Given that he and his wife co-own AN INSURANCE BROKERAGE AGENCY, this is very hard to believe. Doesn’t he select the insurance for his company? He is also a state representative. Any options there to access healthcare coverage? He is an insurance broker and a politician. No suspect there about his having a personal agenda, LOL.
No, I think there is a phrase in his appeal filing that indicates there are no policies available to him that do not include birth control coverage.
As I understand it, the plaintiff is not trying to destroy bcp coverage for women, rather he is asking for a religious accommodation for himself. He was happy in the past with simply being able to check a box on his enrollment form that promised his $ wouldn’t go to pay for contraception. That sounds reasonable to me, not sure why others have a problem with it.
Well @bay, since you like to look at different sides of an issue, why do you think others have a problem with this?
The only reason I can think that people oppose this is because they think there will be a slippery slope of made up objections to paying for all kinds of treatment. To me, that is a weak argument, unless there are significant numbers of people who have done this in the past with their company insurance coverage. Perhaps those people can provide us with examples of this happening in the past.
The past isn’t germane, Bay. The insurance market is different now.
This case is only one of over 100 that are challenging the contraceptives mandate of the ACA. See, http://www.nwlc.org/status-lawsuits-challenging-affordable-care-acts-birth-control-coverage-benefit
The majority of the cases are being brought by companies.
That’s one argument.
How about despite what the politician says…
There is no economic cost to this politician, there is economic cost to society, maybe 98 percent of his religion does use birth control…his family is not forced to use birth control…
So he is not really affected at all by contraceptives being parts of a plan…except he is part of society and society benefits by including contraception. Women save over $1.3 billion a year.
His argument is false and twisted for political gain.
@bay:
Interesting you mention Roe V Wade, because it is the antithesis of this case. Anti abortion laws are based on religious belief, the idea that a fetus is a full human being, and as such those laws restricted the right of people to get an abortion based on the religious beliefs of others. Roe was arguing from the viewpoint of getting rid of restrictions on someone’s rights, now putting further restrictions as this is attempting to do.
Yes, Roe was a test case, there is no doubt about it, since to get into the courts you have to have standing. The difference is that this guy is more like the other side of Roe, he is seeking to carve out exemptions based on religious belief, and is basically doing so in a way that is designed to restrict women’s right to get BC paid for by insurance. What this guy is arguing is dangerous, because what he is saying is in a group medical plan, I object to paying for the BC others are using on religious grounds. The whole point of group insurance is to make coverage affordable, that for example the young and fit are there to help pay for the cardiac bypass surgery of those who are older and/or have not taken care of themselves, couples without kids pay for things like childbirth, pediatricians, IUI/IVI/Fertility treatments they won’t use, and so forth.
One way out would be to figure out what this guys share of the premiums he pays goes towards BC, and rebate him that amount. (Given how much health insurance companies likely pay out in birth control coverage, as a percentage of all costs, then take that as a percent of his part of premiums, I doubt it would be even close to a dollar). This way, they could tell him he is not paying for BC, even if the plan covers it.
But that wouldn’t work, because what this guy is trying to do has nothing to do with himself, he is basically trying to achieve a situation where BC is not covered by most insurance plans and that is really scary. Why? Hobby Lobby already laid the framework for employers who are religious to pull BC from their plans, so this guys argument has some basis. If he argues that religious belief allows opting out of a plan that covers BC, insurance companies are going to go to court and argue that tailoring plans like that, and also having to file paperwork to say that not covering it for people who object, is too much of a burden, and SCOTUS, that is very, very business friendly, will likely argue that the ACA requirement in the face of religious objections (prior established by SCOTUS in Hobby Lobby) is therefore an undue burden, and declare it illegal. The irony is that accommodating religious belief is not supposed to burden business, so in theory SCOTUS should basically say to this guy and others “accommodating your beliefs is undue burdens on business, ie insurance companies”, but I won’t hold my breath.
And where does this stop? Okay, so BC in many ways is a relatively minor issue, but where does it end? Could this clown, or other conservatives, who don’t like IVI and IUI and so forth, claim they don’t want to pay for those? Can a Jehova’s Witness claim they don’t want to pay for blood transfusions on medical plans, and so forth. The problem with religious objections is that these are group plans, not individual ones, and when you have a group plan you can’t carve out exemptions, it goes against the nature of group plans. If I argue that God told us to keep our bodies fit (not that I am exactly in that position or shape for that matter), can I object to paying for illnesses like type II diabetes and heart medicine and surgery for the Mall of America type that is 200 pounds overweight and rides in a scooter? The reality of this case has little to do with him and his daughters,he is seeking to carve out exemptions on paying for coverage based on religious belief that affect other people and that is the problem.
Someone mentioned cable tv, and while cable tv doesn’t give you the right to pick and choose (you are given package levels for most service, and with premium channels it is usually bundled, too) it actually is not a bad analogy, even if used in a different way. The real reason that we have 600 cable channels or whatever is that you have no choice, so for example, my cable tv has about 7 or 8 religious channels that I have absolutely no interest in whatsoever, there is the golf channel shudder, there is the OWN channel, Lifetime, the shopping channels, a ton of channels I never watch, yet I pay for them, every channel on cable that is not direct premium (IE showtime, HBO, etc) is subsidized, each channel costs X a month, so I am probably paying for several hundred channels at a cost of 15 bucks a month, I’ll never watch, whereas there are people out there who pay for channels like ESPN, and so forth, that I do watch. If people actually were given a choice, a lot of channels would disappear, because the cost of paying for let’s say EWTN on a demand basis would likely be multiples of what a pay channel like HBO costs (I am not saying I think paying for cable the way it is makes sense, just using it as an analogy).
