First of all, the court victory is simply that the case was reinstated and not thrown out. They haven’t won anything yet.
But the case itself. First reaction is “Are you freaking kidding me?” but, they are on their father’s plan. His plan, his rules? I don’t necnessarily agree with this, but I could see the case being made that if they want healthcare with birth control they should get their own plan.
I do find it a bit ironic that for religious reasons it may be possible to opt out of birth control coverage for some who need it, but my wife and I at age 62 pay for a plan that includes birth control, maternity benefits, pediatric dental coverage, and what else that we couldn’t possibly use? It does have an “alternate universe” feel to it.
That’s the whole point of insurance. 23-year-olds are probably not going to need prostate or bypass surgery or statins, but there it is. Everything is covered and everyone pays for everything. It’s called “spreading the risk.”
When we were all younger, our employer plans were paying for us to have families while the 62 year old employees were not needing maternity care etc. But… young adults don’t need as many pricey procedures and meds as those of us with aging bodies.
It’s odd that the article leaves out the fact that besides being a state senator, he owns Wieland Insurance Group. So, perhaps he has a business interest beyond managing his adult daughters’ private lives.
This issue could have been avoided by omitting mandatory birth control coverage in ACA, when the controversy arose in the first place. Let people who want it pay for a rider policy. Or don’t require it at all and subsidize the cost on the open market. This case was inevitable, and we all discussed it years (?) ago.
I agree about the Viagra, thumper. I never understood why Viagra was covered and in-vitro or other fertilization was not… They are both about non-functioning sex organs.
Whether you agree with it or not, the argument surrounding Viagra is that it’s to correct an issue. Logically, then if there were something to correct something equivalent in women, that also shouldn’t have a co-payment.
however, is it true that Viagra doesnt have a copayment? I would have thought it would.
For our BCBS, Viagara DOES have a copay and limits the # of pills it will allow reimbursed/month, or at least those were the terms the last time I researched.
It would depend on one’s plan. Every plan is different.
So people are starting (or have already started and, in some cases finished) court cases about birth control. Why not abortion? Why not infertility treatments? (If God intended for you to have children, he would have made it easy.) Why not HPV vaccine? Why not Viagra and Cialis? If BC is an issue to be adjudicated, why aren’t all these things fodder for the courts?
The **** in my Post 32 is the proper five-letter word for the male member.
@GMTplus7: One of the requirements of the ACA is that medical plans have no lifetime maximum. So, the benefits are truly limitless. I have seen situations in the old days where the plan had a $1 or $2 million lifetime cap and, after a terrible accident and lots of rehab, an individual reached that max and the plan shut off.
What happens when Jehovah’s Witnesses require plans that don’t pay for blood transfusions? Or Scientologists require plans that don’t cover antidepressants? Maybe the Christian Scientists want to get into the mix and deny all medical care? Religion is a personal belief. Not one that should be forced on others. You don’t like it, you don’t use it.
^i think that is the point of the suit. Religious objectors want a choice of plans that don’t include mandates that violate their beliefs, and after the ACA they don’t get that choice anymore.
