General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm a little bit confused. Kathleen Sebelius says free contraceptives is a cost-reducer.
If that's the case, then why weren't insurance companies offering free contraceptives before? Insurance companies employ thousands of CPA's who pore over every number in actuarial tables in order to fatten the bottom line.
Someone convince me that thousands, nay tens of thousands of CPA's missed the fact that offering a free product to over half of the population would save the insurance companies BANK, thus making insurance companies MORE money, and that the Obama administration whose main players can't figure their taxes on TurboTax found it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)bottom line.
Convince me that it does, AFTER convincing me that the insurance companies with their thousands of accountants, missed this fact.
I'm talking dollars, NOT ideology. Sebelius made it a dollars issue today, and took the ideology out of the argument. I asked that you convince ME she was right about that.
I'm waiting.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)interested in facts. You seem to already have your mind made up. So, keep waiting.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)fattens its bottom line.
I get that.
kemah
(276 posts)County health departments give vaccines away for free and next to free. I get my kids vaccinated for $5 a vaccine or for free if I check a box saying I can not afford it. It is a lot cheaper to vaccinate then it is to have a small pox or other epidemic. Here in Texas cows are also vaccinated at cost or free if the rancher can not afford to pay. This saves the cattle industry a lot of money to keep cattle healthy.
When the Democrats wanted to offer free immunizations the GOP went nuts, socialized medicine, but when it was pointed out to them that the cattle industry had free cow immunizations they rolled right over. Is a cow's health worth more a child's health, to the GOP the answer was yes cows are profits and kids are just little poor people. Let God take care of them.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)the question is how would it increase the insurance company's bottom line?
People assume that saving money equals increased profit, that is not always the case. When the new laws fully kick in the insurance companies will have to spend no less than a set percentage of all money taken in on health care, more money in would mean more money available for profit. So saving money may not mean more profit.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)meanwhile, the people using condoms (or their emplyers) would still be paying insurance premiums
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Paying for all the feminine woes that the pill handles so well is far more expensive than paying for the pill.
If I hadn't had the use of BCP for decades, my time and energy would have been spent on seeing doctors for all sorts of crap, not the least of which was incapacitating pain from cramps. Oh, and probably throw in an abortion or two.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)would have been offering free contraceptives years ago out of nothing more than feduciary responsibility to their stockholders.
Fool Count
(1,230 posts)insurance companies' executives are so ideally rational. A good one. It's like saying that
if bank deposit insurance was beneficial to the banks they would have thought of it themselves,
got together and offered one and its being forced on the banks by the government proves that
it is a costly and unnecessary scheme. Insurance companies simply don't care if free pills save
healthcare dollars overall, because they can always adjust their premiums to maintain their
target profit margins. It is just an out-of-pocket expense for them which looks bad on their
financial statements. End of story.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)deposit insurance does not help the banks, it helps the depositors. Same with the health insurance companies, free birth control does not help the insurance companies, it helps the insured.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)hating on BCPs.
Or do you think that "insurance companies" (we know they're people) are perfectly attuned to both needs and market?
Frankly, I'm delighted that birth control is going to be widely used. My life would have been so different if there had been birth control in my youth. Women will now have a way of controlling their own lives.
This is also part of the ACA's must spend 80% of premiums on health care instead of administration. Welcome to the new world.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)was the only think that made my life tolerable for 30 years.
I say pass 'em out like candy!
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)their shareholders' interests. They are all about enriching the Board of Directors and fooling the shareholders and fleecing customers and abusing workers.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Having unplanned pregnancies costs more than the minimal cost of contraceptives.
Prevention always costs less than the treatment.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)Birth Control costs pennies.
Unwanted births cost a lot.
Not only do they have the pregnancy, prenatal, post natal costs, but they have another dependent that has to be included in the plan.
It's rather simple actually but you can continue to ask sarcastic questions if you wish.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to demand that a business provide a free service for a single segment of the population?
Be careful how you answer that... lest I ask you how much longer condoms will be SOLD, rather than given away for free at the liquor store counter.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Since you don't, you'd realize that it's not a drug and not nearly as effective.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Strange question. Do you ingest children?
