Oakland, U.S.A. — Ask.com, an online brand for questions and answers, announced on November 15, the results of its job benefits study, conducted online by Harris Interactive among U.S. adults during the month of October. The 2012 State of the Workplace: Benefits and Perksstudy reveals that 95 percent of Americans weigh job benefits and perks before deciding to either stay put or take a new position. Benefits such as health insurance, 401K matching, paid time off and life insurance are so critical, more than half of U.S. workers (60 percent) would rather spend a night in jail than go without.

“Our goal here was to get a national view of what potential recruits value most, while pinpointing how job seekers in the West might differ,” said Lisa Ross, vice president of human resources at Ask.com. “While it’s clear that perks like free massages resonate with Westerners in particular, they pale in comparison to the value all Americans put on benefits like paid life insurance and tuition assistance.”

Healthcare: Worth Sleeping in the Slammer? 
Benefits and perks are so coveted, Americans say they’re worth a night behind bars. Men (64 percent) are more likely to indicate this than women (56 percent).

• U.S. adults (77 percent) list health insurance as the benefit that most factors into their employment decision.
  • Surprisingly, those without children (80 percent) are more likely to choose health insurance than those with children in the household (70 percent).
• Other benefits that topped the list for Americans include:
  • Retirement/401K matching (69 percent)
  • Paid time off (66 percent)
  • Life insurance (54 percent)
  • Ease of commute/proximity to transportation (49 percent)
  • Stock options (39 percent)
  • Tuition assistance (35 percent)

More Me Time, Please!
Americans are also protective of personal time, actively seeking employers invested in their health and well-being.

• More than a third said unlimited paid time off (PTO), telecommuter flexibility, and access to a free on-site gym/fitness center would encourage them to take or keep a job (34 percent each).
• American workers despise time wasted in gridlock. Half of respondents base their decision on a job on how close it is to public transportation, or the ease of the commute (49 percent).

Unlimited Vacation…For Real? 
Unlimited PTO is gaining traction with companies such as Netflix, Zynga and Ask.com embracing the concept. But how do Americans feel?

• Sixty-nine percent said they would be swayed to take a new job if the company offered unlimited PTO.
• Unlimited PTO matters more to single people (42 percent) than those who are married (30 percent) or divorced (27 percent).
• Is it really unlimited? Nearly half of U.S. adults (48 percent) worry about how much personal time they can actually take from their job.

Surprise…What Else They Want

• Western adults (21 percent) are more likely to be encouraged to take or keep a job with an on-site masseuse than those in the Northeast and South (14 percent and 12 percent, respectively).
• A job that comes with a clothing allowance is a big draw for many (26 percent), more so than a childcare subsidy or onsite childcare (22 percent).
• Younger adults (18-34 -year-olds) are more likely to want a nap room (24 percent), free dry cleaning (19 percent), and a personal shopper (16 percent) than adults 35 and older.
• Offering weekend trips planned for employees and their families on anniversaries and birthdays can also sway job seekers (18 percent).

“Silicon Valley companies are known for offering unusual perks like onsite haircuts and laundry service, which are nice-to-haves,” said Ross. “But at the end of the day, what American workers value most are employers committed to their health and well-being and those who are actively invested in their overall quality of life.”

Ask.com also released an infographic here detailing the benefits of adopting an unlimited PTO policy, a benefit the company offers.

The article Survey Shows Americans Prefer a Night in Jail to Losing Job Benefits appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. — The U.S. Census Bureau has released 2010 estimates of health insurance coverage for each of the nation’s roughly 3,140 counties. Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE) are the only source for single-year estimates of health insurance coverage status for every county in the nation.

These estimates are available by sex, age groups, race and Hispanic origin (for states only), and income-to-poverty ratios. As in past years, the estimates pertain to those younger than 65 as a whole. However, for the first time, there are estimates of coverage at the county level for those in the 50 to 64 age group.

