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.
It's stories like these that make me hate the whole premise of religion more and more (I believe something and it should be forced on everyone else because I'M RIGHT and all of you are wrong.....)
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?
Your logic's off.
What if the Jewish employees insist that no pork be served at the cafeteria because of their sincerely held religious believes. No BLTs, no barbecued ribs. No chili dogs. Nada.
The vegetarians insist on no meat for anyone,
No rice or bread for fear of offending the Paleo people.
I'm on a low carb diet, so no cake for anyone.
Get the drift?
People already have the option of using or not using whatever part of their insurance suits them.
Last edited by GotHereQuickAsICould; 07-22-2015 at 08:36 PM..
But he is on a group plan. If he wants his own customized plan, he is free to get an individual policy that doesn't provide for all sorts of care. Or he and/or his wife can get a job at Hobby Lobby.
As someone else pointed out, nowhere in the linked article (or the 2 other articles I read about this story), does it say that the daughters don't like the coverage, want to get birth control through his insurance, or have different religious beliefs than their father. So, I don't think it's fair to assume that they do.
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.
Read this slowly since apparently what I've already said has slipped past you - I have specifically said that if the father doesn't like his group insurance, he should get a different one rather than take it up with the courts.
I also said IF the daughters don't like the coverage, they should get something else. IF. I don't know whether they want that coverage or not.
Remember the good ol' days. Insurance didnt come to mind. Just take her to a drive-in movie and have at it! I can still hear Archie Bunker calling it, " Birth Patrol ".
What if the Jewish employees insist that no pork be served at the cafeteria because of their sincerely held religious believes. No BLTs, no barbecued ribs. No chili dogs. Nada.
The vegetarians insist on no meat for anyone,
No rice or bread for fear of offending the Paleo people.
I'm on a low carb diet, so no cake for anyone.
Get the drift?
People already have the option of using or not using whatever part of their insurance suits them.
No, regardless of his level of whackdoodle, he's not asking for other employees to be deprived of birth control coverage. He is asking that he not pay for it for his own family.
He's not "keeping his adult daughters from getting birth control", he is asking not to be required to subsidize that benefit for them on his plan. Nothing will stop them from acquiring birth control, except they would have to pay for it themselves.
This isn't cancer surgery. This isn't chemo. This isn't splinting a broken leg. This isn't a major medical expense as a general rule, it is often available in some form over the counter, and not paying for it isn't denying anyone anything.
I agree with most of the above. I think the entire thing is a stupid non issue. Adults misbehaving.
It IS the insurance plan that is covering him however - ie, "his" insurance plan. Meaning that it is part of his compensation for work. I mean, I call the insurance policy that I have "my" insurance policy, even though I don't own the insurance company or actually administer the plan.
His adult daughters are not the ones with the job that carries the coverage. If they don't like daddy's coverage, let them go buy their own coverage.
That being said, the same applies to him. If he doesn't like his employer's insurance plan, he can always go buy his own plan too. And he doesn't have to carry his adult daughters on any plan.
By the way, he's not asking the state to take away the birth control coverage for state employees. He's asking the state to provide a policy that specifically excludes birth control as an option for those state employees who are morally opposed to providing birth control. Personally I think it's a pretty ridiculous scenario all the way around.
So if someone does not believe in blood transfusions for religious reasons and he has his wife(or ex-wife) and children in the policy, that means that his wife cannot get blood transfusions after an accident because he is the one paying for the policy? How about another wife who just wants birth control? his husband gets to decide and she has to get pregnant because he is the one making the payments? Are these wives property because they don't pay for their own insurance? What century do we live in?
Just because he pays for the policy it doesn't give him any right to control other people's bodies.
Last edited by Sugah Ray; 07-22-2015 at 10:54 PM..
If you weren't living with your parents or they weren't supporting you (as in paying for your college education) and yet they were claiming you as a dependent, they were committing tax fraud. You should have threatened to report them. If they still insisted on committing tax fraud, then it would be THEIR choice to commit fraud, and then pay the consequences for their actions.
Adults filing their own tax returns simply have to check "No" to the question "Can anyone else claim you as a dependent" when filing their tax return. Can you provide a source showing that adults under age 21 have to have an affidavit from their parents stating that they weren't providing support for you?
Yeees, I know that - as stated in my posting. And yet, somehow, I found myself unwilling to send my father to jail for bending to the will of my mother.
The early 70's were 40 years ago. I doubt anyone wants to go after their own parents for tax fraud lol
They are actually both gone now. My mother died over 20 years ago, in fact.
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.