Explain to me how the Constitution entitles one segment of the population to a free service that another is not, and private companies are compelled to provide that free service.
Better yet, point out where in the Constition where that authority is given to the government.
Take your time. I'm not going anywhere.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)interstate commerce. Says so in the constitution. Article 1, section 8.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the Constitution doesnt specifically mention. Are you Ron Paul?
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)and PAY for you to go have a 15 minute smoke?
Where in the Constitution does it say that a restaurant must have two working bathrooms for the public in each establishment (the law in Tennessee.) Why should a business provide you with free toilet paper and running water?
Where in the Constitution is the mandated requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act? Why should companies have to provide ramps and big bathroom stalls and wheelchair accessible areas at their own expense?
Where is the requirement that companies release Annual Reports at their own expense for printing, etc.?
Where in the Constitution does it mention that pharmaceutical companies must pay for printed indications/contraindications sheets for every drug they sell? Why don't we make people go out and purchase their own copy of the PDR?
There are many government mandated "freebies" - NOT spelled out in the Constitution - that businesses must provide.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. Although it doesn't specifically state these things, it says that we should be making rules and laws that "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)but the OP was on a big roll. Notice no response when I gave him the examples he asked for.
When I showed him downthread where it IS cost effective to offer BC, and when others noted that ins. cos already provide free contraceptives in many cases, he changed to this "Constitutional" concern.
Fun times....
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)little eels. They can wiggle their way out of all reason and truth and whatever stops its ever present demand for security; i.e., I'm right.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)to spend 80% of premiums on health care.
And BTW, you are mixing your companies. Liquor stores aren't in the health business (unless you are self medicating) and insurance companies are.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)the more profit it can make? So if the insurance company saves money, it has to take a smaller profit. Tell me why they would want to give away something instead of charging for it?
kemah
(276 posts)The document that we all cherish was written in the 18th century. We now live in 200 or more years ahead of the original document. Maybe we should go back to the Magna Carter, back to the old testament, where stoning was punishment for adultery, child brides were the norm, slavery, horse and buggies, where does your logic take us to?
The world has evolved, and so does the rules and regulations have to evolve in order to have a functional society.
GOP pulls up the Constitution, but only when it benefits their causes. Where in the Constitution is the regulation of abortion. Women should be allowed to have control over their body. I believe it is called personal freedom, not government intervention. You do not want the government to dictate your personal life, so butt out with gay and abortion. Let adults decide, as long as they do not harm anyone else.
LiberalFighter
(51,094 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)Most of it is in the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Those issues were settle in the 1930s when Roosevelt extended the reach of the federal government.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)You said it yourself - birth control costs pennies. Thus of 100 people who have health insurance, probably 99% of them are gonna be usiing birth control whether the insurance company provides it for "free" or not. Thus, it becomes a question of whether providing birth control for 99 people who would get it anyway is cheaper than all the other associated costs of a pregnancy.
However, even with an unwanted pregnancy, chances are good, if the woman decides not to abort that she was gonna have a baby at some point anyway. So they have a baby in 2013 instead of 2015. The insurance company is not paying any extra over a 20 year period because of that baby, just paying it a little earlier. And heck, the way medical costs rise, it's probably a lot cheaper to have that baby now than two or five years down the road. Meanwhile the company is paying for twenty years of birth control that it otherwise would not have.
However, I don't think they will mind the extra costs, I think they will just pass them right on - even to customers like me, who sadly have absolutely zero use for birth control because we are not allowed to have sex.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)This may seem convoluted, but consider this scenario:
There are 100 women, who want to use BC and have a prescription. Assume the company currently has NO coverage. Let's say that 75 of the women have sufficient income that they simply pay for it - even if it is a struggle. Assume just to ease the complexity that none of the rest are able to pay for the pill, many will buy less expensive condoms as an alternative. So, in essence, women pay for things themselves that lower the cost. The gain for the insurance company will not be the full gain of the use of birth control.
