Notre Dame Professor tackles 'myth' of Christian Martyrdom

[mandrina]

my point is the the employer doesn't have to actually ask to enforce the 'our insurance doesn't cover BC unless it's for a nonBC reason" rule.  I understood that Jack was assuming that in order to enforce that rule within the insurance coverage, the employer would have to ask, and they don't have to ask.  It can be enforces without the employer asking or breaking HIPPA.

Apologies if this is not what Jack meant.

I;m going back through the thread a bit and I think i'm seeing some misunderstanding on the part of some people as to how restrictions on what a company's insurance covers is enforced and what a hippa violation is.

my doc telling my insurance company why I'm taking X meds, is not a hippa violation.  I agreed to this, and signed a paper, so that my doc could apply to the insurance company for reimbursement.  If I hadn't, I'd have to do all the paperwork.  And pay the doc myself first. the insurance company is allowed to ask for documentation about things that they will be paying for.

The company telling the insurance company to disallow BC for all except X diagnosis, because the company does not wish to pay for BC as BC, is not a hippa violation.  The insurance companies market different policies, sone of which cover this or that but not the other thing, and the employer decides which one to buy, in this case, one that doesn't cover BC.  Some things are mandated to be covered, meaning a policy cannot be bought unless it covers certain things, BC is not one of those things.

The employer hiring an audit firm to make sure that the insurance company is doing their jobs right, and covering what they said they will cover and not covering what is not covered, is not a HIPPA violation, it's checking up on the services the employer is partially paying for, or at least providing the discount for.  If the company decides they don't believe the auditing co, they are free to hire another.

so the connections go like this:  patient, doc, insurance comp, audit company, employer.  The audit company is the last group to see specifics, and that's only for auditing purposes.

HIPPA violations would be:
1)doc contacting the employer directly, or the auditing company directly
2)insurance co divulging medical records to the employer directly
3)auditing company divulging medical records to the employer directly.
4)employer seeing me with a bc packet and insisting upon knowing (upon pain of dismissal) why I'm on it and if the insurance that I got through them is covering it, (because there are ways mentioned above for them to find out that everything is on the up and up without breaking HIPPA)

[Kokopelli]

HIPPA violations would be:
1)doc contacting the employer directly, or the auditing company directly
2)insurance co divulging medical records to the employer directly
3)auditing company divulging medical records to the employer directly.
4)employer seeing me with a bc packet and insisting upon knowing (upon pain of dismissal) why I'm on it and if the insurance that I got through them is covering it, (because there are ways mentioned above for them to find out that everything is on the up and up without breaking HIPPA)

Actually, I don't believe #4 wouldn't be a HIPAA.  Possibly another violation, but not HIPAA.  HIPAA would be discussing the protected health info, personal data, diagnosis, and CPT codes, pre-x stuff, etc.

I am speaking from 7 years within the insurance industry, and will soon have a state license to sell it.  Your asking you isn't HIPAA.  Me sending a letter to your doctor requesting records, while listing a specific CPT/diagnosis code, is.

[mandrina]

Actually, I don't believe #4 wouldn't be a HIPAA.  Possibly another violation, but not HIPAA.  HIPAA would be discussing the protected health info, personal data, diagnosis, and CPT codes, pre-x stuff, etc.

I am speaking from 7 years within the insurance industry, and will soon have a state license to sell it.  Your asking you isn't HIPAA.  Me sending a letter to your doctor requesting records, while listing a specific CPT/diagnosis code, is.

 

I'm sure it;s some sort of violation, the employer demanding that I discuss my medical condition related to insurance coverage with them as compared to using the channels that have been properly set up to deal with the question, although i'll agree, it's might not be HIPAA, I'm used to using HIPAA as an employee of a provider (specifically nursing home nurse,)

[MattyG]

There's a difference between honoring human rights and forcing someone to worship Gods of another religion!

Just to play the Devil's advocate :p, If the common belief of the time is that failure to appease the gods with sacrifices will result in natural disaster, affecting society as a whole, is it not reasonable to expect citizens to make said sacrifices? Especially after your victories in war have already shown your gods to be more powerful than theirs?
 

No, it's not a valid comparison. Refusing to worship the Roman emperor does not violate the autonomy of another person.

 
I actually read a very interesting book called God Against the Gods by Jonathan Kirsch., detailing how monotheism came to replace polytheism in the ancient world. He made the argument that Jews were actually allowed to pray for the Emperor instead of to him. When Rome first encountered Christians, they were asked if they were a sect of Judaism, and would be offered the same deal if they were, but they declined.

Essentially, the offerings and prayers were considered a patriotic act, similar to the pledge of allegiance. Refusing to participate was an act of rebellion against the empire.

Now, I'm not saying that I approve of their way of dealing with things, especially not in a modern context. However, if everything you know about the world leads you to believe that the stability of civilization is dependent upon the appeasement of the gods, wouldn't you be crazy to not expect people to go through the proper actions? From what I know, Rome didn't really care if you believed in one god or many, if you worshiped Jupiter or Jesus Christ, just so long as you went through the actions that guaranteed the empire's security.

[MattyG]

Now, I'm not saying that I approve of their way of dealing with things, especially not in a modern context. However, if everything you know about the world leads you to believe that the stability of civilization is dependent upon the appeasement of the gods, wouldn't you be crazy to not expect people to go through the proper actions? From what I know, Rome didn't really care if you believed in one god or many, if you worshiped Jupiter or Jesus Christ, just so long as you went through the actions that guaranteed the empire's security.

 
If I may bring up a modern example of the phenomenon: vaccines. With our modern understanding of how diseases work, we understand that vaccines are some of the best ways to prevent disease. In order to combat disease, the government requires children to be vaccinated before attending public schools. However, some people are opposed to vaccines on moral, maybe even religious grounds. Do we discriminate against them by requiring their children to go through a procedure that goes against their beliefs, even though it's the best way we know to prevent disaster? I'm honestly curious.

[mandrina]

If I may bring up a modern example of the phenomenon: vaccines. With our modern understanding of how diseases work, we understand that vaccines are some of the best ways to prevent disease. In order to combat disease, the government requires children to be vaccinated before attending public schools. However, some people are opposed to vaccines on moral, maybe even religious grounds. Do we discriminate against them by requiring their children to go through a procedure that goes against their beliefs, even though it's the best way we know to prevent disaster? I'm honestly curious.

 
Given that there are people who CAN'T be vaccinated and whom the various diseases would be harder on, and need the herd immunity that comes with everyone who can be vaccinated being so, there are those that say.  "Yes, you should be discriminated against if you refused to take the risk of vaccines when there is no known reason not to.  THe natural consequences are too high a risk for those that have no choice."  I don't say this is my stance, but I have heard it expressed by those affected negatively by the lack of herd immunity.