By 2014, changes to the law will extend certain Medicaid benefits to uninsured people falling into specific income groups, and SAHIE estimates will permit users to track the impact of the law on small counties. The estimates also enable local planners to determine, for instance, the counties in which low-income children are most likely to lack health insurance. The mapping tools available on the SAHIE website can also show regional trends in coverage, displaying for instance, that small counties with a high range of uninsured children are mostly in Texas, Nevada and Montana, and small counties with a low range of uninsured are mostly in the Northeast and Midwest.

The new inclusion of the 50 to 64 age category allows tracking of the insurance status of this population, which is more likely to consume health care compared with younger age groups. Knowing the number of uninsured at this older age group allows planners and health care officials to better prepare for the health care needs of this population.

SAHIE is partially funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and others in the health care field. The CDC uses these statistics in support of its National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, providing free cancer screenings to low-income, uninsured women.

“We use SAHIE data to more effectively gauge the level of need for breast and cervical cancer screening in various geographic jurisdictions across the country,” said Marcus Plescia, director of the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control in Atlanta. “The information provided by SAHIE data is important to us in program planning and management, targeting and resource allocation decisions and evaluation.”

The estimates are based on statistical models combining data from a variety of sources, including the American Community Survey (ACS), Census Bureau population estimates, administrative records (such as aggregated federal tax returns and Medicaid participation records) and 2000 Census statistics.

At present, SAHIE is the only source of health insurance estimates for all counties. There are no county estimates derived from the Current Population Survey. In September, the Census Bureau will release health insurance coverage estimates for counties with a population of 65,000 or more from the 2011 ACS. The following month, similar estimates will be released for counties with a population of 20,000 or more from the 2009-2011 ACS. Starting next year, the five-year estimates from ACS will include statistics on health insurance coverage for all areas, regardless of size.

The article Health Insurance Estimations for Each County Released appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York, U.S.A. – As the Supreme Court readies for its ruling on the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes referred to as “Obamacare,” Americans have different opinions on components of the law, depending on the type of health insurance they currently have. Specifically, over half of U.S. adults who have purchased health insurance individually (54%) think employers should not be required to provide employee health insurance compared to only 28% of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance who think this. Additionally, over half of those with individual health insurance (55%) think the government should play a role in assuring access to health insurance, compared to almost two-thirds of Americans with employer-sponsored coverage (64%).

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,208 U.S. adults (ages 18 and over) surveyed online between June 12 and 14, 2012 by Harris Interactive.

Two thirds of Americans (66%) agree that having health insurance should be a personal choice, so there may be some general disapproval of the ACA’s individual mandate. However, Americans do agree with some of the ACA’s other provisions. For example, over four in five U.S. adults agree that neither children nor adults should be denied health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition (83%) and nearly three-quarters of Americans agree that tax credits should be offered to individuals if they purchase their own health insurance (74%).

However, when looking at the data by the type of insurance respondents currently have, some distinct differences can be seen. Interestingly, among those that have individual coverage, almost half (46%) agree that all people do not need to be covered by health insurance, compared to 30% among those with employer-sponsored coverage and 36% among those that have no insurance at all. Those with individual insurance are also slightly less likely to agree (79%) that adults and children with pre-existing coverage should not be denied coverage, compared to those with employer-sponsored plans (86% adults; 85% children) and Medicare (82% adults; 83% children).

When asked to rate how important 11 different aspects of health insurance are, over nine in ten Americans say access to the doctors, hospitals and services they need is important (91%) while nine in ten say coverage for prescriptions (90%) and availability of insurance if they have a pre-existing condition (90%) are important. Those who have employer sponsored health insurance are more likely than those with insurance they have purchased themselves to say each of the 11 aspects is important when it comes to health insurance. Some of the larger differences are seen when looking at coverage for prescriptions (95% vs. 76%), coverage for preventative care (93% vs. 74%), and coverage for wellness programs (84% vs. 65%).

Additionally, when asked which two things are most important when it comes to health insurance, one aspect rises to the top – two in five Americans say one of the two most important aspects is access to the doctors, hospitals and services they need (39%). The next three are financial as about one-quarter of U.S. adults say financial protection from major health crises (27%), lower out of pocket costs (26%), and low premiums (24%) are most important.

