10-06-2017, 02:57 PM
(10-06-2017, 02:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1). I suppose it is because ED is a medical condition (or so I've been told). By your standards if a pregnancy occurs as a result of the male taking Viagra then the employer should pay for child care.
2) If heavy menstrual flow is a condition that requires treatment and oral contraceptive is the only method of treatment then it should be authorized and I would be mad with you if it were not.
Once again you are pointing to a drain on society "funneled into the assistance programs". That is not an employers responsibility.
So as to 1, ED is only a medical condition effecting ones ability to have sex. If you are not married, by many religious beliefs, you should not be having sex. So again Viagra should not be covered unless they are married if that is an owners religious belief correct?
Interesting response to 2, so you don't care that the outcome is the same being that a woman in incapable of having a child? The religious freedoms of the employer now stop there?
As to your last point, the law made employee healthcare including birth control the responsibility of the employer. Them skirting that responsibility moves it back to society.
