Did HP say what section they were referencing because I didn't see anything to suggest that, but again, maybe we're all missing something. :confused:

As WhiteRose said - the only thing as I understand it that it said was that if the employee had a condition that required a contraceptive but they were not using it to prevent pregnancy, they would have to submit an explanation and pay out of pocket until it was approved. I'm not sure how an employer would figure out if they were lying or how they could lie and get it approved by a health insurance company. Wouldn't a doctor have to sign off saying they needed it for the medical purpose and why?

HP didn't say where they came up with this. You know a lot of these are hypotheticals. I assume a doctor would have to write a letter attesting to the medical necessity. That's not any different than when insurance companies didn't cover BCP for non-medical reasons in the past.

This would all be moot if we took health insurance benefits decisions out of our employers hands and put them in OUR hands. Then people could choose the riders they wanted. People who need/want birth control options could opt in to the contraception riders. People who were too old to get pregnant, had their tubes tied, etc. could opt out.

I'm tired of my employer choosing my health insurance benefits. I want to choose them. Especially since all of my employers over the last 18 years owned health insurance plans so I have had no real options or choices at all.

Dee, I see this as more of a problem of government intervention in benefit decisions than anything else. Politicians with agendas choosing our benefits= no good. Unfortunately I think this is just an appetizer of things to come.

Would a health reimbursement account allow you to choose what benefits you receive?

I don't have a problem with the government identifying a minimum level of benefits for a basic plan. States do it with auto insurance and that's pretty accepted.

Depending on whether you're talking about the FSA (Flex Spending Account) or HSA (Health Savings Account), it offers some flexibility.

FSAs let you use tax free dollars that you have chosen to have withheld from your paycheck to pay for your health care- co-pays, deductibles, uncovered things. What you don't spend, you lose. On the other hand, if you are putting $3000 into an FSA during the year, you have access to that whole amount on January 1st.

HSAs can be paired with high deductible plans, earn interest, and initial contributions are not taxed. This is the ideal for a young person with minimal health expenses because the money rolls over from year to year also. You can withdraw money from them for other purposes, but are taxed at that point, with a penalty, like withdrawing from an IRA early. Unlike the FSA, if something major happens before you've built up money in your account, you're paying out of pocket instead.

So, either allows you to use pre-tax dollars to pay for whatever you want (if it is an approved expense.. cosmetic stuff isn't covered, prescription birth control is).

My question really would be the justification for suing for "wrongful birth". Like I'm 32. I'm healthy. No family history of diseases that would require an amnio. Since I'm not 35+, I'm not required to get an amnio. So for me all I would have is the ultrasounds. Now, I'm not a medical professional, but it seems that there are some "birth defects" that a plain old 2-d ultrasound isn't going to show.

So if I had a child, let's say next year, and my child was born with down's, for me it's legally how could I even sue. I'm not at the age that an amnio is required, that is the only way to detect DS, so therefore my doctor didn't know. What justification would I have to sue him/her?

Like others have said, I see this as a pandora's box. Let's abort the children who aren't "perfect" (a la Hitler). To me it seems incredibly selfish of the parents and even the child. The parents are saying "I would have aborted my child, but now I'm stuck with them", what the hell does that say to the kid! It says "You're not wanted!!!!" Then the person suing for wrongful life, that is just an oxymoron in its self.

I'm brain dead, so I don't remember the name of the blood test but there is a standard blood test that can tell whether there is a possibility of certain problems such as spina bifida, Down's, etc. It has a very, very high false positive rate but if you do test positive, they do an amnio to verify whether it is a false positive or not. When I was pregnant, I actually refused this test for a couple reasons. First, I was an Occupational Therapist so I figured if God felt like it was my role to mother and nurture a special needs child, I had the resources and knowledge to do so. Second, the false positive rate was so high that I didn't want to go through the worry. I figured it wouldn't make a different to me either way in how I prepared for being a mother.

That said, it was MY decision to refuse that test. If I had that test and was not told the truth about the results, I would be LIVID.

I have read what MC says about the bill, which seems to contradict what the people who sponsored it say to the media, so it's really confusing to most of us. Since it is a patient's right, through HIPAA, to view their medical record, I don't see how withholding medical information from a patient is ever ok.

I'm guessing the law is to protect those doctors who were honest with the parents and up front and then they still choose to have the child, and then because of the cost of taking care of the special needs child decide to sue the doctor claiming "wrongful birth".

The reality is Americans are very "sue happy". There are lawsuits for every BS reason known to man. Malpractice insurance is through the roof.

Yes and no. There have been studies that have proven that tort reform would matter little overall to health care costs but would seriously impact the ability of patients to address true malpractice issues. Mostly physicians need to do a better job of documentation and educating their patients.

As for DS, a triple screen is recommended in all pregnant women. It screens for DS and neural tube defects like spina bifida. The rationale is that knowing about these defects is important for parents for planning. One of the options is termination of the pregnancy. 2D ultrasound can find signs that a fetus has DS even if you refuse the Triple screen blood test. DS fetuses classically have no nasal bones, thickened nuchal folds at 11-16 weeks, ventricular echogenic foci and cardiac anomalies among other findings. This is likely what was seen on the case that was discussed in the article. This isn't a pandora's box. It has been going on for decades quietly and we don't have an epidemic of parent's aborting their DS fetuses. It's a tragic situation that is a personal decision made by individual patients in consultation with their physicians. Few parents make that choice, but they make it with heavy hearts and shouldn't be reviled for their position or decision. But by the grace of god go I...