#employer-sponsored insurance

[trendynewsnow]

Rising Health Care Costs and Employer Strategies

Rising Costs of Health Care Benefits Weight-loss medications, groundbreaking gene therapies, and in vitro fertilization are just a few examples of transformative medical treatments that, while significantly improving health outcomes, are contributing to the increasing costs of health care for both employers and employees. As the annual open enrollment period for health benefits approaches in many…

[alientitty]

honestly....i need to see an allergist or some kind of sinus doctor

[volkinsurancebenefitsco]

6 Reasons To Use a Colorado Insurance Broker in Longmont and Fort Collins, CO

Finding an expert who works for a customer to buy a suitable insurance policy is not too difficult. Such individuals are Colorado insurance brokers in Longmont and Fort Collins, CO, who can be immensely useful when an inexperienced and uninformed person hopes to get the right insurance coverage. Connecting with multiple insurance companies becomes redundant in such circumstances, as the broker has the expertise and experience to assist the customer as closely as possible. ​ Most laypersons are pleased to use the services of a brokerage company or an individual broker to buy the right policy. Some of the reasons to contact a broker instead of visiting the offices of a big insurance company that operates across the nation are:-

1. Expertise and guidance- The brokers are well-versed in the intricate language used in context with insurance products, the latest trends, and the specific requirements of individuals. The coverage options are often explained perfectly by these professionals who know what kind of benefits will appeal to their clients. The insurance buyer thus gets an opportunity to pick and choose from multiple policies and make an informed decision that will enable them to remain protected from unforeseen circumstances.

2. Personalized Services—An insurance broker does not work for a single insurance company. Their loyalty thus lies with the customer and not a huge business entity. The client's requirements are discussed at length, and every effort is made to find the most appropriate policy. This ensures that the most critical needs are met accurately with no excess payment.

3. Claims Assistance- While no one hopes to file insurance claims after buying insurance, such an eventuality cannot be ruled out. Thankfully, the broker can provide due assistance with filing the claim, negotiating the sum, and helping the customer obtain the due benefits within the shortest possible time. 4. Reduction of Risks—The broker will review the insurance policies with a fine comb to gauge the risks. Any gap in the coverage will be addressed as required so that the insured person does not get into trouble when claiming coverage. Mitigating the associated risks and fulfilling the customer's requirement makes the broker the right assistant, with comprehensive coverage being ensured as and when needed.

5. Review & Updates—Individual and family circumstances are bound to change with time. Fortunately, the broker is looking for customers and will tweak the policy according to changed life circumstances. This ensures regular review and updating of the coverage to ensure there are no gaps in coverage.

6. Regulatory Compliance—The legal jargon in insurance documents is usually too complex for a layperson to understand. The broker is well aware of the hidden meanings and can advise the prospective insurance buyer about the implications. Moreover, the concerned person is satisfied to remain compliant with the financial standards.

Employers find it beneficial to use a well-known insurance brokerage firm when it is time to consider employer-sponsored benefits in Longmont and Windsor, COs.

[bequestmutual]

Group Life Insurance

Group life insurance is a type of life insurance in which a single agreement covers a whole group of people. If you want to know about life insurance, you can log on to our website.

[whilereadingandwalking]

I am happy to announce that I have a job! I'm officially a copyeditor at the prestigious Encyclopædia Britannica. It's a joy to be in the Words business, but honestly it's an even bigger relief. The job market is hell for real, and these past few months have been really tough, both because of the search and outside of it. It's so nice to be able to celebrate. (And to have employer-sponsored health insurance.)

[bitchesgetriches]

Why do job applications ask for your address (besides the commute)? Will they mail you forms and stuff if you apply and give your address in the application? Also what types of forms will they send you if you get the job?

Usually it's for tax purposes, insurance purposes, and to verify you are who you say you are. They'll mail you tax forms, insurance cards if that's one of the benefits they offer, and documents to your employer-sponsored retirement accounts if that's a benefit they offer.

As far as verifying your identity, this is one of the ways they confirm you're legal to work in a country. Often undocumented immigrants can't get jobs because they don't have proper documentation that can be verified with a home address in addition to other proof.

