My cable service allows me to eliminate by blocking, channels I don’t want to surf through at no charge . I did this for all the Spanish-language channels, because I don’t speak Spanish.
And cable TV is exactly like health insurance .
@bay, you are paying for channels you aren’t using.
The lawsuit is about more than paying for something the consumer isn’t using. For one thing, the politician who is suing isn’t paying anything for bc. So the politician is not paying for something he isn’t using.
@dstark So I wonder how this is a valid lawsuit? Don’t you have to be harmed in some tangible way in order to sue? If he doesn’t pay, he’s not harmed. Or does being upset at the idea of women making their own health decisions count as being harmed?
I think the the politician is saying he is being harmed mentally or emotionally because he has to participate in a healthcare plan against his beliefs. If the politician is claiming financial damage, he is going to lose.
If we let the religious back out, the cost of plans goes up. So the argument that society bends over backwards to support religious freedom when there aren’t any costs doesn’t fly in this case.
And not only do insurance costs go up without birth control coverage, other costs to society goes up. Who is going to pay to take care of these unwanted babies born to mothers who can’t afford to take care of them?
Are we going to tell people you can’t have premarital sex? You can’t have sex unless you can pay for potential medical costs or a baby? Yeah…that’s freedom. Regulating a person’s sex life is freedom and liberty. 
i have no idea what cable has to do with insurance, but someone used it as an analogy. The analogy doesn’t hold in my case.
In any event, I haven’t read that the plaintiff is complaining about the cost of paying for bcp coverage. It’s likely that he doesn’t care about the cost; he just doesn’t want any of his earned income applied to anyone’s purchase of it. Maybe he would be happy to pay more not to have to buy it for someone else. We don’t know. He is not being given that option.
The politician’s earned income isn’t paying for birth control pills.
Is there a place in the United Stares where you can strictly pay to watch cable channels ala carte?
Lasma,
My guess is that his claim of harm is a civil rights violation. The government is prohibiting him from freely exercising his religious objection to birth control, in violation of the Constitution. This would not require him to prove specific monetary damages.
Declining to provide someone with free birth control is not “regulating” their sex life. I happen to love birth control. I am not opposed to the government giving free birth control to everyone. The government can pay McDonald’s to put it in Happy Meals for all I care.
But there is a difference between the government providing a service and the government requiring individuals to provide it. I do not believe anyone should be required to purchase things which violate their religious beliefs, and that includes birth control.
I have no objection to allowing individuals to purchase via a separate rider those items which aren’t included in their free health insurance that is being provided by others. In the case of birth control it would seem to me that it would be in the interest of the companies to actually pay the people a few bucks annually to take the free birth control. But they will be the ones choosing to buy or sign up for the birth control, not someone who is opposed to it on religious grounds.
From an administrative standpoint this is something that would be very, very easy. I don’t understand the people who are saying “that’s impossible!” when in fact it’s very possible, very easy, and very low cost.
If his income is not paying for anyone’s bcp, then I don’t see how he has a case. But who is paying for it?
The federal government does not mandate that everyone must subscribe to cable TV, or be penalized by law. It is a bad analogy.
Bay, you brought it up @ cable.
No it would not be very, very easy. In fact, it would be very, very difficult.
Which I suspect is the ultimate goal of these suits: To make birth control harder to get for everyone.
Birth control pills are free. Not insuring birth control pills costs money.
So… The politician isn’t paying for birth control pills. The politician is not forced to buy birth control pills for his daughters. And his kids are not forced to buy or use birth control pills.
If some people opt out on religious grounds, some of them are going to make babies.
This is about the suit.
The politician seems to be complaining about the costs and that his daughters are forced…
No I didn’t bring up cable, I responded to greenwitches post about cable. You need to keep up.
Birth control pill coverage is in the plan. Don’t use the coverage if you don’t want the coverage.
The politcian wants a second plan created.
That is going to cost money,
Fine… Charge him double.
Actually double may not be enough. Costs money to change plans or offer new plans across the country…you are going to need coders, actuaries, administrators, how much is this going to cost? Is every insurance company going to have a mandate to offer plans without birth control pills?
Sorry, Bay, I was also watching the Tour de France. 
If he can purchase insurance in the private market that excludes bcps, then he may lose his case. Nothing I have found indicated that he had that option.
That would make sense, because if you allow people to pick and choose which benefits they want, the whole concept of insurance falls apart.
Birth control pills are not free, dstark.
Yeah…they are. The insurance companies may pay for the pills…but the policy holders don’t because the pills are cheaper than alternatives like abortions, and births.
You can buy pills not offered in plans. Not every birth control pill is covered in a plan. But that is a choice.
Regardless of how specific pills are paid for, his complaint is not limited to bcps, but apparently includes other forms of birth control as well.