It might be that Obama will put pressure on the drug companies - helping all companies negotiate a lower rate - as the drug companies profit from this expansion. Their costs are NOT the costs to manufacture the bill.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)The reason that insurance companies won't spring for it is that it is an up-front cost that would hurt profits *this* quarter.
In fact, it would not see any returns at all for three whole quarters.
That's the one piece of this concept you're missing. It would absolutely bring their costs down. The problem with publicly traded companies is that they aren't allowed to lose money in a given quarter.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you can't be credible and also seem surprised by the concept.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)pregos and all their associated costs.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)the 1%ers who make these decisions were thinking a few plays ahead and decided that 1%ers would fare better on the whole if women were forced out of the job market. Or maybe some of TPTB are more interested in putting women back in their "proper place" than they are in a few paltry dollars, which would make this VERY interesting.
I still maintain the Dominionists mean every word they say, and are far more devious and secretive in their endeavors than most folks realize. I see the hand of those who favor Leviticus and Paul over our Constitution in this sort of thing.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)If the insurance companies (I believe you put them into the 1% category) could save money by offering free services, they would have been doing that from the day it was discovered they could.
Force women out of the job market? Is that what you think insurance companies are working toward? Putting women in their proper place?
I posit that insurance companies are in the business of making money. Your suppositions matter not a whit in their scenarios.
It's the bottom line.
MH1
(17,600 posts)The short term costs would be higher, and that's all the insurance companies care about.
Pro birth control politicians are speaking, accurately, of overall, long-term costs vs. benefits. Long term cost vs benefit to the PATIENT is not at all of interest to insurance company actuaries, and probably not very relevant to them, considering that businesses are managed on short-term profit measures.
As pointed out above, over time the insurance company can adjust their prices to maintain their profits, even if their overall costs are higher. So the relation of cost to bottom line is not as direct as you suggest.
The other factor is that "markets" (and their players) aren't as smart as you and certain right-wing snake oil salesman seem to think. Politics and ideology may also play a factor. Although overall it is less than the role of ignorance and inertia - why did it take so long for corporations to (mostly) eliminate (ok, significantly reduce) racial bias in hiring - and then only with a federal mandate to do so? It only makes sense to hire the person who can do the best job. But for a long time, skin color and gender were enough for companies to eliminate highly qualified candidates. That hurt the bottom line but they did it anyway. A similar blindness could be in play here, on top of the short-term focus of any profit-oriented company.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)They have their reasons, and they're not pretty. The more cynical one gets about these things, the closer to the truth.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Might want to consider that "cost reducer" might not necessarily mean "Insurance company cost reducer". Just might be overall health care cost.
You are right about bottom line though, the insurance companies are going to jack up whatever rates they need to to make a profit, and higher revenues offers them a chance for more profits. Therefore it is not in the insurance industry's best interest to reduce costs, regardless of the healthcare topic.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Can you say "bottom line"?
Insurance companies are going to offer ANY service that fattens their bottom line, and um, excuse me but offering FREE PRODUCTS might happen all day long if doing so actually fattened said bottom line.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Mmmmkay? Your words, not mine.
Apparently, you can't also be bothered to read replies, much less your own posts.
Fattening insurance companies bottom line is a concept that you dredged up, and I don't think anyone other than insurance company executives and you are worried about it.
The cost reductions are to the people paying for insurance. It would reduce insurance company profits, which is why they would have to be forced to do it, and as you noted, why they don't currently do it.
If you were not so concerned about the insurance corporation's costs, you might have realized that cost reductions (I know, when was the last time that government gave a shit about real people) might also be refering to benefitting people, real living people, not mega profit sucking corporate entities.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I pay for insurance. I'm a man. My Wife is past child-bearing age.
Cost reduction for WHOM?
You're okay with the government FORCING a company to do a certain thing? What if that requirement made a family owned company decide to get out of whatever business they were in?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)We ALL pay and get BUPKIS!
This is why we should have a public option or single payer.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)to do a certain thing.
We do it everyday and in every segment of the economy.