Here's more information, my lamb:

Workplace Benefits and Other Cool Side Effects of Employment 

How to File Your Taxes FOR FREE in 2024: Simple Instructions for the Stressed-out Taxpayer 

10 Questions You Should Never Be Asked in a Job Interview 

Did we just help you out? Join us on our Patreon!

[strangebiology]

How Funding Affected my Journalism Jobs

The different places I’ve worked as a journalist, and in related fields, have all had different funding. Here are my experiences at different places–and it seems to me that grant-funded stuff is the best. 

Internship at Nat Geo

Grants sponsored both of the other interns, but not me. Nat Geo makes a lot of its money through things like books at TV.

Mine was low-paid, but probably normal for an internship in 2016? LOVED the experience. Freelance at Nat Geo afterward was MUCH better paid. $14/hour part-time. IDK how much the grant-funded interns made. 2016.

Fellowship at PBS Newshour

A grant from the National Science Foundation funded me, but PBS is state-sponsored media. Interestingly, that’s a huge red flag in China and Russia, but I found the US-funded Public Broadcasting Service very fair to its subjects. Good experience, but even worse pay, at $13/hour full-time. 2016-2017

Job at Newsweek 

Their funding is from clicks. This place was crazy bad and paid garbage. Everyone hated it and almost everyone quit, unless they were being fired for making a living wage. Some people even got fired for accurately reporting on the company itself on assignment from their editors–there was no obscuring it, that was cited as their reason for termitation. Newsweek is Hellfire and damnation. I suspect the nonsense demand for 5 stories/day/person and silly demand that we make them go viral stemmed from the following: the fact that the company primarily made its money from clicks and higher-ups didn’t appear to care about the long-term reputation of the company or its reporters, and perhaps an ego-fueled refusal to try to understand what actually got clicks. $39k/year. 2017-2018

Freelance at VOX 

Funded by clicks/ads and grants at the time, but halfway through they started a contribution campaign. The difference I noticed between VOX and Newsweek was that VOX practices were smarter and they actually paid attention to analytics and sane business practices. Also, it's much easier to qualify for and get grants if you're actually doing good journalism, so I don't believe that Newsweek's policy of "lots of garbage" was actually business-savvy in any way.

Vox was a good experience, even though I wasn’t working as a journalist, but doing SEO/social media for journalists. $35/hour, then $50/hour part-time. Then I was laid off due to the pandemic. 2019-2020

Freelance at Alzheimer's Association 

Remote, not really journalism, but I liked it anyway. Nonprofit, so, funded by donations and grants. $65/hour part-time. 2021

Job at Bay Nature

My job was entirely funded by a grant. Odd situation–I got the grant and I could bring it to any legit journalism employer. Bay Nature was supposed to contribute 40% of my salary but flexibility happened and they just paid health insurance and such. They got basically no money at all from clicks, like, pennies a year. Not much from subscriptions. They have fundraisers, and at the time, there were 3 writers/editors and 2 fundraisers on staff. Later they hired another writer whose entire salary was paid by a philanthropist, and then I’m told they got another salary funded by a UC Berkeley journalism grant program. So, like half of their editorial staff was grant-funded.

Great experience, but low pay for the Bay Area. $50k/year, all from Poynter-Koch, 2021-2022.

Freelance at Politifact

A nonprofit and they probably get lots of grants. My particular position was also funded by a grant entirely. Loved it. $250/article fact check. 2022. 

Book

REALLY love it. $50k is from MIT Press, which is a not-for-profit, and it gets some grants and endowments. Then I got $56k from a grant from the Sloan Foundation on top. 

Future? 

I also got $500 (plus gas and hotels) to attend a day of learning with a program called Investing in Wyoming’s Creative Economy, and that means I’m one of 100 people eligible to apply for 10 $25k grants for future projects. The idea is to support creatives to stay in Wyoming and have sustainable businesses here. Maybe do some art that will bring in tourists. 

