Sure, why not? It’s a Constitutiibnal issue, perhaps unique to the U.S.
Thinkprogress is notorious for stories which fail to tell the whole story. These three daughters, one of whom is 13, all all on a health plan that is being paid for by the father. He is not in any why trying to prevent them from going out and buying their own health insurance that would cover birth control. Nor is he trying to get the government to stop these young women from just ponying up $9 a month and buying their own birth control.
I happen to think birth control is a wonderful thing. But the government shouldn’t force parents to buy it for their children, either directly or through insurance. I happen to think these parents are misguided, but also think it is within the range of options that each parent ought to be able to have.
The daughters might not be able to buy coverage of their own, if they are his dependents and have no income.
I think the church of body modification should sue to have tattooing and piercing covered by insurance.
@bay - where do you draw the line? No one is forcing these people to use those particular provisions of the policy. But others covered under the same insurance who are not of the same faith DO want those provisions. Will insurance companies be required to write coverage policies at the individual level? Or will you be required to select from multiple faith based options and compare every item covered by the policy to ensure it does not conflict with your individual beliefs? By nature insurance is a group entity, not individual. Unless the ACA forces him to provide his daughters with birth control I still fail to see the problem.
It’s not my line, it’s the new law. And yes, I think people want faith-based coverage options, but federal law no longer allows that type of tailoring.
The suit is not going to win. There will not be an insurance market if there are going to be all these individual exceptions.
I hate the freedom argument. It’s bs. One person’s freedom impacts another person’s freedom. Therefore, nobody is really free.
People aren’t free to do what they want.
We have individual rights. There are also societal rights. We live in a society.
We have conflicts. The United States is not a religious country. The United States is full of religious people. That is a big difference. Particular religions do not get to make the laws in this country.
If you don’t want to take birth control, don’t. We all pay for things we don’t want to use or pay for. Too bad. That is the cost of living in society.
I want to drive 80 mph. Too bad for me. By the laws, society says no. I pay my taxes for the roads and society says I can’t drive 80 mph or I am breaking the law.
And yes, the ACA compliant plans mandate brp coverage, so his 18-26 year old D’s can get it anytime without his permission, paid for by his plan.
Since I take medical marijuana for pain relief in lieu of more toxic medications previously prescribed by my drs, Im waiting for the Feds to get off the stick & follow the states lead to legalization, so I can submit my expenses to my insurance company.
Im also waiting for mental health care to be as easy to get as a gun.
It seems to me that what he’s asking for would require policies to be customized for individuals, which defeats the whole purpose of insurance, and wound certainly add a lot of administrative cost if it were done on a widespread basis.
I think describing this as the government forcing patents to buy birth control for their kids is over the top. My insurance covers a lot of things. I’m still free to use those services or not.
My kids get free yearly checkups. That doesnt mean the government is forcing me to take my kids to the doctor.
“I happen to think birth control is a wonderful thing. But the government shouldn’t force parents to buy it for their children, either directly or through insurance.”
The gov’t is not forcing anyone to buy birth control. It is just mandating that all plans cover BC with no co-pay. Plans cover lots of things people will never need to use their insurance for.
That is what we had before the ACA.
Which is why the insurance industry is going to fight it tooth and nail. But if the courts deem the current law violative of Constitutional rights, they will have no choice.
The insurance companies wil pass the cost along to consumers, of course.
Isn’t he asking for his employer-provided plan to exclude BC? I don’t know who had that option before the ACA, but I surely never did.
No. You couldn’t buy customized insurance where you could just pick and choose everything.
There weren’t infinite plans.
Some people were prevented from buying insurance.
This suit is going to lose.
I think it was pretty common for insurance to exclude BC before so you might have been able to find a policy without it (I think my work policies excluded it at some point). But yeah, you really couldn’t pick exactly what you did and didn’t want tire insurance to cover even as an individual policy shopper.
It reminds me of The Office when Dwight was put in charge of picking the insurance plan and he asked everyone to name the conditions they wanted covered and anything not requested wouldn’t be covered.
You could buy a private plan without bcp before the ACA. You can’t do that anymore.
“Isn’t he asking for his employer-provided plan to exclude BC? I don’t know who had that option before the ACA, but I surely never did.”
He is on the insurance all state employees in Missouri are on and I am sure their insurance covered BC (state employees have some of the best coverage there is.) The only difference now is that there is no co-pay for BC per ACA.
In plaintiff’s case, he does have an argument that the government is forcing him to pay for his daughters’ bcp. The law requires him to have coverage that includes bcp; the law requires his plan to cover his children up to age 26; he is religiously opposed to bcp; and by law he cannot prevent his Ds from obtaining bcps paid for by his income via premium payment. Its the perfect storm for a challenge of the law.
The father still maintains the right to refuse to purchase health insurance for his under 26 year old kids.
Perhaps he should be suing THEM for disobeying his request not to get BCPs.
If he does this, his Ds may or may not be able to obtain insurance at all, depending on the state. So the government is still forcing him to make the choice of providing coverage for his family and paying for his Ds bcps, or leaving his children uncovered. I’m sure neither is palatable to him. If there is a reasonable alternative for his Ds to get coverage, he will probably lose the suit.
It goes like this “I’ll keep you on my health insurance plan as long as you don’t use it to get Birth Control”. He has the right to say that to his kids. They have the right to listen or pay for BC out of pocket or get their own insurance. This is a non-issue.