If you can't follow thge rules get the fuck out of the business.
Cost reduction absolutely, for those getting the benefit and that is what is important.
Who would have thought we would see such rabid defense of one the most vile and profitable industries in the world here on DU?
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)you might want to remove that word progressive from you screen name. Progressive generally means thinking beyond one's own interest and to work in the interest of all.
And, as I've noted to you a couple of times, the Constitution sets out in Article 1, Sec. 8, that Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)the founding fathers were okay with it. They only allowed corporations that served the public good.
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Thomas Jefferson
"As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.” Abraham Lincoln
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/13/what-the-founding-fathers-thought-about-corporations/
Occulus
(20,599 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The air bags too. Remove the bulb from the high mounted third brake lights. Take off the bumpers.
I've explained the cost reduction, but you can't be bothered to read it, just as you want people to prove things to you. I'm done with talking to someone who demands answers, yet is unable to listen.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)First of all, when did American corporations care about fattening the long term bottom line in any way that makes sense to the average American? Profane bonuses, waste, fraud? Hostile takeovers and business acquisitions that destroy the credit and existence of successful companies?
American business hasn't made 'cost-effective' sense' in ages. Look at all of the decimated companies who were victims of Bain. A few people made a lot of immediate cash, leaving the majority of parties with slaughtered businesses and rampant unemployment. There was no concern for long term profit for these companies. There was only the concern for immediate $$$$$$$ gratification for the select thieves of Bain.
Secondly, the cost of one birth can and does far outweigh the cost of a lifetime of contraceptives for one person. That's just dollars and cents reality there.
Do the google and the math. A high-risk birth can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars; even a normal birth costs thousands. A lifetime of birth control can't compare in price. No way. No how.
So the question is: why would insurance companies balk at paying for contraceptives? Simple. It hurts their IMMEDIATE bottom line, as in, the next quarter's earnings. Nine months is too far ahead for these pinheads.
It's the same reason the Repukes refuse to fix bridges and crumbling schools today. In the long run, they will save money if they take action today. In the short term, they have to spend money on something other than their own campaigns. So they'd rather let things fall completely apart and force us - down the road - to pay five times as much to repair infrastructure than spend a cent on fixing it today.
We're not deal with rational humans here. We're dealing with people whose bonuses depend on next quarter's profits. They rely on denying coverage arbitrarily to cut costs, not on common sense. So they'll pay for an excess birth that results from their denial of birth control by turning around and denying a few grannies their heart surgery or knee replacement.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)We're dealing with rabid profiteers, and HAD they decided providing FREE services to over half the population was in their best interest (ie more profitable), they would have been doing so for YEARS, if not DECADES.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)but it sounds like you have your mind made up so...all I can say is I tried....
peace out, there.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)They're not out to make a profit?
They MISSED the fact that offering free contraceptives saved them money?
Yeah... I'll buy THAT for a dollar.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)I really cannot stand when people make points without doing their own research; I find it lazy and lame.
But here you go:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060112.html
"Claims of Cost-Savings
Human resource consultants have long maintained that because contraceptive use prevents unintended pregnancy, covering contraceptives in employer health plans is cost-effective. A 1993 special report on contraceptive use that appeared in Business and Health, a guide for employers, found that the average costs associated with the birth of a healthy baby (prenatal care, delivery and newborn care for one year following birth) was $10,000, compared with $300-350 per year for oral contraceptives.
Further evidence of the cost-effectiveness of covering contraceptives came from an analysis published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1995 that used cost data from managed care plans provided by large employers in 45 major metropolitan areas to compare the costs and benefits of contraceptive use. The study found that all 15 of the contraceptive methods reviewed were cost-effective when compared with the direct medical costs of unintended pregnancy that resulted when methods were not used. The savings ranged from $9,000 to $14,000 per method over a five-year period; using oral contraceptives—the most commonly used reversible method in the United States—saved almost $13,000 over a five-year period.