_____________________

Note that a grant sort of does, and sort of doesn’t, mean free money. It means money to support a project that usually has to have a mission and a public good, like educating the public. You don’t pay these back, and the org giving the grants doesn’t require a percentage of the profits or anything. But, for instance, the $50k grant from Poynter-Koch was more like a gift to Bay Nature, so they could pay me, and I worked for a year to actually have the funds. 

However, I’m not yet convinced that there is any objectively good funding model to ensure the most fair and accurate journalism. In theory, the capitalistic ones would be the best, but the public desire to read inflammatory stories about how their political enemies are evil, or a different generation is full of idiots, adversely affected the accuracy of headlines at Newsweek IMO.

You might think that the worst funding source would be Poynter-Koch, which is a program run by Poynter and funded by the Charles Koch Institute. But neither Poynter nor Koch even asked me to tell them what I was writing, let alone try to stop me from writing it. (Poynter hosted mentor-led auxiliary groups to talk about our careers/lives and such, so the topics of our articles came up sometimes if we chose to share that.) 

Anyway, I’m thinking of writing an article on how funding models affect journalism, for better and worse. There are some high-profile examples of grant funding causing harm. But for now, the above is my experience–pretty much all good, except not enough funding sometimes. 

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Andrew Perez at Rolling Stone:

EARLIER THIS WEEK, two Democratic senators announced they have requested a criminal investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — regarding, in part, a loan for a luxury RV provided by a longtime executive at UnitedHealth Group, one of America’s largest health insurers. Thomas apparently recused himself in at least two cases involving UnitedHealth when the loan was active, according to a Rolling Stone review. Yet, he separately chose to participate in another health insurance case and authored the court’s unanimous opinion in 2004. The ruling broadly benefited the industry — shielding employer-sponsored health insurers from damages if they refuse to cover certain services and patients are harmed. Thomas’ advice to patients facing such denials? Pull out your checkbook.

While UnitedHealth was not a party to the case, the company belonged to two trade associations that filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to side with the insurers.  “As we saw so starkly this term, Supreme Court decisions can have sweeping collateral implications: If the court rules in favor of one insurance giant, for instance, it tends to be a boon for all the other insurance giants, too,” says Alex Aronson, executive director at the judicial reform group Court Accountability. “That was the case here, and it’s a perfect example of why justices shouldn’t accept gifts — especially secret ones — from industry titans whose interests are implicated, whether directly or indirectly, by their rulings.” The public had no way of knowing about Thomas’ RV loan at the time of the decision: The loan was only exposed by The New York Times last year. Senate Democrats investigating Thomas believe that much or all of the loan, for a $267,230 motor coach, was ultimately forgiven. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) recently requested the Justice Department investigate whether Thomas reported the forgiven portion of the loan on his tax filings, after he failed to disclose it in ethics forms.

Meanwhile, Thomas’ health insurance opinion has had wide-ranging, long-lasting ramifications, according to Mark DeBofsky, an employee benefits lawyer and former law professor.  “It hasn’t been rectified. The repercussions continue,” DeBofsky tells Rolling Stone. “People who are in dire need of specific medical care, and [their] insurance company turns around and says, ‘That care is not medically necessary,’ and there’s an adverse outcome as a result of the denial of the treatment, or hospitalization, or service — there’s no recompense for what could have been an unnecessary death or serious injury.” Since last year, the Supreme Court has faced an unprecedented ethics crisis, with much of the focus aimed squarely at Thomas. ProPublica reported that Thomas received and failed to disclose two decades worth of luxury gifts from a conservative billionaire, Harlan Crow, who allegedly provided free private jet and superyacht trips to Thomas and his wife; bought a house from Thomas and allowed the justice’s elderly mother to live there for free; and paid for at least two years of boarding school tuition for Thomas’ grandnephew.

[...] Federal law requires Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves in any case where their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The justices decide for themselves when such a move is necessary — and when they do withdraw from a case, they rarely say why. Thomas does not appear to have explained his decision to withdraw from the two matters that directly involved UnitedHealth. Thomas did not take similar steps in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, a case that broadly affected the health insurance industry. He instead authored the court’s opinion, which expanded insurers’ favorite tool for limiting liability: ERISA. Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known as ERISA, in 1974 to protect employee benefits. The law is relatively vague when it comes to “welfare benefits,” and contains a broad preemption clause. The courts have filled in the blanks — including in the Aetna Health case — with distressing results for patients. Half of Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance coverage; nearly all of these plans are governed by ERISA.

