Which makes it even more stupid, and dangerous.
Then we will see what happens.
This is ynotgo’s link.
How many employees do we have?
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/13/cost-contraception-in-insurance-plans-what-data-say/
The pills are not free, dstark. Someone has to pay the manufacturers for them. There may be a net savings for offering them, but they are not free. And here I thought you were the economics guru. Ha
@Bay , the net effect is free. 
I already mentioned the insurance companies have to buy the pills.
I explained this already.
Also from ynotgo’s link.
http://business.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/
Religious freedom… Looks like there are plenty of Catholics using birth control pills. Maybe Catholics should complain about other Catholics.
98 percent of sexually active Catholics have used birth control.
The politician suing is just another poliitician who wants to raise costs for people.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/07/birth-controls-big-cost-control-gains-from-obamacare.html
Oh come on, bay. dstark is technically right, and parsing the “cost somewhere” argument to be argumentative or mock his financial acumen is unhelpful and inflammatory. The person using the BCPs can get them without paying a penny. Hence “free” to them, even if the cost is being absorbed elsewhere. Ditto for som antibiotics and care for those on Medicaid (the patient doesn’t pay, but the general populous does) , WIC and other entitlements. Let it go.
@EarlVanDorn wrote in post #75
We need to start another thread on the potential joys of full choice in cable channels!
“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.”
The individual does not have to purchase a plan which offers BC. They can pay the penalty and self insure.
“No, because the point is to make BC unavailable to everyone, not just his daughters. This case is 100% ideological.”
Yes, I agree that is why he is pursuing this but I doubt there is anything in his lawsuit which says that explicitly.
“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.”
Again, he doesn’t have to purchase a plan which covers BC. He can go the pay the penalty route and self insure.
Can you explain your use of “free health insurance” Who is getting that? Almost everyone pays a percentage of their premiums - including those who work for a state like the plaintiff in this case.
Only Medicaid is free as far as I know - and perhaps there are a few business left that pick up the whole premium, but surely less than 1% of all businesses do that anymore.
“We need to start another thread on the potential joys of full choice in cable channels!”
There are a lot of arguments that being able to pick cable channels ala carte will end up being more expensive for the consumer than what we have now. If you google it a lot come up.
What is great about the lawsuit are a couple of things.
One is it will come up that having contraception coverage lowers healthcare costs and costs to society.
So in court, covered in national media, it will be shown the cost argument doesn’t fly.
Two is it will come up in court that somewhere around 98 percent of sexually active Catholics have used birth control.
So the religious freedom argument is bogus.
So what we have left is a political argument. The suit was brought by a politician.
What we have left is a political argument brought by a conservative that will lead to higher costs to society.
Dstark,
If, as you say, bcps are free and there are few devout Catholics who oppose bcps, it’s hard to see how allowing this man his religious freedom will lead to higher costs for society. It is potentially more costly to society for him to take emilybees suggested route and go bare, because if someone in his family suffers a devastating injury, the costs will be born by society and not the insurance company.
Perhaps earlvandorn meant that the daughters’ insurance was free to them b/c the dad was paying for it. Other than that, state funded (medicaid) plans are the only other free ones that come to mind, as well as Massachusetts’ free healthcare for residents earning something like les than 150% of the federal poverty level.
Going bare is his choice. He can go broke first. Then society can take over. That’s not my choice.
We should not be setting public policy based on a few people or bs.
The politician is not paying for contraceptives and his family does not have to use them. This isn’t about religious freedom. Since you like to call issues what they really are…and I do too…this is a political stunt.
Some people probably thought Roe v. Wade was a political stunt too, since the plaintiff had given birth by the time the case made it to the US Supreme Court. But I didn’t, because the case defined women’s rights going forward, even if it didn’t benefit Mrs. McCorvey with her unwanted pregnancy.
Adding to dstark: Would you still call this case a political stunt if the plaintiff represented the other political party?
But his rights aren’t being violated. He has a choice. McCorvey did not (at least not through legal channels).
As I understand it (the facts are limited), he is claiming he has no other way to get insurance coverage for his family. So he does not have a choice to be covered without violating his religious beliefs.
Ok. @bay, I guess, I am happy you didn’t think Roe v Wade was a political stunt. I don’t care if some people think Roe v Wade was a political stunt.
This lawsuit is a political stunt.
I judge each case on its merits.