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.
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.
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!
That's true. And if daddy (Rep. Wieland in this case) doesn't want his daughters getting birth control through insurance he purchased, he can remove them from the policy - instead of clogging up the courts with a lawsuit.
By the way, it isn't his insurance plan. It is the group plan the state of Missouri offers to its employees. If it doesn't fit in with rep. Wieland's religious beliefs, he should feel free to buy another policy that does. And if he has a problem with his daughters using birth control, he should take it up with his daughters; rather than relying on the insurance plan or the courts to act as their parent.
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.
Insurance agent "We have all types of policies, the standard policy, the christian policy, the Mormon policy, the Jewish policy, the Hindu policy, and the Muslim policy"
and don't forget the many, many, many denominations that would have to be further divided out under the Christian policy.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
What's this got to do with what I said?
The women in question are adults. There are plenty of insurance plans out there that cover birth control. If these two adults don't like their current plan's coverage, they should go get a plan with the coverage they want. These plans are readily available.
adult can mean anything from 18 years old on..... not necessarily 21 years+
Quote:
Originally Posted by troymclure
That's true. And if daddy (Rep. Wieland in this case) doesn't want his daughters getting birth control through insurance he purchased, he can remove them from the policy - instead of clogging up the courts with a lawsuit.
By the way, it isn't his insurance plan. It is the group plan the state of Missouri offers to its employees. If it doesn't fit in with rep. Wieland's religious beliefs, he should feel free to buy another policy that does. And if he has a problem with his daughters using birth control, he should take it up with his daughters; rather than relying on the insurance plan or the courts to act as their parent.
oh wow.... if he succeeds then that will affect the coverage of every other state employee, most of whom I'm betting are a bit more rational than this doofus is.....
Missouri is getting crazier and crazier.... we have the Dent County Commissioners voting to fly the American Flag at half mast on the 26th of every month because of the Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage.... and now this AzzHat.... smh
Where in the article does it say that the daughters are unemployed? That they do not reimburse their father for their health insurance? That they even want birth control?
For all we know, this is dad's attempt to find some kind of loophole in the law because he objects to all birth control.
This discussion is ridiculous. Birth control pills aren't a civil right, they're a product. (So is Viagra.) They cost a few pennies a day. These girls can get a job and pay for it themselves, or sign up for an insurance policy that they like. They can leave their idiot father and the taxpayer out of this.
adult can mean anything from 18 years old on..... not necessarily 21 years+
oh wow.... if he succeeds then that will affect the coverage of every other state employee, most of whom I'm betting are a bit more rational than this doofus is.....
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.
Where in the article does it say that the daughters are unemployed? That they do not reimburse their father for their health insurance? That they even want birth control?
For all we know, this is dad's attempt to find some kind of loophole in the law because he objects to all birth control.
Or, for all we know, it's not. And his ADULT kids are spongers.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Maybe, just maybe, the Father doesn't want or need his Daughter to be spreading her legs for "it takes a village" and decided as a parent he could do better.
"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.
Ok.
Congressman sues to get religious exception on his personal insurance policy. Since SCOTUS messed up on the Hobby Lobby decision, he wants to expand that error to every insurance policy offered by the insurance industry. And it's happening because the Hobby Lobby decision was so poorly reasoned.
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.