Rolling Stone exposes how SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas received a $267K RV from a health insurance executive.

[timetravelingcourtney]

Confession

I’ve not been posting because of serious stuff.

When Felicity arrived home from the hospital, I thought it was time to share with the community.

In mid June, I felt a lump in my breast. By mid July, I saw my primary care physician who assured me it was probably nothing but sent me to get a mammogram. That mammogram turned into a biopsy and that biopsy turned into a breast cancer diagnosis.

I am so lucky. I caught it early. I have employer sponsored health insurance. I have a support system. I am gonna be ok.

I had surgery in August and will have radiation in the next few weeks. My prognosis is excellent.

As my amazingly candid anesthesiologist said, “cancer don’t care”.

If you are a person with breasts, do your self checks, if you find anything, go to your doctor. 1 of 8 people with breasts will get breast cancer but treatment is not only effective, it is far less devastating than it once was.

Take care of yourselves my friends 💕 Felicity and I send love, hope and joy.

[exeggcute]

also idk if this is already common knowledge but if not then you may be pleased to learn that you can (sometimes) add your significant other as a dependent on your employer-sponsored insurance plan even if you aren't married. I think it technically depends on whether the insured partner's employer has their setup configured to accept "domestic partners" as an acceptable dependent type but the cheat code there is that you don't have to be, like, legally registered domestic partners either. noelle was on my plan years ago and now I'm on hers and in both instances they never asked us for any proof of our relationship or living together or anything. only thing that sucks is that you almost always have to pay the dependent premium in full since the insured partner's workplace usually doesn't cover that cost the way they'll (sometimes, partly) cover emoloyee premiums

[amanitaphalloides]

Please give me all your unemployment, job hunting, interviewing, etc tips!

hi unemployed community member <3

I am so sorry in advance for the length of this. I’m coming at this as someone who got laid off from a corporate job and is basically looking for the same job again, so ymmv with how relevant this is, but here’s a random array of tips I have found helpful.

MY GUIDE TO BEING UNEMPLOYED!

Getting your shit together after losing a job

Things you may need/want to do quickly if you have just lost a job (ie my week 1 unemployment to do list):

apply for unemployment benefits

review, negotiate, and sign your separation agreement

make an unemployment budget

take advantage of your final weeks of employer-sponsored insurance by having last-minute doctors appointments and getting your prescriptions refilled

look for new health insurance

contact student loan servicer to request a deferment/update your payment plan

More about this:

Unemployment benefits

If you’re eligible for unemployment benefits, apply to them right away. Different states are different, but you may need to have an in-person meeting at the unemployment office before you get any money. Scheduling this can take weeks. The world will look so much brighter if you have a little income. So if you qualify, do this first!

You will typically qualify for benefits if you got laid off or fired, but you also made qualify if your contract ended. Also you can usually freelance and still get benefits depending on how much you make.

Budgeting

Making a budget was really important to me so that I could concretely see whether I needed to panic about money and so I could give myself permission to relax. My goal was to stretch my severance and unemployment as far as possible while also doing stuff I enjoy.

Here's my budget template just in case our brains work the same way. This template is based on an old budget of mine - there are items on here that I set to $0 once I got laid off. I literally did budget in movie tickets because that has a massive impact on my joy in life.

Severance

If you are getting severance, it is possible to negotiate how much you get! I was able to get a few extra weeks basically by saying “this is bad timing and my income also supports my family."

Negotiating severance is like negotiating salary in that your former employer will probably give you less than you ask for. It's unlike negotiating salary in that you usually have zero leverage so honestly you might as well do an emotional appeal. IMO

Putting together an unemployed life

Stuff I consider absolutely non-negotiable aka things I MUST do not to spiral:

Make plans with friends. Write all your social plans down in your calendar and treat them as seriously as work.

