But again, the cheaper you make birth control, the fewer accidental pregnancies there will be, and the cost savings will be considerable, won’t they?
And the costs of childbirth bourne by insurance companies is just the tip of the iceberg. Even if the insurance companies are maintaining that the costs exceed the savings to them, the taxpayers save a lot of money too.
For that reason, I support making birth control free and paid for by the taxpayers, but somehow I doubt Ms. Orr is on board with that.
Who knows? Maybe there isn’t a strong correlation between birth control being expensive and accidental pregnancies. It sounds logical, but it might not be so. After all, condoms are probably the cheapest and easiest forms of birth control to get, and pretty effective, too. I would imagine that insurance companies have some kind of actuarial data that tells them what’s cheaper for them in the long run.
When that hypothesis is adopted by the AMA you may have a point.
I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t. I’m saying it’s a decision that should be made by insurance companies, not by governments. But you’ll get no argument from me about making it over-the-counter. Still, there are plenty of non-prescription birth control devices* out there. And back in 2004, there was a pilot program in Seattle to make BC pills OTC. I don’t know if that is still ongoing or what.
*Do not worry about birth control devices-- we have many!
Is the argument, then, that no medication ought to be prescribed unless it is solving a life-threatening condition? No, wait – pregnancy is life-threatening for some women. Guess they ought to just not sleep with their husbands, or indeed with anyone else.
Even discounting that, this implies that insurance should not pay for, as above, acne medication or Viagra. Or pain medication, for that matter. I have been on the insurance plans that essentially only pay if you’re brought to the point of near death. They pay tiny amounts for “preventative” care and marginally larger amounts for “emergency” care.
I understand some people believe that elective medical care ought not be paid by insurance, that health insurance, as is comprehensive car insurance, should only pay out in the event of an emergency. Do you suspect that the drug companies and the doctors will lower their costs forthwith? Birth control pills are outside my means without the support of my insurance, and it is between myself and my doctor why I use them. It is not the business of my insurance company or of Ms. Orr.
Can you show me someone who is making that argument? If not, then the answer is “no”. (Hint: no one in this thread is making that argument, and neither is Ms. Orr.)
Well, it’s unclear that even Ms. Orr is suggesting that insurance companies not pay for BC pills if there is a real pathology that needs to be addressed.
[quote]
Even discounting that, this implies that insurance should not pay for, as above, acne medication or Viagra. Or pain medication, for that matter. I have been on the insurance plans that essentially only pay if you’re brought to the point of near death. They pay tiny amounts for “preventative” care and marginally larger amounts for “emergency” care. [/qiuote]
What insurance companies should or shouldn’t pay for is up to them. I think that’s about the 4th time in this thread that I’ve said that.
As soon as you ask your insurance company to pay for something, you’ve made it their business. If it’s covered by your policy, then it should be OK. If it’s not, then you need to negotiate. And the article in the OP only says that she negotiated the insurance for federal employees to not cover BC pills. She’s not advocating that they be outlawed or that insurance companies not cover that cost if they choose to do so. Keep in mind that the insurance companies are not printing money to buy BC pills for you. That comes out of the premiums that people pay, so you’re paying for them one way or another. If they know that 50,000 people they are insuring will be using BC pills that are covered by insurance, they will add that expense to the policies they write (plus some mark-up).
Now, if you think other people should be paying for your BC pills, then that’s an argument you’ll need to make.
Just for further clarification, insurance is something you do to spread the risk of unlikely events. It makes sense for the people in my town to all get together and pool are money to pay for a fire dept, even though the risk is small that any given house will burn down. It would cost me a fortune to have my own private fire department, but I can “own” a small part of one for not much money at all.
But if all the families in my town are using BC, then how does it make sense to pool our money so that everyone can have them? If it gets us a group discount, sure, but either way we’re all (or pretty much all) buying them. We don’t pool all our money to buy food unless we belong to some food cooperative. If you want to say that single women get a raw deal because they usually have to fork over the money and the guys don’t, then that’s another issue. If you want to tax all the guys (or raise their insurance premiums) in order that they pay their “fair share”, then that’s another issue, too. Yet another issue is if you want to tax all the people not having sex to help pay for BC pills for those who are not having sex. (Don’t laugh, there are probably more people than you think not having sex out there. Or not having sex very often.)
Does anyone here believe for a second that Orr, considering her background, is really approaching this from an economic perspective, and that non-subsidized BC will be the only consequence of her appointment?
I dunno, this seems like a serious mistake on Bush’s part. (LIke most of what he does, really.) In most abortion debates that weren’t just extremists banging away at each other, I had the impression that the issue of abortion was pretty much an even match for the status quo, with the center leaning slightly toward the pro-choice side, but not all that much.
But BIRTH CONTROL (condoms, the Pill, etc.) – WHOLE different story, with the center WAAAY over on the pro-choice side, in fact, with the bulk of the opposition to birth control mainly being hardcore braindead Catholics and whacko Prostestant fundies. If Orr is against birth control, not just abortion, the pro-choice side should be able to use her as a human torch to light a few fires under the butts of people who think their reproductive rights are safe in this country, getting the center energized, as it were.
This is a good point, especially taking a pragmatic, global viewpoint. But if you consider the situation only from the self-interest of a health insurance company, there is more to consider. For example, some percentage of women will buy their own birth-control if their insurance does not cover it. Of the percentage that don’t buy their own, a fraction will get pregnant (one or more times). Of that fraction, another fraction will have an abortion (I assume non-emergency abortions are not covered?). So, in the end when you have millions of customers, the number of pregnancies and births might be much smaller in cost than the aggregate birth-control costs. Now, I don’t know the percentages and fractions, although we might be able to piece something together. However, I hope that the insurance companies have done this math haven’t just made their decision based on their faith.
I will also note, that there are a lot of other factors (on both sides of the equation) in my example above. The $5000 figure doesn’t cover pre-natal and post-natal care. Nor does the equation include costs from complications caused by pregnancy or abortion. Nor does it factor in the additional cost and premiums of the new babies.
Personally, I wish birth-control was consistently covered by health insurance plans. I think there are a number of externalities (mentioned in this thread) that could also be prevented. But I wanted to point out that it is likely that birth-control coverage is not in the financial self-interest of health insurance companies. (I think this may have been John’s point as well).
As for the OP, this does sound like an appointee that will make decisions based on her faith in disregard of reason. My bigger concern is what other changes this president will make in order to ensure his legacy.
Well, you kind of choose cervical or breast cancer, right? I mean, if you were serious about not getting cancer, you could have a double mastectomy and a radical hysterectomy, right? Just like if you don’t want to be pregnant right now, you can get your tubes tied. It’s the totally easy, no-brainer choice. And if you don’t do that, hey, you’re asking for it. So don’t come crying to me when you get knocked up, ya slut.
I don’t think insurance companies should cover any preventative care, especially for women. Comprehensive medical care is for commies.