“The importance of health insurance to the American consumer cannot be understated regardless of the opinion issued by the Supreme Court,” said Debra Richman, Senior Vice President of Healthcare Business Development & Strategy at Harris Interactive. “This is especially true for consumers who individually purchase health insurance plans, a market of growing significance to health insurers. It will be imperative for health insurers to increase their focus on how those in the individual market ‘consume’ health insurance, including what plan features they prefer, and what they will and conversely will not choose to buy. Financial protection from major health crises, access to providers, convenience, and quality will be key factors as individual health consumers make purchasing decisions, despite how the Supreme Court rules on the individual coverage mandate.”

The article Employers Should Not Provide Healthcare, Americans Say appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Despite the economic recession, it is not all that difficult to get a loan when times are tough. The hard part is being able to pay back those loans, in full, and in a certain time frame. And among those struggling the most are recent college graduates who can’t find jobs. In fact, so many things have to go right for things to be uncomplicated for a college graduate since the recession. Without a paycheck, the student loans quickly become a huge burden.

With the Baby Boomer generation retiring at an older age, it is increasingly difficult for college graduates to find jobs. In fact, according to a report from MSNBC, in 2009 “employers would hire 22% fewer college graduates than in 2008.” Additionally many baby boomers are stalling retirement because the financial recession wiped out many of their 401K retirement plans. Along with the financial crisis comes federal budget cuts, which is reducing the number of jobs available, especially toward those fresh out of college.

Another financial burden for college students is the cost of health insurance. Bowling Green State University School Health Director Dr. Glen Egelman stated that “some universities are requiring that students have health insurance before they are admitted to college, and if they don’t, they must buy into the school’s student health care plan or obtain their own insurance.”

Julio Manceras, a former student at the University of Texas, knows all too well what student loans, federal budget cuts and lack of health insurance can do to a college student. At the age of 19, Julio was hospitalized and diagnosed with a severe health condition known as “Supra-Ventricular Tachycardia, a condition that occurs when one’s heart has irregular electrical pathways.”

After Julio’s tenth stay in the hospital, his medical costs exceeded $500,000.00 because his family did not have health insurance. The hospital wanted to apply the financial aid from UT towards his medical costs, but because his student loans were funded through federal grants, it made it impossible. Like most college students who are legally considered adults, Julio was ineligible for Medicaid.

At www.gobankingrates.com, four steps of advice are given to college-bound students and recent college graduates. When applying for college, always look at schools with lower tuition rates, scholarship opportunities and apply for FASFA as soon as possible. Once in college, think about internships to get some experience in your career field. Set budgets for yourself by thinking down the road rather than spending impulsively.

Additionally, have a back-up plan, if you can’t find a job immediately after graduation, whether it’s to move back home, make a savings account, or get an internship. Lastly, once you find a job, focus on those student loans and your basic expenses, and for the rest of it, save as much as you can.

Julio Manceras is now approaching graduation as a pre-med student at Texas Christian University, and through his xperiences, has decided to become a doctor. Manceras said, “through my hardships of problems and observing my environment, I wanted in return to give the care many people cannot afford.”

Let’s see if others will be given the financial care and opportunity they deserve. Not just in the medical field, but in every field that every college graduate pursues as a career.

The article Cost of Higher Education Not Matched by Job Market appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

This summer, health insurance companies may have to pay more than a billion dollars back to their own customers. The rebate requirements were introduced as part of the 2010 health-care reform law and are meant to benefit consumers. But now an insurer-supported Senate bill aims to roll back the rebate requirements.

Known as the medical loss ratio rule, it’s actually pretty simple. Under the health-care law provision, 80 to 85 cents of every dollar insurers collect in premiums must be spent on medical care or activities that improve the quality of that care. If not, they must send their customers a rebate for the difference. The goal, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, is to limit the money insurers spend on administrative costs and profit.

“It essentially ensures that consumers receive value for every dollar they spend on health care,” HHS spokesman Brian Chiglinsky told ProPublica.