Do something other than job hunting. Pick up a hobby. Give yourself a really specific reading or movie watching challenge. Volunteer. This will allow you to feel like you have a life which is absolutely critical to your self esteem, your ability to socialize, and your ability to function. You are going to have days when you NEED to feel cool. That will be way easier if you volunteered a few days ago than if you haven't done anything joyful for weeks.

Try to take care of your physical health. Move your body, eat full meals, go to bed at a regular time. I have really realized that sometimes the difference between me feeling good and despondent is truly just like, have I slept well and eaten and exercised recently.

Do things you like doing. I think it is very common to become unemployed and feel like you have to strip away everything in your life that's not focused on the job hunt. But you cannot stop doing everything that brings you happiness and expect to be okay. You will love your life if you fill it with things you love and you will hate it if you don't.

More tips....

Make a list of free or cheap things you can do for fun and then do them! Being unemployed is a great time to go to free days at museums if there’s anything like that near you. It’s also a good time to try a new recipe, check out a new walking path, FaceTime with a friend, write your grandma a letter, make diary comics, listen to new albums, watch movies you always meant to watch... for me though getting out of the house is especially important. I am constantly googling "free things to do in chicago this weekend" lol it pays off especially in a city!

I literally make Google calendar events for myself that are like "free museum day." I need to protect that time and treat it like an appointment to make myself actually do things.

If you have friends who wfh, go hang out with them and job hunt while they're working!

Applying for jobs

Tell everyone that you are job hunting. Post it far and wide. A lot of people get referral bonuses so they'll be trying to help you!

Job boards I use most heavily: Idealist, Otta, Built In, LinkedIn

This is so obvious but a lesson I really learned recently: only apply to places if you would take the job. If you're like "realistically I would not do that for that salary range" do not apply. you are gonna get yourself in Situations @ me two months ago

If you have a 1st or 2nd LinkedIn connection at a job you’re looking at dm them and say you'd love to hear what they think of the company!

I have also had success messaging random people on LinkedIn. Basically following this format: "Hi [name]! I came across this job at your company - I'm really interested and I'd love to hear more about what it's like working with the team. I'm sure you're busy, but is there any chance you have 15 minute this week or next to chat with me about the company before I apply? Thanks either way!"

Not everyone will want to talk but sometimes people still give you good insight into the hiring process.

It is really important to me to have boundaries around my job search. This has varied a bit depending on my schedule but the best thing I've found is telling myself I apply to jobs 9am-12pm. At noon I am DONE.

Interviewing

My interview prep: practice my elevator pitch with a focus on why it lead me to this company, pick out a few anecdotes from my past jobs I can share (a time I messed up, something I worked on that had a good result, something that didn’t go as expected, a time I had to deal with conflict), read the job's website and any news items I can find about them, and do a little quick review of the industry.

Most commonly repeated questions I've encountered recently: what's a time you made a mistake, what kind of management style do you like, why should we hire you.

This is the first time in my life I've ever genuinely practiced an elevator pitch and I hate to say it but it's really helped

After an interview (especially a panel interview) immediately take a few notes on what people said so you can write personalized thank yous.

I hope something in that was helpful and if not I'm sorry for the wall of text LOL but hugs and kisses it is all gonna be ok!!!

[mariacallous]

Senate Republicans voted Thursday to block a bill put forward by Democrats that would guarantee access to in vitro fertilization nationwide.

The legislation failed to advance in a procedural vote by a tally of 48-47. It needed 60 votes to advance. Republicans criticized the Democrat-led legislation as unnecessary overreach and a political show vote.

“Why should we vote for a bill that fixes a non-existent problem? There’s not a problem. There’s no restrictions on IVF, nor should there be,” Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, told reporters.

The vote is part of a broader push by Senate Democrats to draw a contrast with Republicans over reproductive health care in the run up to the November elections. Democrats are highlighting the issue this month, which marks the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer slammed Republicans who voted against the bill, saying that they are being “pushed by the MAGA hard right.”

