# Texas Judge rules that coverage of anti-hiv medicine violates religious freedom



## Nothereed (Sep 15, 2022)

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/08/1121...-anti-hiv-medicine-violates-religious-freedom

So... You have the religious freedom to deny other people live saving medication? Really? 

Seriously there's just so much shit coming out of the wood work i'm geniunely having difficult time keeping track of this shit.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 15, 2022)

Hard for me to be surprised by anything that comes out of a Texas judge's mouth these days.  This is basically an admission that American Christians only truly worship money.


----------



## City (Sep 15, 2022)

I thought something was off, but no, the lawsuit was exactly because "it promoted homosexual behavior". What the fuck.


----------



## Nothereed (Oct 1, 2022)

Still having a hard time believing this happened. (more so shock, than disbelief) I haven't heard or seen any follow ups quiet yet.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> deny other people live saving medication?



Theyre not being denied the medication. They can go buy all they want of it, if a doctor prescribes it. The Judge just said that their employers don't have to pay for it.

There's a difference. I don't agree with the judge's decision, I don't think 'religious freedom' enters into the question of an employer providing health insurance to employees. But these employers arent denying access to the medicine, just money. Money is fungible, i.e. its just a portion of a total compensation package, or salary.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 3, 2022)

Upon reading the article, it's actually worse. Religion is used as a scapegoat to do whatever the fuck whomever the fuck wants to. It's just a two step program
1. Convince people that poor innocent Jesus considers paying taxes a sin
2. Sue the state on the grounds that paying taxes is against Christian religion

Yeah, it's just that homosexuals take the blame in this case. They've got nothing to do with that stupid medicine, but because they float the idea that they do... 

... 

Fuck. My analogue wasn't surrealistic enough. Lemme try again...

1. Take something 'everyone' hates in the state (like... Putin/climate/Gay's/black people)
2. Spread the lie (or even simply presume it a fact) that Putin/climate/gays/blacks are somehow involved in your tax bill
3. Refuse to pay taxes because it helps Putin/the climate/gays/black people

I honestly can't even fathom the mental gymnastics that judge went through to not throw it out at first sight, let alone rule in their favor. Fucking hell... Just how morally low do you have to fall to abuse christianity like that?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 5, 2022)

The religious argument is laughable, but I agree with the ruling. Why should employers be forced to pay for it? Should they also cover the costs for tooth paste? It is also preventative.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 5, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Why should employers be forced to pay for it?


Because many people in the US can only afford healthcare insurance through their employer.  If you're arguing that that's a broken system and we need a public option, I would not disagree.  If not, the argument that insurers should be able to pick and choose which health issues they cover and which they don't is ridiculous.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 5, 2022)

We are talking about prevention. It is not a health issue unless you regard tooth paste a health issue as well. But I don´t want to argue about a broken system. Anyway, funny news.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Because many people in the US can only afford healthcare insurance through their employer.  If you're arguing that that's a broken system and we need a public option, I would not disagree.  If not, the argument that insurers should be able to pick and choose which health issues they cover and which they don't is ridiculous.



Employers aren't even required to offer health insurance as part of their employees' compensation packages unless they have over 50 employees. (Even then they still don't have to, but there are fines to pay.) That excludes most small businesses. Many under that line still do because it attracts and keeps employees, but its entirely elective on their part.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 5, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Employers aren't even required to offer health insurance as part of their employees' compensation packages unless they have over 50 employees. (Even then they still don't have to, but there are fines to pay.) That excludes most small businesses. Many under that line still do because it attracts and keeps employees, but its entirely elective on their part.


Sure, but that's a clearly defined and objective stipulation to the law.  The lines blur a lot if we start arguing about what my religion says about healthcare coverage versus what my employer's religion has to say about it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Sure, but that's a clearly defined and objective stipulation to the law.  The lines blur a lot if we start arguing about what my religion says about healthcare coverage versus what my employer's religion has to say about it.



Yeah as I said above, I don't see freedom of religion entering into the issue as a defense, and shouldn't have here. I don't agree with the ruling. I just took issue with the representation above that the employer is "denying" their employees a potentially life-saving medication. They're not. They're (effectively) denying them a discount on the price of it.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 5, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> I just took issue with the representation above that the employer is "denying" their employees a potentially life-saving medication. They're not. They're (effectively) denying them a discount on the price of it.


Frankly though, it's moronic for any healthcare insurer to deny coverage for preventative care, as that would potentially save _them_ from having to pay out more for recurring treatment later. It's cutting off their nose to spite their face, but I suppose that's par for the course when religion and law get tangled.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 5, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> We are talking about prevention. It is not a health issue unless you regard tooth paste a health issue as well. But I don´t want to argue about a broken system. Anyway, funny news.


Toothpaste is helpful for preventing health issues. Honestly, I don't think any medications or healthcare products should be limited or even require an out-of-pocket payment. Equally, it's wrong for employers to have any say on what medical treatments, medications, or other needs of their employees are. Employers have no reason to be concerned by those matters, equally, they are not and should not be able to supersede the employee's doctor(s) or medical needs. Honestly, I think employer health insurance is an abusive practice altogether.


----------



## MFDC12 (Oct 11, 2022)

I am going to be honest - no insurance of mine has ever actually covered prep, since it was covered a specialty, brand medicine and got denied coverage from it many times. But this is still bad news.

So that being said, if anyone is actually interested in prep, especially now in texas I suppose, I strongly suggest you go to Gilead's site and look into getting a copay assistance card - I've been getting prep free for almost 5+ years from it.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 12, 2022)

MFDC12 said:


> especially now in texas


Or just level Texas. It's a pretty terrible place and going even faster downhill with each passing day.


----------