Considerable cost-savings resulting from public-sector investments in contraceptive services have been extensively documented. According to AGI, public-sector expenditures for contraceptive services in FY 1987 totaled an estimated $412 million. If these subsidized services had not been available, the federal and state governments would have spent an additional $1.2 billion through their Medicaid programs, including the costs of unplanned births and abortions. Thus, for every dollar spent in the public sector on contraceptive services, three dollars are saved in Medicaid costs for pregnancy-related health care and medical care for newborns."
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml
"Also in 1999, Hawaii prohibited employer group health plans from excluding contraceptive services or supplies from coverage, requiring them to include FDA-approved contraceptive drugs or devices to prevent unintended pregnancy.[4] A report on this experience by the Insurance Commissioner of Hawaii concludes that the mandate did not appear to increase insurance costs in any of the four surveyed health plans in Hawaii servicing employer groups.[5]
Review of Actuarial Studies
The direct costs of providing contraception as part of a health insurance plan are very low and do not add more than approximately 0.5% to the premium costs per adult enrollee.[6] Studies from three actuarial firms, Buck Consultants, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and the Actuarial Research Corporation (ARC) have estimated the direct costs of providing contraception coverage. In 1998, Buck Consultants estimated that the direct cost of providing contraceptive benefits averaged $21 per enrollee per year.[7] PwC actuaries completed an analysis using more recent, 2003 data from MedStat for the National Business Group on Health, and determined that a broader range of services (contraceptive services, plus lab and counseling services) would cost approximately $41 per year.[8] The most recent actuarial analysis, completed by the Actuarial Research Corporation in July 2011, using data from 2010, estimated a cost of about $26 per year per enrolled female.[9]
However, as indicated by the empirical evidence described above, these direct estimated costs overstate the total premium cost of providing contraceptive coverage. When medical costs associated with unintended pregnancies are taken into account, including costs of prenatal care, pregnancy complications, and deliveries, the net effect on premiums is close to zero.[10],[11] One study author concluded, "The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money."[12]
When indirect costs such as time away from work and productivity loss are considered, they further reduce the total cost to an employer. Global Health Outcomes developed a model that incorporates costs of contraception, costs of unintended pregnancy, and indirect costs. They find that it saves employers $97 per year per employee to offer a comprehensive contraceptive benefit.[13] Similarly, the PwC actuaries state that after all effects are taken into account, providing contraceptive services is “cost-saving.”[14]
Now, you can dispute these articles if you choose.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)responsibilities. It doesn't take a thousand words to do that. It only takes a little common sense.
Insurance companies owe a duty to their investors to return the best investment on the dollar possible.
It would seem, using Kathleen Sebelius' words today, that they somehow TOTALLY MISSED the fact that giving away services for free would ADD to their bottom line thus earning more profit for their investors/stockholders.
If that's the case, THOUSANDS of CPA's should lose their jobs MONDAY, seeing as how it was just discovered and shown to the world TODAY.
No cut/copy and paste necessary for that.
IF what KS said today is correct, SOMEONE has been fucking up for A VERY LONG TIME.
Agree?
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)have suddenly turned you from someone who had the most profound regard and confidence in insurance company CPAs to someone who now thinks they did a poor job.
You asked the questions and I found you some answers you could trust. So now belittle that if you must but
consider this: administrators often ignore the advice of accountants, so don't blame the CPAs.
Follow the BONUS money.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)trust in the notion that "I work for the Government... I'm here to HELP You".
So you're okay with the government forcing companies to give away services for free. Where does that slippery slope end?
For me, it's not about health care, it's not about ideology... it's about what you'll stand for the government forcing you to do.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)You're all over the place now, Dude.
First you're on a roll about dollars and cents; suddenly when your dollars and cents argument falls apart you quote Reagan.
Can't help you ....true colors and all that......
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)True colors? What color would you assign to me if I told you I've never voted for anything other than a Democrat for statewide or national office?
A government edict concerning dollars and cents earned and spent by a private entity seems a little odd to me. Odd to the point of being unconstitutional.