“These are the very same people who pushed to get rid of Roe in the Dobbs decision,” Schumer told CNN’s Erin Burnett on “OutFront” Thursday evening, referring to the blockbuster 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned a constitutional right to abortion. “We know what they’re up to. They want to get rid of IVF, they’re afraid to say it.”

Biden attacked Senate Republicans after the vote.

“Once again, Senate Republicans refused to protect access to fertility treatments for women who are desperately trying to get pregnant,” Biden said in a written statement. “And just last week, Senate Republicans blocked nationwide protections for birth control. The disregard for a woman’s right to make these decisions for herself and her family is outrageous and unacceptable.”

Republicans have criticized the Democrat-led legislation as unnecessary overreach and a political show vote.

The legislation the Senate will take up – the Right to IVF Act – would enshrine into federal law a right for individuals to receive IVF treatment as well as for doctors to provide treatment, which would override any attempt at the state level to restrict access.

The bill seeks to make IVF treatment more affordable by mandating coverage for fertility treatments under employer-sponsored insurance and certain public insurance plans. It would also expand coverage of fertility treatments, including IVF, under US military service members and veterans’ health care.

The IVF legislative package was introduced by Democratic Sens. Patty Murray of Washington state, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Cory Booker of New Jersey.

The vote comes after Alabama’s Supreme Court said, in a first-of-its-kind ruling earlier this year, that frozen embryos are children and those who destroy them can be held liable for wrongful death – a decision that reproductive rights advocates warned could have a chilling effect on infertility treatments.

While the state’s legislature took action aimed at protecting IVF in the wake of the ruling, Democrats argue that this is only one example of how access to reproductive health care is under threat across the nation.

Southern Baptist delegates, for instance, expressed alarm Wednesday over the way in vitro fertilization is routinely being practiced, approving a resolution lamenting that the creation of surplus frozen embryos often results in “destruction of embryonic human life.”

The IVF vote is the latest move by Democrats to bring up a bill expected to be blocked by Republicans. Last week, Senate Republicans voted to block a Democrat-led bill that would guarantee access to contraception.

Most Republicans dismissed the effort as a political messaging vote that was unnecessary and overly broad, though GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine crossed over to vote with Democrats in favor of advancing the bill.

Republicans have introduced their own bills on IVF and contraception. GOP Sens. Katie Britt of Alabama and Ted Cruz of Texas have introduced a bill called the IVF Protection Act and Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa has put forward a separate bill to promote access to contraception.

Cruz and Britt attempted to pass their IVF legislation on the Senate floor Wednesday through a unanimous consent request, but Democrats blocked the effort.

Murray, who objected to the request, criticized the GOP bill, arguing that states could “enact burdensome and unnecessary requirements and create the kind of legal uncertainty and risk that would force clinics to once again close their doors.”

Under the IVF bill from Britt and Cruz, states would not be eligible for Medicaid funding if they prohibit access to IVF, but the legislation “permits states to implement health and safety standards regarding the practice of IVF,” according to a press release.

[coochiequeens]

No one is entitled to biological offspring and how can they include surrogacy in the Act without implying that couples are entitled to women to be surrogates?

A trio of Democratic senators are introducing a "Right to IVF Act" that would, among other things, force private health insurance plans to cover assisted reproduction treatments such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), egg freezing, and gestational surrogacy.

The measure provides no exception or accommodations for religious objections, all but ensuring massive legal battles over the mandate should it pass.

The "sweeping legislative package" (as the senators describe it) combines several existing pieces of legislation, including the Access to Family Building Act and the Family Building Federal Employees Health Benefit Fairness Act sponsored by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.), the Veteran Families Health Services Act from Sen. Patty Murray (D–Wash.), and the Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act from Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.).

Booker's contribution here is probably the most controversial. It requires coverage for assisted reproduction from any health care plan that covers obstetric services.

A Reverse Contraception Mandate

Remember the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate, which required private health insurance plans to cover birth control (allegedly) at no cost to plan participants? It spawned some big legal battles over the rights of religious employers and institutions not to offer staff health plans that included birth control coverage.

Booker's Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act is a lot like the Obamacare contraception mandate, except instead of requiring health care plans to cover the costs of avoiding pregnancy it would require them to cover treatments to help people become pregnant.