With medical care, group plans operate on the same basis, the young and relatively health subsidize older people, people without kids subsidize people who have or want them, and so forth. Arguments like this guy are dangerous, because we are seeing them being made in other areas. There are towns in the NYC area that have seen an influx of Ultra Orthodox Jews, and what often happens is they end up controlling things like the town council and the school board, and one of the things that has ended up in court is they argue that since they don’t send their kids to public school, but to Yeshivas, that they shouldn’t have to pay the property taxes that pay for public schools, or they slash public school budgets, or they attempt to use public school funding to provide services for the Yeshiva schools (some are legal, like bussing for special ed kids, or paying for special ed for the Yeshiva kids, others are not legal, like using public funds to fix Yeshiva buildings or buying books and supplies for the Yeshiva schools). They cite that their faith requires their kids to go to religious schools, so therefore they dont’ have a responsibility for the public schools…and other religious groups have tried arguing the same thing, and it is dangerous as hell. Whether it is group medical plans, or in things like schools and other societal costs, they are based on people paying for things they don’t use, it is how things function. When you carve out exceptions, what can end up is that the group structure will fail, differentiating medical plans is costly, even for small things…and whoever is behind this guy knows that, and it is the basis for the suit. It isn’t about the let’s say buck a year the guy would save on premiums, what he is banking on is if the court rules in his favor,the plan will argue that the mandated ACA coverage of birth control is too much of a burden, and argue they should be able to drop the coverage rather than segmenting plans…and where does this end? If a pregnant woman is dying, and the doctors feel an abortion is the only way to save the woman, can this guy argue the plan shouldn’t pay for it because he is opposed? Should the religious rights of a minority be allowed to determine what a medical plan pays or doesn’t pay, which if this guy wins, is a not unlikely outcome?
Mental health was for years treated differently than other health issues, with limited #s of visits, different copays, etc. Even though, after a very long battle, the mental health parity act was enacted (though Medicare took several years to slowly bring the copays/coinsurance percentages equal to other covered benefits), there are still disparities in coverage benefits (beyond the scope of what should be addressed in this thread, and would take it of topic). Many services or diagnoses are not covered, or are considered “experimental” or “educational”, and not subject to insurance reimbursement. the list goes on and on.
[Quote ]
Should the religious rights of a minority be allowed to determine what a medical plan pays or doesn’t pay, which if this guy wins, is a not unlikely outcome?
[/quote ]
Why, yes, @musicprnt . I believe that is exactly the point of these cases. In fact, it’s a two-fer: Hamper women’s ability to control their reproductive lives, AND chip away at the Affordable Care Act.
@musicprnt, studies show taking out contraception would increase costs. This politician should pay more for the privilege of opting out.
I do not support what the Ultra Orthodox Jews are doing in the NYC area. As I said before, I am Jewish and I grew up going to an Orthodox Synagogue.
Organized religion recieves about $80 billion a year in tax breaks in this country. This is against my beliefs. It is. I want a rebate for taxes I had to pay because religious organizations don’t pay. I want a rebate but it isn’t going to happen.
Wonder how many employees his insurance brokerage agency has (outside of is family) , and what if they want to have free BCPs as currently mandated?
Whether or not any or all of the above comments are true, apparently this plaintiff was provided with the option to check a box allowing him to opt out in the past, so he is not asking for anything new. Whether doing so in the past hampered his employer’s ability to provide contraception to its employees is a relevant question. What was the impact of his opting out before? Obviously, contraception was being offered then, too. I assume it was “free” then as well, or no?
But the point is , a LOT has changed in healthcare, coverage and policies. Some options are no longer available. Husband/wife owned 2 person groups are no longer eligible for small group coverage. http://totalbenefits.net/husband-wife-2-person-groups-no-longer-eligible-for-group-coverage/ Maybe thats what he is really skeeved about and wants this changed back. Just a thought.
I wonder if that is actually true. Why would a few forms of contraception give you a box to check and not, say, fertility treatment coverage (which is much more expensive)? I want to see proof.
I don’t know that creating life (fertility treatments) are offensive to Catholics, like preventing and ending life might be.
People were charged for contraceptives before ACA.
Bay, did you see my post about the administrative havoc which the a la carte approach would wreak on insurers, and the resultant effect on subscribers? Thoughts?
FWIW, my SIL is catholic and claimed that fertility outside the body (eg harvesting eggs and then fertilizing outside, using in vitro) was not ok.
I agree that it will cause a lot of administrative work for insurers, LasMa, and acknowledged early on that this is why the insurance industry will fight this case tooth and nail. If the plaintiff prevails with a Constitutional argument, the insurance industry will have no choice but to cope. We don’t let costs get in the way of Constitutionally protected rights, like how much it must have cost to add women to voter rolls.