You go on with your bad self though, casting asparagus at those who might disagree with you.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,362 posts)If you say it's not about healthcare, but about the government forcing a corporation to do something (and that that is a bad thing in itself), then your beliefs are not a good fit with Democrats. You are arguing that regulation is a bad thing.
Thank you for voting for Democrats all the time, and I hope you continue to do so. Every vote helps, even if it comes from someone who disagrees with the basic beliefs of the party. Is it the better air of competence of Democrats that keeps you voting for them?
Owlet
(1,248 posts)You make less sense with each succeeding post. Welcome to my 'Ignore' list.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Just amazing.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)How many people are going to NOT use contraceptives if the insurance company does not cover them?
The cost of $300 vs. $10,000 hinges upon that.
Suppose 99 out of 100 people are gonna spend the $300 out of their own pocket for contraceptives even if the cruel insurance company does not provide it for "free". So only 1 out of 100 people would have that unintended pregnancy if they didn't get free contraceptives and instead had to pay a whole dollar per day.
My way, the insurance company pays for that 1 pregnancy, cost = $10,000
Obama's way, the insurance company pays for contraception for 99 women, cost = $29,700. ($99 * 300, both costs taken from the quoted study).
However, I don't believe this ruling is gonna hurt the insurance companies. They will just pass those costs on to their customers - including people who have no need for contraceptives. This is just a subsidy for those who want contraceptives. Even if it is only $21 or $41 a year, I don't see why I should have to pay for something I don't need. The people having sex can pay for their own damned birth control without taking $20, or even $5 from my wallet.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)and you won't have to spend your time doing convoluted math or hating on people who are already having it.
Someday maybe I will have health insurance, and I will be happy to pay my premiums knowing that our money goes in a pool to help us all.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I could add a spouse to my health insurance for a mere $295.09 per month, and pre-tax at that. And then instead of paying $637.33 per month for my health insurance, my employer would be paying $885.27, effectively increasing my pay by $247.94 per month, and tax free income as well.
See, I am a lover, not a hater.
But I do hate having my pocket picked.
If you don't object to having your pocket picked, then send your $20 a year to me, Al Franken, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 - that's all the address you need.*
And Happy Valentine's Day 
* two classics, one stone. Al Franken had this bit on SNL that always involved the line "Send your money to me, Al Franken" and Superstar Billy Graham used to say people could write to him at Minneapolis, Minnesota and that's all the address they needed.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)I guess I don't look at it as "pocket picking." If I actually paid a premium and had any sort of insurance, I would not resent helping young people cover their contraceptive costs. It would bother me more to help pay for surgeries for folks who eat crap and never exercise when they can afford decent diets and know better.
But even then, I would be happy to help all of us. That's why I want single payer.
I am having issues with my health right now and cannot afford any kind of medical help - too young for medicare, so I am just watching my diet and staying busy. But it really hurts knowing how much this nation spends on healthcare how few of us actually get any.
That's me. One for all and all for one.
Peace and joy hfojvt
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)At three in the morning, I finally got that....
You ole dawg, you!
Happy Singles Awareness Day!!!!!!!
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)my flirting is too subtle.
I cannot find the quote though about how single people get screwed by a system that favors and subsidises married couples.
and now I just remembered to look in my journal
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/59
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)I DO NOT pick up on the most obvious cues.
But listen, hold on to singleness and cherish it like it's the most precious substance in the universe.
To paraphrase Tom Waits, "I've been married so many times I've got rice marks on my forehead."
And I tell you in all honesty, for the love of all that is holy and sacred and not crazy: Single is way, way, way, way better than double.
I am now a severe commitment-phobe and I say again "Danger, Will Robinson!!!!"
It did make me crack up when I figured out the code.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but I am almost fifty. I have held on to about 35 years of singleness, thank you very much.
That probably means that by now I am impossible to live with anyway, and having a room-mate would probably drive me even more crazy. Other people often seem to be so bossy and demanding. Not to mention the food, although I ate Kasia's food without any problems. That was over 17 years ago though.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)I have doubts about myself sometimes but another twenty years of solitude and I'll catch up.