The bill states that all group health plans or health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance must cover assisted reproduction and fertility preservation treatments if they cover any obstetric services. It defines assisted reproductive technology as "treatments or procedures that involve the handling of human egg, sperm, and embryo outside of the body with the intent of facilitating a pregnancy, including in vitro fertilization, egg, embryo, or sperm cryopreservation, egg or embryo donation, and gestational surrogacy."

Health insurance plans could only require participant cost-sharing (in the form of co-pays, deductibles, etc.) for such services to the same extent that they require cost-sharing for similar services.

What Could Go Wrong?

It seems like it should go without saying by now but there is no such thing as government-mandated healthcare savings. Authorities can order health care plans to cover IVF (or contraception or whatever) and cap point-of-service costs for plan participants, but health insurers will inevitably pass these costs on to consumers in other ways—leading to higher insurance premiums overall or other health care cost increases.

Yes, IVF and other fertility procedures are expensive. But a mandate like this could actually risk raising IVF costs.

When a lot of people are paying out of pocket for fertility treatments, medical professionals have an incentive to keep costs affordable in order to attract patients. If everyone's insurance covers IVF and patients needn't bother with comparing costs or weighing costs versus benefits, there's nothing to stop medical providers from raising prices greatly. We'll see the same cost inflation we've seen in other sectors of the U.S. healthcare marketplace—a situation that not only balloons health care spending generally (and gets passed on to consumers one way or another) but makes fertility treatments out of reach for people who don't have insurance that covers such treatments.

Raising costs isn't the only issue here, of course. There's the matter of more government intervention in private markets (something some of us are still wild-eyed enough to oppose!).

Offering employee health care plans that cover IVF could be a good selling point for recruiting potential employees or keeping existing employees happy. But there's no reason that every employer should have to do so, just because lawmakers want IVF to be more accessible.

It's unfair to employers—big or small, religious or non-religious—to say they all must take on the costs of offering health care plans that cover pricey fertility treatments. And Booker's bill contains no exceptions for small businesses or for entities with religious or ethical objections.

A lot of religious people are morally opposed to things like IVF and surrogacy. This measure would force religious employers to subsidize and tacitly condone these things if they wanted to offer employees health care plans with any obstetrics coverage at all.

As with any government intervention in free markets, there's the possibility that this fertility treatment mandate would distort incentives. IVF can certainly be an invaluable tool for folks experiencing infertility. But it's also very expensive and very taxing—emotionally and physically—for the women undergoing it, with far from universal success rates. The new mandate could encourage people who may not be good candidates for IVF to keep trying it, perhaps nudging them away from other options (like adoption) that might be better suited to their circumstances.

'Access' Vs. Whatever This Is

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many Americans have worried that the legal regime change would pave the way for outlawing things like contraception or IVF, too. Encoding into law (or legal precedent) the idea that fertilized eggs are people could have negative implications for these things, even if many conservative politicians pledge (and demonstrate) that IVF and birth control are safe. In response, some progressive politicians—perhaps genuinely concerned, perhaps sensing political opportunity (or why not both?)—have started talking a lot about the need to protect access to IVF across the country.

As much as I agree with this goal, I think IVF's legality is better off as a state-by-state matter. That said, the "protect IVF nationwide" impulse wouldn't be so bad if "protecting access" simply meant making sure that the procedure was legal.

But as we've seen again and again over the past couple decades, Democrats tend to define health care and medicine "access" differently.

The new Right to IVF Act would establish a national right to provide or receive assisted reproduction services. In their press release, the senators say this last bit would "pre-empt any state effort to limit such access and ensur[e] no hopeful parent—or their doctors—are punished for trying to start or grow a family." OK.

But that's not all it would do. The bill's text states that "an individual has a statutory right under this Act, including without prohibition or unreasonable limitation or interference (such as due to financial cost or detriment to the individual's health, including mental health), to—(A) access assisted reproductive technology; (B) continue or complete an ongoing assisted reproductive technology treatment or procedure pursuant to a written plan or agreement with a health care provider; and (C) retain all rights regarding the use or disposition of reproductive genetic materials, including gametes."

