“eb-
He owns his own Insurance brokerage. Its HIS company, co owned with is wife. No clue how many employees they have, but if they have agents, they are probably commission based. That said, this article claims he gets his insurance coverage from the state as a State Representative.”
Yes, I know that. But if he objects that his insurance coverage through the State of Missouri covers BC, he can opt out and pay the penalty OR he can offer insurance coverage through his own business and because of his religious objection (it’s a privately held corporation ala Hobby Lobby) and offer a plan which does not cover BC. Of course, this would be WAY more expensive then the plan he is on (which probably costs him peanuts) but I am sure he would be willing to cough up the dosh so as not to have to be on a plan which covers BC.
It also doesn’t matter that his agents are commission based. He can offer his employees health insurance regardless of how they are paid.
If its provided by the State, is he paying for the insurance or is it a benefit at no cost to the legislators? Anyone know?
I would assume he pays a % of his premium just as Congresspeople do. I am on a state plan and family coverage is only $340/month, regardless of how many kids are in the family. Very cheap for extremely comprehensive coverage. These plans also have very low deductibles ($1000 or none in my case if we go to a PP.) OOP is very low, too. We have never even reached the OOP max in the 24 years we have had our plan.
If I remember correctly, the majority in the Hobby Lobby case dismissed the idea that the company could avoid the issue by paying the $2k per employee buyout. I don’t remember why and don’t have time to look at it. Maybe someone else will.
Apologies-- meant to say the sale agents may likely be 1099 contract employees, not full time employees. So would’t get benefits. And if his firm is small, he doesn’t have to provide benefits anyway, correct? Doubtful he has 50+ fulltime employees.
And his website suggests he represents a particular insurance company. Couldn’t he get insurance though them? Is he a franchise?
Yes, he can opt out and pay the penalty and pay for his and his family’s healthcare. That option exists. He just doesnt want to spend the $. I dont think he is willing to cough up the dough or he’d have done it. And this is a political ploy.
“Heck, there’s probably a big market out there for health insurance without birth control, I’m sure some company offers "
it”
No, all plans per ACA have to cover BC with no co-pay (among other things it must cover per ACA.) One cannot buy an individual plan that doesn’t cover BC.
But he can either opt out of his plan now and pay the penalty or purchase a plan for his small business and not cover BC per Hobby Lobby ruling.
And his website suggests he represents a particular insurance company. Couldn’t he get insurance though them?Is he a franchise?
I don’t know if he could but that company’s health insurance has to cover BC with no co-pay also.
He’s wringing his hands over the fact that anyone can get birth control on the insurance plan that he doesn’t pay for. The only reason the daughters come into it is because he’d have no standing to sue to prevent his co-workers from getting birth control on the insurance plan he doesn’t pay for. Though that is the goal, and will be the effect if he prevails.
Which probably buttresses an argument that the government can and has made religious accommodations under the ACA in the past without the law falling apart.
According to the info on the link, it appears that the government gives members of certain religious groups an exemption from having any coverage at all – but not from this, that or the other provision, which is what this particular case (and my Jehovah’s Witness example) were about.