An advisory panel at the Institute of Medicine recommended this week that all insurers be “required to cover contraceptives for women free of charge” as part of the new healthcare law.
Not surprisingly, Obama administration officials said they were likely to accept the panel’s recommendations.
Why not?
Bread and circuses for everyone, right?
That’s right America, you will be providing the tools for Jane to get her “freak on” without her having to pay a dime to avoid the natural consequences of her actions.
I have no personal issue with people’s use of contraceptives. However, I do have a problem with the government mandating that insurers provide them free of charge.
And my favorite quote from this whole mess comes from the chair of the panel, Dr. Linda Rosenstock:
“We did not consider cost or cost-effectiveness in our deliberations.”
You think?
It looks like we get another bait and switch from President Obama — mandating as “basic preventive care” something that is medically unnecessary.
Reflections of a Rational Republican 
“That’s right America, you will be providing the tools for Jane to get her “freak on” without her having to pay a dime to avoid the natural consequences of her actions”. What do you mean by natural consequences of her actions? Is birth control unnatural? how about if its made from natural ingredients? People have been using natural forms of birth control for hundreds/thousands of years.
Also, we all already pay money that goes to treat all sorts of conditions that are self-inflicted. Birth control would just be one more. The only difference is that it triggers a religious objection and the government isn’t supposed to legislate religious practice.
I just don’t think it is the government’s business to force companies to pay for contraceptives. People should pay for them on their own.
And should the government force companies to pay for lung cancer treatment for smokers? for dialysis for people who ate too much and developed diabetes?
How about covering medicine for people who contracted STDs from not practicing safe sex (sex that UNNATURALLY will protect you from many STDs and prevents pregnancy)?
You’re making a judgment here based on your own views of what is proper health care and what isn’t.
The short answer is no, no, and no. The government should not force companies to pay any of these procedures.
So a woman should have to risk pregnancy if she wants to have sex? Wouldn’t it be great if we could reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion? I mean, I would expect this has to be more effective at limiting unwanted pregnancy than sex ed, which taxpayers do pay for.
Besides, if I have health insurance, I’m already paying for the “natural consequences” because unwanted pregnancies lead to higher insurance expenditures which raises my premiums. The real question is why insurance companies wouldn’t want to encourage preventative care. I suspect that the issue isn’t coverage, it’s actually about copays.
I think part of the problem is that insurance companies often pay for viagra. There seems to be a double standard there.
But I agree with nickgb — I would think it would be a good idea for birth control to be paid for, I’m surprised the insurance companies don’t choose to do this. Paying for a pregnancy and delivery is a lot more expensive! There are a lot of regulations that are useless and cause more harm than good. But I don’t think this is one of them.
The difference is that government is not mandating insurance companies provide Viagra. If an insurance company deems it more profitable to provide contraceptives than for pregnancies, then so be it. However, I have a problem with the government mandating it.
But what if the govt DID mandate Viagra coverage? I would expect your response would be “I’m opposed to that too, let the insurance companies decide what to cover.” Or am I misreading your position.
Of course I would propose mandating Viagra as well. Sorry for the confusion.
Propose? Really? Why?
I meant oppose. Sorry.
It all comes down to the copay. The panel states that contraceptive use is nearly universal to begin with, a fact the Insurance companies are aware of. They would be stupid to do anything that would reduce the rates of contraceptive use, as it would increase pregnancies and therefore increase their costs. The question is: does the decrease in costs associated with unwanted pregnancies among the small % of woman who are insured but can’t afford a contraceptive copay offset picking up the existing copays for the remainder of their customers? The answer of course is no.
It becomes a philosophical issue for our country to decide if we collectively will subsidize certain behavior. As a non-smoker it angers me that my health insurance premiums go to pay for smokers who develop lung cancer or other respiratory conditions. It angers me as a responsible eater and relatively fit individual that I also subsidize the fat, lazy, and glutinous. It angers me as a safe driver that my drivers insurance covers costs associated with reckless, careless, drunk, and elderly drivers. I would much prefer these people bare those responsibilities on their own.