Note that bit about financial cost. It's kind of confusingly worded and it's unclear exactly what that would mean in practice. But it could give the government leeway to directly intervene if they think IVF is broadly unaffordable or to place more demands on individual health care facilities, providers, insurance plans, etc., to help cover the costs of IVF for people whom it would otherwise be financially out of reach.

This is the distilled essence of how Democrats go too far on issues like this. They're not content to say "People shouldn't be punished for utilizing/offering IVF" or that the practice shouldn't be illegal. They look at authoritarian or overreaching possibilities from the other side (like banning or criminalizing IVF) and respond with overreaching proposals of their own.

The proble with increasing access to IVF is what happens when the couple needs a surrogate to have biological offspring? Will they beg and pester the women in their lives? Will the affordable IVF compensate surrogates fairly?

[volkinsurancebenefitsco]

https://www.volkib.com/group-health-insurance-employee-benefits-greeley-loveland-windsor-longmont-co/

Employer Sponsored Benefits in Longmont and Windsor, CO

Don’t go it alone when it comes to insurance! Volk Insurance Benefits can help you understand your options and find the right coverage for your needs. We offer individual and group health insurance plans and Medicare solutions. Contact us today for a free quote!

[bequestmutual]

Life Insurance Agency

If you are looking for a life insurance agency in the USA, then you are at the right place. Bequest Mutual is the best life insurance agency in Norwalk, CT, United States. Join our team and get detailed information by visiting our website.

[beardedmrbean]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected a blueprint to give undocumented immigrants unemployment benefits on Saturday, vetoing a politically sensitive measure that conservatives seized on weeks before the presidential election.

It was the third bill aimed at supporting noncitizens that Newsom has vetoed in as many weeks, as immigration continues to be a top issue in the election. The latest veto comes as the Democratic governor continues campaigning for fellow Californian Vice President Kamala Harris, who is facing attacks from former President Donald Trump on progressive policies in her home state.

In his veto message, Newsom contended the bill "sets impractical timelines, has operational issues and requires funding that was not included in the budget." The governor pivoted to the federal level, stating that Congress should not "abandon its responsibility to advance solutions that provide an earned pathway to citizenship for longstanding residents who hove contributed significantly and seek the opportunity to work and live without constant fear and uncertainty."

"California has taken important steps to advance inclusion and equity for undocumented workers and mixed-status families who contribute significantly to California's economy and local communities - all while bottling fear and uncertainty due to decades of inaction by Congress and cruel and false anti-immigration narratives," Newsom wrote.

Newsom added that "we can have a fair immigration system that works for families, U.S. workers, and employers, and also have a safe border."

Two weeks ago, Newsom cited funding concerns when he killed a proposal that would have made some undocumented immigrants eligible for state-sponsored home loans. He also rejected a bill that would require public universities to hire undocumented students without work permits, warning of legal risks.

The unemployment benefits measure would not have automatically given undocumented immigrants unemployment. Instead it would have required the state’s Employment Development Department to plan for a permanent program that would provide cash assistance to those workers, who are prohibited from receiving unemployment insurance under state law.

Newsom vetoed a similar bill in 2022 that would have created a pilot program, also citing funding. His finance department had opposed an earlier version of this year’s measure.

A coalition of more than 120 immigrant and worker rights organizations had pushed for the program to be enacted in an original version of the measure, but the proposal was reduced to a study bill after funding was not included in the budget for the second straight year.

The original version of the bill would have made the estimated 1.1 million undocumented workers in the state eligible for $300 a week in cash payments for the periods they were unemployed in 2025, provided that they meet a number of qualification requirements.

Research from the Community and Labor Center at UC Merced found that undocumented workers contribute billions of dollars annually in state and tax revenues. Advocates contend it is unfair they don’t receive benefits from the crucial safety net they are paying into.

California has helped undocumented immigrants who were out of work in the past, though only during emergency situations — the state provided Covid-19 disaster relief assistance in 2020 and aid to undocumented families impacted by winter storms in 2022 and 2023.