Last month, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., introduced a bill that would change what costs companies can include in the 15 to 20 percent they are allotted for overhead, salaries and marketing. The bill, similar to a House bill introduced in March 2011 that has yet to come up for a vote, focuses on payments to insurance agents and brokers.

Traditionally, these commissions are bundled into the administrative costs when making the final calculation. But insurance regulators have argued that fees paid to insurance agents and brokers shouldn’t count. Such a change could mean big savings for insurance companies 2014 and much smaller rebates for consumers.

This is the first year that companies are required to send out rebates. According to a report by state insurance commissioners, if rebates had been handed out last year, insurers would have had to pay consumers almost $2 billion. If they had carved out the broker fees, as proposed in the two current bills, consumers would have gotten only about $800 million.

Landrieu’s office did not immediately respond to our call for comment.

“[The bills] would water down the standard to a point where it becomes ineffective,” said Sondra Roberto, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit advocacy group Consumers Union. The group, which also publishes Consumer Reports, recently urged members to oppose the bill. The rebates have gotten relatively modest attention. Only 38 percent of the public is even aware of the rule’s existence, according to a Kaiser poll.

Insurance companies have supported the two bills, claiming that the rebate rule, as it stands now, stifles jobs and actually drives up insurance premiums. A 2011 government report found that most insurance companies were, in fact, lowering their premiums to meet the requirements, as the administration had hoped.

While most insurance companies hit the 80 to 85 percent target, the few that didn’t may be required to send out rebates this year. “Some insurance companies pay an inordinate amount, as much as 40 percent, on administration and profit and not health care,” Roberto said.

The rules on rebates differ slightly depending on whether the insurance comes from a large-group plan (employers with more than 100 employees), or a small-group or individual plan. In each case, insurance companies will be required to make all their costs publicly available so consumers can see how their premium dollars are spent.

The government granted insurance companies in seven states extra time to meet the requirements. Insurers that serve states with more rural populations, for example, tend to have higher overhead costs and cannot meet the requirement as easily, according to Eric Fader, a New York health-care lawyer. But the government decided that for all other states, enforcing the requirement wouldn’t pose any risk to the market, and that the federal government didn’t “need to coddle an inefficient insurance company,” Fader said.

by Lena Groeger ProPublica, March 16, 2012, 1:01 p.m.

The article Senate Bill Could Roll Back Consumers’ Health Insurance Savings appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The U.S. Senate urgently needs to support legislation that would apply longstanding federal law on conscience protection to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), said the chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

In a February 15 letter to all Senators, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston explained how the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” (S. 1476) is especially needed since a new mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will force almost all health insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including drugs that can cause an early abortion, and sterilizations. Even many religious organizations will not be exempt from the mandate.

This rule, Cardinal DiNardo noted, was finalized on February 10. On the same day the White House announced it would develop a mechanism for applying the rule to non-exempt religious employers, claiming it would shift costs for contraceptive coverage to insurers.

“It is little or no comfort that, rather than being forced to propose such coverage, religious organizations will simply have it imposed on them,” Cardinal DiNardo said. “The argument that they will not really have to subsidize the coverage, because insurers will offer it ‘free of charge,’ runs up against the reality that this coverage will be integrated into their overall health plan, and subsidized with the premiums paid by employer and employee for that plan.”

He added: “The Administration’s rule makes no provision for the rights of insurers, even religiously affiliated insurers, but places responsibility for enforcing the mandate more squarely than ever on their shoulders. This is a radical departure from current law, under which a health plan that excludes contraception can be sold even to federal employees if the carrier has any religious objection to such coverage.”

Cardinal DiNardo outlined the scope of the proposed Senate bill, noting that it does not support discriminatory decisions to withhold basic coverage, does not free anyone from responsibilities under other state or federal laws, and does not allow anyone to deny coverage for high-cost treatments using morality and religion as a pretext.

Cardinal DiNardo explained what the bill does achieve: “It states that the new lists of mandated benefits for private health plans created under PPACA will not forbid those who provide, sponsor and purchase health coverage to negotiate a health plan that is consistent with the religious beliefs and moral convictions of those involved.”  Thus, he said, “it simply ensures that new requirements under PPACA are not used to take away a freedom of conscience that Americans have enjoyed under federal law until now.”

