@jym626 the most common argument against IVF I know among Catholics and other life-begins-at-conception people isn’t the actual fertilization outside of the body but the fact that embryos get destroyed after the treatments are over.
From what I can find, fertility treatments are not mandated by the ACA, so they are not relevant to this case. I don’t believe the plaintiff objected to fertility treatments, in any event.
Lol. Nice straw man. Good job.
And do you actually think the insurance industry will eat those costs? No. They will pass them on to subscribers, in the form of either higher premiums or reduced coverage. Which in turn will make insurance either harder to get, or less valuable to the subscribers. Which in turn will erode support for ACA. Which is the whole point.
I understand that some people want the ACA preserved in its current form, at all costs. I just find it odd that they would want this to happen whether some peoples Constitutional rights are violated or not.
The constitutional right to refuse to cover birth control? Is this at all related to the separation of church and state?
Romani, I am just relating that my SIL refused to consider IVF and the reason she gave, IIRC, was that it was not natural, per Catholic beliefs, to fertilize outside the body.
Easy solution…the only BC pills that have no copay are generics. Just have the physician wrote a script for a name brand…and poof…they will have to pay for them…and they are expensive.
The daughters could also get their RX filled and NOT use the health insurance coverage at all…and again…poof…they would have to pay.
Like I said pages ago…maybe the dad should be suing his daughters because they are not listening to him…and are getting BC pills at no cost…because they are generics and are included at no cost on dad’s plan.
Guess his daughters aren’t as devout.
Since if these are all allowed (sure seems like a monopoly to me), Aetna is buying Humana and Anthem (BCBS) is buying Cigna, its going to be a small insurance pool with a LOT of $ who can easily absorb costs, though they will likely pass it along to the companies they provide insurance for and the covered lives (people using the insurance) in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.
The cable TV analogy is, IMO, a very good one.
But other than that, this thread is really repetitive. (I do enjoy you all, but I’m just sayin’ --)
Thumper,
Your solutions put the burden on his D’s to let the government avoid violating their dad’s rights. That sounds like a bad solution to me.
That never happens on cc, lol 
eb, I don’t know that we can assume that. I get the impression that he simply doesn’t want BC to be available to them, lest it give them ideas. Ideas which, presumably, no college kid ever came up with before ACA came along. 
Belz also argued that providing access to birth control is equivalent to sending kids off to a college where the only TV available is a porn channel. So, yeah. That is the level of critical thinking over there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/11/paul-wieland-birth-control-daughters_n_5806248.html
I feel the same about those who analogize cable TV to federal law mandating health insurance coverage.
Re: #151:
Well that’s another non-answer.
Many things, including cable tv offers, new cars, long term care insurance, etc, come with packages as options. There may be some things included or excluded in the package you select, but short of paying the cost to ordering ones own car custom, which is very expensive, the package selected will have some things toe person does or does not want. I didn’t need/want wheel locks and a few other things on the car we last purchased, but it was what it was. We negotiated price, but the package options weren’t flexible. The analogy holds to health insurance in that one can choose not to have it, pay the penalty and pay privately for healthcare. Its expensive, but its an option.
<<<
“No, because the point is to make BC unavailable to everyone, not just his daughters. This case is 100% ideological.”
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
that would be a crazy pursuit. Insurance companies are private entities and can offer whatever coverage they want. They can offer various plans if they want. One entity could devise a plan that excludes BC and people like this person could chose THAT plan.
I find it hard to believe that he wants BC unavailable to everyone. That would mean he’s saying that some private insurance companies should not even be able to offer plans with that option. That makes no sense.
he’s not trying to make BC illegal, so there’s no point in preventing companies from offering a variety of plans…with or w/o BC.
there are dental plans that have orthodontist options and some plans don’t. Families often choose the plans with the ortho options. There could be healthcare plans with options as well…even if they had ala carte options.
The problem is that pursuant to federal law, insurance companies cannot offer coverage that excludes birth control. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/11/obama-administration-insurance-companies-must-cover-birth-control
The Catholic Church opposes some forms of fertility treatments.
In the past at least, fertility treatment was often not covered.
@LasMa I’m the one who wrote that the kids weren’t as devout.
Ok…so if this is all “just in case his kids want to get birth control”…that lends even less credibility to his suit.
@Bay the father won’t have an issue at all if his daughters share his exact same values. That is not the responsibility of the anyone but the family. That is the father’s responsibility…not the government
And if the daughters don’t listen to dad…he should sue them…
<<<
The problem is that pursuant to federal law, insurance companies cannot offer coverage that excludes birth control.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe that is his goal? Maybe he wants the law changed so that companies can offer a separate plan for people who don’t want that coverage?
“that would be a crazy pursuit. Insurance companies are private entities and can offer whatever coverage they want. They can offer various plans if they want. One entity could devise a plan that excludes BC and people like this person could chose THAT plan.”
No insurance companies cannot offer whatever coverage they want as mandatory BC coverage without a co-pay is the law per ACA. Only if Congress changes the law or SCOTUS rules that it is unconstitutional can an insurance company offer a plan with BC coverage or it goes against the religious beliefs of the shareholders in a private Corporation (per Hobby Lobby ruling by SCOTUS.)
Jym, that’s interesting. I Googled Catholics and IVF to see the official statement. Wish I wouldn’t have done that.