However, when it comes to sex, most people are doing it. Pun intended. Sex is a universal activity that crosses just about every demographic line, with the exception of age (although this is always pushing back, that is another issue entirely). And unlike smoking, drinking, eating junk, or driving while texting, sex is not NECESSARILY always an irresponsible action. Serious consequences abound for those even on contraceptive for irresponsible sexual behavior, let’s not hinder the majority who aren’t irresponsible.
I agree with much of what you wrote. Throw in the fact that many opponents of covering birth control are even more opposed to covering abortion. So basically they don’t want you to be covered for taking steps to prevent pregnancy, and they really don’t want you to be covered for taking steps to end a pregnancy. So basically they only want people having sex to procreate, and by the way, if someone has an STD then you’re just out of luck.
Accidental pregnancies are one thing, but how many times on all the daytime trash talk shows do we hear, “He doesn’t like to use condoms?” or that sort of thing? I think “I can’t afford it” is an easy excuse to avoid admitting laziness or irresponsibility. They can afford an iPod but not contraceptives? I think anything that pushes responsibility off the potential parents and onto government is dangerous.
And doesn’t PP provide contraceptives cheap/free? Back in Canada universities also provided it to women for $2.00 a month.
I’m not close enough to the issue so I really can’t say, but I’d have to agree with Sean and disagree with the government mandate. Watch the price of contraceptives magically increase, too, now that they’re mandated.
PP does, yeah, but PP is far from ubiquitous. What about women in South Dakota?
As for the trash TV, those people aren’t the brightest bulbs and they’ve been coached to speak and act ridiculously for ratings. You can’t take any of that seriously, and even if you knew for sure that those people were being honest, they represent a miniscule and self-selecting population. Let’s not punish 51% of the population because of Jerry Springer. That’d be like nuking New Jersey because of the J…wait, maybe I’m onto something here…
I guess my ultimate question is, “Why does it need to be free/no copay?” I have a hard time believing unwanted pregnancies are going to go down because of it, therefore I ask next why it’s being brought up. On that basis I concur with Frogs and ROARR.
Nickgb,
I spent much of my teens and early adult years living in poorer neighborhoods, or working with them. 7 towns/cities across two countries, two Provinces and 4 States, working with social services in many of those communities as well. I can tell you that the “Jerry Springer” thing is far more common than one might expect and hardly “miniscule”.
Nevertheless, i do like your idea about bombing NJ because of Jersey Shore. 🙂
After five years in the military, I have to say that the Jerry Springer thing is real. I’ve seen soldiers fall for 20% auto loans. In one case, one soldier was caught dealing crystal meth in Oklahoma and I had to make a decision whether to pick him up or transfer him to a local jail there. I had to help child-proof one soldiers’ house because his 5-year old daughter wandered to post headquarters at 2 am. Another kid broke his hand because he punched a tank. I also got to pick soldiers up from jail on New Year’s day. Of course, there are other stories that I cannot relate in an open forum. But you can catch my drift.
Yikes!
It was an interesting time.
An advisory panel at the Institute of Medicine recommended this week that all insurers be “required to cover contraceptives for women free of charge” as part of the new healthcare law.
I don’t think that anyone doubts it would have the potential to save money. The point is that it creates a slippery slope. Where does it end?
And, to the extent that it DOES save money, you would have to ask why don’t private insurance companies already provide them? It must not save money.
So a woman should have to risk pregnancy if she wants to have sex?
Uuumm….yeah. So should a man.
Besides, if I have health insurance, I’m already paying for the “natural consequences” because unwanted pregnancies lead to higher insurance expenditures which raises my premiums.
This is another one of the critiques of government mandates in the health insurance. Some of the reasons, much actually, that insurance is so expensive in some states is due directly to mandates; acupuncture, aroma therapy, message and so on. There are some that say you should be able to insure yourself choosing from a catalog of circumstances. For example, if you are over the age of…x…you may no longer feel it’s needed to insure against pregnancy. Or alcohol treatment or whatever.
Insurance is not meant to be social program that takes from those who have and gives to those who don’t. It’s meant to be a guard against the whims of the world.