“If the needless dispute over this issue were resolved through this legislation, Congress and the Administration could return to the most pressing of all the real problems – the fact that many millions of Americans still lack basic coverage for health care that supports and sustains life,” Cardinal DiNardo said. “Let us begin the task by respecting each other’s values that call so many of us to work for life-affirming health care for all in the first place.”

The article Cardinal Urges Senate Support of ‘Respect for Rights of Conscience Act’ appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, health insurance companies in Arizona are pursuing double-digit premium increases for more than 30 insurance health plans in the state.

Officials from AARP Arizona are weighing-in with the Arizona Department of Insurance on the transparency of health insurance plan rate reviews.  The department is currently reviewing the process for rate reviews of health insurance plans.  AARP believes consumers should have the opportunity to be more engaged in the process.

“AARP welcomes the opportunity to work with the Arizona Department of Insurance on this very important issue,” said David Mitchell, AARP Arizona State Director. “We are supporting three key points that we hope will be included in the review process.”

AARP would like to see proposed rate increases posted online for public comment before the rate increases are considered “reasonable or unreasonable,” and that policyholders are notified of potential rate increases before they are classified as such.

“We also think it’s important that press releases are issued informing the public of the opportunity to give public comment whenever a significant premium increase for Arizonans is considered by the Department of Insurance,” said Mitchell.

In addition, AARP supports the adoption of an alert system similar to that which the state of Minnesota currently uses. “We believe policyholders should be allowed to enroll in an alert system that automatically indicates when rate hikes are submitted for review by the department,” Mitchell added. “We think informing policyholders is not only important, but that the notices should be easy to understand, state the implications of the increase and what options are available to policyholders.”

The Arizona Department of Insurance is currently gathering comments from various stakeholder groups on this issue.  “AARP strongly supports the opportunity for consumers to be active participants in the insurance market and we applaud the Arizona Department of Insurance for their continued work in this area,” said Mitchell.

The article Consumer Engagement Imperative in Health Insurance Rate Reviews appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Six national aging groups filed a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court last Friday, January 27, saying that there are extensive provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that are of “vital importance to the health and well-being of people 65 and older” and that Congress did not intend for any of them to be contingent on whether or not the minimum coverage provision (also called the individual mandate) was constitutional.

“The health and quality of life of many older Americans are already improving because of the health reform law,” says National Senior Citizens Law Center Executive Director, Paul Nathanson. “We don’t believe Congress intended to let the elderly poor languish in nursing homes or be subject to abuse if the individual mandate was found unworkable.”

The amicus brief was filed in the National Federation of Independent Business et al v Kathleen Sebelius et al and the State of Florida et al v Department of Health and Human Services et al cases which challenge the constitutionality of the health reform law. In those cases, the petitioners contend that all of the ACA should fall if the minimum coverage provision is invalidated by the Court.

The brief states that a “careful review” of policies Congress sought to enact shows that the provisions affecting people aged 65 and over “can be effectuated without any reliance on the minimum coverage provision.”

The brief also highlights the parts of the ACA that greatly benefit people aged 65 and older that should not be affected if the Court decides to invalidate the minimum coverage provision, including the following:

• Reduced cost-sharing for Medicare beneficiaries for prescription drugs by substantially reducing the coverage gap or so-called donut hole
• Elimination of cost-sharing for annual wellness visits and other screening services
• Medicare Advantage plans are prevented from charging higher cost-sharing for chemotherapy and dialysis than permitted under traditional Medicare
• Decreased unnecessary institutionalization of Medicaid beneficiaries
• Improved coordination of care for people receiving both Medicare and Medicaid (dual eligibles)
• Improved quality and safety in nursing homes, and prevention of abuse and neglect of elderly and people with disabilities in nursing and other residential facilities.

The brief states that the only provisions that should be affected by the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision are the pre-existing condition, the community rating, and guaranteed issue provisions.

“The rest of the ACA, including, but in no way limited to the provisions highlighted in this amicus brief, should remain intact,” the brief concludes.

