Maybe these daughters are on-board with this or at least compliant. But if I were his daughters, that’s one dad who wouldn’t be getting many calls and visits once I’d achieved financial independence. Perhaps not so much because of the BCP as for dragging them into this.
The whole thing seems a bit extreme, but why not just exclude their adult children from his plan if the parents feel the way they do.
We have our adult children on our policy by choice. With a touch of an online button, we could exclude them if we chose to.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with some insurance entity coming out with some sort of a la carte healthcare plan offering for folks who want to be picky. An a la carte plan will be more expensive, but these folks are free to put their money where they want to.
I feel sooo sorry for these girls/daughters.
This is not that different than the argument of pacifists who don’t want their tax dollars paying for the military. When you live in a society, you have to accept that while you may disagree with some things, sometimes you have to go along with what has been deemed for the common good. Unless the govt starts forcibly giving his daughters birth control, this is an individual issue. If enough people don’t like it, the law will be changed. I’ve certainly objected to plenty of laws but never asked for individual exemptions from them.
I don’t want to pay the additional premiums that would be needed to come up with individual plans to exclude birth control, abortion, sterilization, in vitro fertilization, fertility drugs, anti-depressants, and all the other things people could object to. It would require insurers to have many more staff and much more complex computer systems than they do today. My private employer does not offer me a choice of plans - I either take what they offer or I opt out. I’ve never thought of objecting to individual coverage items.
I pay for birth control and maternity benefits despite the fact that that ship sailed a long time ago, LOL. We have been paying school taxes for years and years, although we never used the public school system. This dad needs to get a life, and stay out of his daughters’.
I agree with dstark’s post that because we live in a society, we pay for things that we ourselves might not use and might not approve of.
Get over it.
From what I read, he is a devout Catholic. His employer always offered a checkbox to opt out of bcp coverage in the past. Then the Huff case was decided after the ACA passed, and they took the checkboxes away based on a federal Supremacy argument.
So what? We are not a Catholic country.
There are Catholics in my familiy. They understand people are part of a society and the country is not Catholic.
I deleted parts of my post. I don’t want to offend anybody. 
Our country tries to accommodate religious beliefs when they don’t infringe on others. Despite being non/religious and pro/choice, I have trouble seeing the harm in allowing devout Catholics to opt out of paying for other people’s birth control.
If anything, he should pay more for coverage without free birth control.
According to http://www.nwlc.org/resource/contraceptive-coverage-health-care-law-frequently-asked-questions
“According to the National Business Group on Health, a non-profit organization representing employers’ perspectives on national health policy issues, the cost of adding birth control coverage to a health plan is more than made up for in expected cost savings. And when birth control coverage was added to the federal employee plan, premiums did not increase because there was no resulting health care cost increase.”
Also:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/13/cost-contraception-in-insurance-plans-what-data-say/
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml
http://business.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/
<<<
This is not that different than the argument of pacifists who don’t want their tax dollars paying for the military.
<<
Well, that is a different.
I deleted my post above. I do want to end all tax and government subsidies to religious organizations.
The guy doesn’t want to support birth control. Why are taxpayers supporting his religion or any religion? People who belong to a religion should support their own religion.
Until then, tough. Too bad!
Ynotgo, you are right. The guy should pay more. And the guy should pay more of the social costs with the added births.
Of course it’s cheaper to prevent conception than deliver a baby. Just like it’s cheaper to let people die than treat them for serious injuries and diseases.
People can have “sincerely held religious beliefs” and not be persecuted for it. Our constitution provides for that. What our constitution does not provide for is making other people conform (or contort) to those religious beliefs.
It is not a religious belief that led insurance companies to provide for some forms of birth control (or for viagra, fertility treatment, etc.). It does not impinge on anyone’s religion that those things are available to those who need them.
My daughters are all over age 18. They know how I feel about tattoos. They heard long ago that they should be able to provide for themselves financially before they get a tattoo, even though the law says that they are old enough to go out and get a tattoo. I didn’t try to take this before the supreme court!
Mr. Whatshisname can do the same with the few forms of birth control that are covered under the ACA. His daughters can go out and get condoms and not tell him about it. His daughters can pay out of pocket and hope he doesn’t find out. His daughters can (at least in my dreams) go on national television and talk about their favorite birth control pills and how much freer their lives are now. His daughters can go on national television and talk about how going on the pill finally, finally, regulated their cycles so they’re not in desperate pain anymore.
This is all just theater. It reminds me of the TSA.
Those of you who say this father is going to lose this suit should think about the Hobby Lobby case, in which the Court said a CORPORATION didn’t have to have a health plan that offered birth control if all the shareholders had a religious objection. As a conservative who hates Obamacare, I think this was an absolutely lousy decision. But I don’t see the legal reasoning in allowing a corporation to refuse to offer plans with birth control while not extending the same rights to individuals. If anything it should be the other way around.
I assume those who insist it would be so super-duper complicated to allow plan exclusions must not have cable or satellite television. But these services are routinely purchased with customized channel listings. Allowing people to exclude birth control would cost virtually nothing administratively, although a strong argument can be made that such policies should cost more due to the expense of unplanned pregnancies. But I think the father should be allowed to pay more if needed for a policy that excludes birth control.
I don’t think a Jehovah’s Witness parent should be req
Continued due to editing error:
I don’t think a Jehovah’s Witness parent should be required to purchase a policy that covers blood transfusions, either for themselves or their 18-26 y.o. children (the minor child is another matter, since the courts might order a transfusion for a minor). I think their belief is “dumb,” but I think they have the right to have it and the right not to be forced to contribute to an insurance policy which violates their religious beliefs. Their adult children can buy their own insurance if they don’t like it, and it would be a simple matter for the insurance companies to offer separate riders for these individuals for a few cents a month.
[Quote ]
If the father doesn’t want his premiums going for coverage of birth control, he can pay the penalty and go without insurance.
[/Quote ]
No, because the point is to make BC unavailable to everyone, not just his daughters. This case is 100% ideological. Hobby Lobby established that religious for -profit corps can dictate their emploees’ health options. This takes it the next step.
I only wish I could pick and choose cable companies and not pay for the ones I don’t watch. I probably watch about 5 channels and I would love to simplify my life and permanently delete the rest. Too bad it’s not possible. Maybe I should form a church…
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is conservative. What a surprise! 