Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No but they seem to be the ones that thinks an Adult daughter should be provided BC by their Father.
What's wrong with adults getting their own BC ? It's not that expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Why don't the two adult daughters just go get their own health insurance plan that fits their needs or desires? There are plenty of insurance plans that offer birth control - in fact, most of them do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
These women are adults. Why do people expect their daddy to provide them with birth control?
They are 18 and 19 year's old. Children can now stay on their parents health insurance until 26. It's usually the least expensive option. Otherwise the 18 and 19 yr olds would have to take out their own health insurance, which can be incredibly cost prohibitive.
If the father doesn't want them on birth control he can take them off his insurance, find a plan that doesn't cover birth control, monitor his daughters health records and the insurance bills to make sure they aren't getting birth control.
I don't understand why this one guy is suing the government. That's way over board.
Also given that he's in politics I'm not convinced this isn't an attention grab for his next election.
Given that he's a State Representative does his state government provide and pay for his insurance?
Read this slowly, and think about how silly it sounds. If one of those employee doesn't want to use a part of his or her insurance coverage then don't use it. There's no need to get the courts involved. And if they are worried about their children using a part of the coverage, doing something about it is their job as parents. It is not up to the insurance company or the courts to act as a nanny for their kids.
Well put.
Insurance covers all sorts of things that most people never use.
Eighteen year olds can work and can also qualify for subsidies under the ACA. Though we really have no idea how old his daughters are.
And no - this doesn't affect the coverage of every other state employee. He's not asking for the state to change it's current coverage - he is asking for the state to provide the OPTION for a plan that doesn't cover birth control.
you are right... they sure can!!
so what you're saying is that the state should go out and find a special plan that does not cover birth control for this ONE FAMILY??
"Father Who Sued To Keep His Adult Daughters From Getting Birth Control Wins Key Court Fight | ThinkProgress"
That's the most poorly written article that I've read in a long time. The adult daughters are no longer minors, he can't keep them from getting birth control. They are free to do as they please.
Right. Typical trash from Think Progress. This is an article about a business seeking to apply a recent Supreme Court decision to his business (the business owner's daughters happen to be employees of the business). Nothing more, nothing less. Typical trash.
so what do those do who cant afford birth control or who's parents when they late teens refuse to pay for it. Where I come from all birth control is FREE!
When they can't afford it they go to planned parenthood and get it for free. Planned Parenthood is largely funded by the government. So essentially, the tax payers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Right. Typical trash from Think Progress. This is an article about a business seeking to apply a recent Supreme Court decision to his business (the business owner's daughters happen to be employees of the business). Nothing more, nothing less. Typical trash.
Did we read the same article? This has nothing to do with a business. At all.
"Because they claim that they “cannot provide, fund or in any way be a participant in the provision of health care coverage” that includes birth control “without violating their sincerely-held religious beliefs,” they argue that they should be given a special health plan that does not include contraceptive care."
At what cost to the rest of us, I wonder?
This is the part that I do worry about, though:
"The only truly reliable way to ensure that a given insurance customer’s premiums are not used in a way that helps some woman, somewhere in the country to obtain birth control is to forbid the insurance plan from offering contraceptive coverage to anyone."
I have the feeling that it may actually come down to this when enough people get tired of the "this requires an exemption and that requires an exemption" and so on down the line.
There really isn't any mention of what the daughters think of this. And it's not inconceivable that they really love their father and don't want to confront him on this. He does seem the type to disown them if he finds out they went behind his back and got their own birth control.
And I'm wondering, if he put them on his insurance, and then they call up the insurance company and say they want off, what's to prevent him from putting them back on again, whether they want to or not? It's his policy and last I heard, you can legally insure anyone you want to. It's not illegal because not too many people go out and insure someone who doesn't want that insurance, but it can be done.
I don't understand why this one guy is suing the government. That's way over board.
Also given that he's in politics I'm not convinced this isn't an attention grab for his next election.
Given that he's a State Representative does his state government provide and pay for his insurance?
Most people are missing the point. The father is a republican politician. It says nothing about his daughter's beliefs, he's trying to find a way to sue to stop an Obamacare provision. If his daughter's weren't on his plan he wouldn't have standing to sue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
1. The father isn't responsible for his adult childrens' birth control - or medical costs in general (unless they are incapacitated adults, which apparently isn't the case here).
2. There are many different insurance plans out there - it's not like this is the only insurance policy people can choose. If someone wants an insurance policy that covers birth control, they can easily find one - and it's likely to be LESS expensive than one that doesn't cover birth control.
3. Birth control isn't a "right." It's an option - and most adults realize that options usually cost money. If adults want birth control, they can easily get it - and they'll generally have to pay for it, either out of their own pocket, or via an insurance premium. If this guy's adult daughters want birth control, they need to go get some. It's just not that hard. Their birth control is their responsibility - it's not the state's responsibility, the federal government's responsibility, or even their dad's responsibility.
4. There are many different insurance plans. They cover various things. Some cover more things than others and the costs vary tremendously. There are different plans for different needs. For instance, we needed a plan that covers my husband fully while he travels (PPO vs HMO). We had to pay more for it, but it meets our needs better than HMOs. If we didn't need the additional coverage though, I sure wouldn't want to be paying for it. In spite of recent changes in the law, insurance plans can still be tailored somewhat to different individuals' needs.
The father is on his insurance provided by the state government, the state government had switched to covering birth control recently (according to the article). The father is suing against that change saying it violates his religious beliefs.
If a Jewish employee requested the company cafeteria have a kosher option, would there be the same outrage? If feeding employees lunch is a benefit the company provides, shouldn't all employees be able to take advantage of it? If a vegetarian wanted meatless options, would that be so bad?
Why shouldn't employers have the option of providing insurance that doesn't cover birth control? Any employer, religious or otherwise. Why is it the federal government's right to butt into the compensation agreements between private companies and its employees? For that matter, why is it the federal government's right to butt into what health insurance covers when we as individuals purchase it? Why shouldn't someone be able to choose catastrophic coverage only, without federal penalties, if that is what they deem necessary? What if they are willing and able to gamble on whether or not they incur minor injuries or illnesses, and pay out of pocket if they do?
The ACA has a multitude of restrictions on what employers may offer and what people may buy as individuals, without incurring the wrath of the feds. Yet it's outrageous that someone doesn't want to pay to insure something against their religion or personal principles?
If the daughters want to have sex and protect themselves, just use condoms.... is it really that difficult an issue if daddy doesn't want to buy your birth control for you? I always provided for my own birth control, it was never at my parent's expense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
