Well, one thing led to another and we started debating whether their coverage of pregnancy and birth but not birth control was discriminatory. He didn't think that it was, since they were covering pregancy related issues. I contend that it is because they're only supporting one side of my reproductive health. What makes an employer think they can pick and choose amongst those things? In addition, it's a prescription. My employer/insurer does not get to tell my doctor what to do. That's stupid and against Title 9 (as far as I know).
During the course of our debate, I got a little excited and lecture-y. I hate it when he does it, but I did it to him. So now I feel bad about that. But (I think) we finally came to the agreement that it was none of an employer/insurers business *what* the prescription was, that it existed ought to be enough. In fact, he seemed to think that there were other limits on prescriptions (beyond the brand name/generic limitations). For example, he thought there were limitations upon the level of coverage for terminal illness prescriptions. I told him that his policy was only limited by a dollar amount, and that seemed to change his mind. Especially when I said that I didn't want his boss to rule in my bedroom.
That was the first time I can remember that we actually had a productive discussion about something like that. We don't normally talk about philosophy, mostly I think because we don't agree at all. It's just easier if we don't get a riled up about it. OK, if I don't get all riled up, because I'm the one who gets really excited about that stuff. Maybe this will open that door for us.