The article Aging Groups’ Healthcare Concerns appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Health insurance premiums for California families rose 153% since 2002, more than five times the 29% increase in the rate of inflation, according to a new survey released recently.

“A 153% increase in health insurance premiums in just 10 years is unbearable, and the fact that premiums have risen five times the rate of inflation is scandalous,” said Carmen Balber of Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. “Californians are paying for 7-digit executive salaries, insurance company waste, and excessive profits with these sky-high premiums. Insurers should have to prove why they want rate hikes in public, and Californians should have the power to block rate increases that can’t be justified.”

The survey was conducted by the California HealthCare Foundation.

In November, Consumer Watchdog filed a ballot initiative that would require health insurance companies to publicly justify and get rates approved before they take effect. Health insurance companies in California may currently raise rates to any level with no approval. No one has the power to block a rate hike, even if it is found to be unreasonable or excessive. The ballot initiative gives the state insurance commissioner the power to reject excessive or unreasonable rates.

The CHCF survey found that annual premiums were higher in California than nationally for individual coverage ($5,970 versus $5,429) and family coverage ($15,724 versus $15,073). Thirty-five states have some authority to approve or reject health insurance rate increases, while California has none.

The proposed ballot initiative, known as the “Insurance Rate Public Justification and Accountability Act,” would:

• Require health insurance companies to open their books and justify, under penalty of perjury, proposed rate changes before taking effect.
• Require public hearings and approval by the Insurance Commissioner before health insurance company rate increases can take effect.
• Prohibit health insurance, auto insurance, and home insurance companies from charging based on prior insurance history or credit score.

The initiative also requires insurance companies to justify rates in relation to proposed changes to patient out-of-pocket expenses, including deductibles and co-pays. The CHCF survey found that copayments for office visits increased substantially since 2007, the number of workers in small firms with high deductibles more than tripled since 2006, and annual out-of-pocket limits grew significantly since 2005.

The measure will be cleared to circulate for signature-gathering this month.

The article CA Health Insurance Premiums Increased Five Times Faster Than Inflation appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

A panel of medical experts recommended that all insurance plans be legally required to provide birth control for free, marking a huge advancement for women’s rights. The Obama Administration commissioned the non-partisan Institute of Medicine (IOM) to recommend what preventative health services should be fully covered by health insurance.

Along with birth control, the IOM reports suggested that HPV testing, contraceptive and lactation counseling, HIV screening and breast-feeding equipment be paid for by insurers.

Women’s rights groups were excited by the report. “As someone who has worked on women’s rights for nearly 30 years, I can say that today’s news marks one of the biggest advances for women’s health in a generation,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“Currently, nearly one in three women finds it difficult to pay for birth control, and that’s why the United States has a far higher unintended-pregnancy rate than other industrialized countries. Making family-planning services available at no cost will help millions of women prevent unintended pregnancy and thereby reduce the need for abortion.”

Keenan added she was “confident that the Obama administration will adopt the IOM’s science-based recommendation and thus make affordability of contraception a reality for all women.”

The report by the IOM stated that nearly half of pregnancies in 2001 were unintended. The report noted that women who have unintended pregnancies are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care, smoke, drink alcohol, experience depression and live with domestic violence during a pregnancy. A recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research and advocacy group, estimates that unintended pregnancies cost $11.1 billion dollars each year.

Anti-abortion rights and anti-contraception groups are calling for the Obama Administration to reject the IOM’s recommendations because they believe that some emergency contraceptives function as “abortion pills.”

“This is a question of whether the government should mandate every health plan to cover these drugs free of cost,” said Jeanne Monahan, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity. “Whatever one’s position is on the issues of contraceptives, abortifacients and such, it does not matter whether proponents of such drugs do not care about the effect on human embryos.

The point is that many Americans do care, and many religious health plans would care, and that they should not be forced to violate their conscience.

This morality crap has gone too far. Really, birth control is bad now too??? I think every insurance plan already pays for a portion of birth control so I don’t really get the debate.

The article Birth Control May Soon Be Free Under Your Insurance Plan appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.