would agree that the empolyer has no business in the medical issues of the employee, but if you ask the employer to pay for a product normally used to facilitate a recreational activity they have the right to question it. I sell similarities between this and the medical pot issue. Should an employer be forced to buy their employees pot because some doctors prescribe it?
Good point; that’s where there’s going to be some issues to resolve. I’m an employer and don’t want a dime of my money going toward abortion or ABC.Normally I would agree that the empolyer has no business in the medical issues of the employee, but if you ask the employer to pay for a product normally used to facilitate a recreational activity they have the right to question it. I sell similarities between this and the medical pot issue. Should an employer be forced to buy their employees pot because some doctors prescribe it?
There is that ultra small minority of women with legitimate medical conditions that have to be treated with hormone therapy. But the vast majority use it purely to facilitate recreational activities.With medical marijuana, it’s a little different. First the idea behind medical marijuana is that it is a being prescribed as a legitimate treatment, not preventive care like ABC. But the better route for an employer is to have a no tolerance policy with regard to marijuana. You don’t have to continue to employ a drug user regardless of why he is using marijuana. Now, if marijuana ever is legal federally, that might change but that’s a different scenario.
In a free country that would be possible. Unfortunately that will result in fines and I presume that if you do not pay those fines, jail time.Good point; that’s where there’s going to be some issues to resolve. I’m an employer and don’t want a dime of my money going toward abortion or ABC.
One way of solving it is to compensate the employee for buying their own health care, and the employer getting some sort of deduction for doing so. That way the employee is the one responsible for spending the money on health care, making their own choice as to what is covered.
That is an interesting point. I wonder if the Catholic hospitals would get to gether, could they get the drug companies to offer a dosage that is strong enough to treat those conditions but not so strong that it closes off the potential for life.If a woman needed hormone therapy and was denied coverage because the most convenient and cheapest dosing and packaging is ABC, she could always have it compounded. I do not know how much this would affect the price. A significant benefit is that compounding would allow her to start with a lower dose. ABC has to have enough hormone to work as ABC, but as a hormone therapy a lower dose might work well, and reduce side effects.
That’s not the point. The Church teaches that the contraceptive effect is tolerated if the drug is being used as treatment. It is not essential that the drug be low enough to preserve fertility. But often the drugs are given at higher doses than needed just because the pill packs are so handy and available from virtually any pharmacy.That is an interesting point. I wonder if the Catholic hospitals would get to gether, could they get the drug companies to offer a dosage that is strong enough to treat those conditions but not so strong that it closes off the potential for life.
That’s why employers should be able to purchase coverage for their employees that treat all condidtions appropriately (including prescriptions) but does not include prescriptions for contraception purposes. If some employees abuse the policy, the insurance company will ferret them out. It doesn’t want to pay for abuses either.There is that ultra small minority of women with legitimate medical conditions that have to be treated with hormone therapy. But the vast majority use it purely to facilitate recreational activities.
But with the buying power of the church, You would think they could get it packed in smaller doses.That’s not the point. The Church teaches that the contraceptive effect is tolerated if the drug is being used as treatment. It is not essential that the drug be low enough to preserve fertility. But often the drugs are given at higher doses than needed just because the pill packs are so handy and available from virtually any pharmacy.
As a woman that needs hormone therapy…If a woman needed hormone therapy and was denied coverage because the most convenient and cheapest dosing and packaging is ABC, she could always have it compounded. I do not know how much this would affect the price. A significant benefit is that compounding would allow her to start with a lower dose. ABC has to have enough hormone to work as ABC, but as a hormone therapy a lower dose might work well, and reduce side effects.