They were just interviewing a woman on Q (radio show out of Canada) who wrote a book about "singles bias." I was outside in the sleet checking on critters so I missed most of it. But I say singles are the lucky ones.
It's peaceful and nobody bitches about who does the housework ( or if they do, nobody listens
)
And if I want to play my guitar at 2:00AM nobody cares but the cat and he just glares. (I'm starting to play the elec. piano again so Ha for the cat!)
ANd now I fear we have highjacked a very dreadful thread and given it some romance
Maybe tomorrow you can start a "Happy Singles Awareness Day" Thread as this is an interesting topic all on its own (though they may banish it to the lounge.
)
Peace and sweet dreams...
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)and you imply that they have built the perfect system without blemish or waste. That every profit potential is being taken advantage of.
WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)Let's assume that no insurance plan is paying for abortions-
Many if not most of us were accidents. That is to say most pregnancies are the result of couples getting jiggy with it as opposed to intentionally trying to get pregnant. You can't get away with not covering pregnancy on company health plans- whether it's the employee or the employee's spouse getting pregnant. The cost of a little contraception vs the cost of pregnancy? Huge. And let's not forget about paid maternity leave. OK- you probably don't get that at McDonald's, but at the very least they can't fire you while you're away having your baby. But any non-wage slave job is going to pay you at least a partial salary while you're out not producing anything for them. And they'll most liely have to hire a temp to cover for you during the six weeks or so that you're out. I've even worked at places where fathers get a few weeks off for a new baby.
So if you can reduce the number of unplanned but not-unwelcome pregnancies by handing out a few pills & condoms, it does save money, both for the employer and the insurance company.
Edited to add: Hmm- looking back at the thread I see Tsiyu made pretty much the same point. I'd have to say the reason corporations overlooked all of this is PR. Look at the stink right wingers are making over this. They probably wanted to avoid the shitstorm.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Get that?
WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)The insurance companies ultimately pass along all the costs to the consumers. So I guess what I said before about the insurance companies saving money is inaccuarate, as they're going to clean up no matter what.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I just wish TPTB would be honest about what they force upon us.
MH1
(17,600 posts)Your argument seems to be about the insurance company saving or not saving money. I am quite sure - whether she said it clearly or not, and she may have even said it wrong - Sebelius, along with all the other pro-BC politicians, are referring to overall costs - essentially costs to the entire system. Which would include social welfare costs, but even taking those out, as pointed out at least a few times above, simple math shows that providing birth control pills is cheaper than paying for even an uncomplicated pregnancy, OVERALL. It's so friggin' obvious that it's odd that anyone even questions it. But I have no idea, zero, zip, nada, how much insurance companies do or don't pay for pregnancy. And it's irrelevant. It's the overall cost to the system that matters.
As for forcing companies to do things, companies are forced to do a lot of things when they try to make money off of US citizens. That's part of the contract of being allowed to do business. It's called regulated capitalism.* If you think capitalism shouldn't be regulated, then you are definitely at the wrong site.
* the question of whether health care should be handled as a commercial good for profit in a capitalist system is a whole 'nother question which we'd best not get into here. It seems we are stuck with that paradigm in the good ol' US for at least the next little while so we need to make the best of it.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)What you might consider "forced on us" since you don't PERSONALLY get anything, others consider a godsend. Women of child bearing age now have a way to control their own lives and destinies.
Yeah for the ACA!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah for Sebilius!!!!! Yeah for Obama!!!! Yeah for Congress passing the ACA!!!!!!!
WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)bandages, aspirins, and all sorts of other stuff that might be health related. Nor do they pay for cosmetic surgery and other items considered "choices."
Now, you may argue that contraception isn't a "choice" the way a tummy tuck is, and I won't disagree, but you are arguing that doing something medicinally to stop the body from acting normally is the same as treating something where the body is broken. This can become a complicated argument.
Financially, an insurance company could add up the cost of over 20 years of bc pills compared to the two pregnancies the average woman has and find that the pregnancies are cheaper. It could also gamble that it won't be the one covering the pregnancy-- another company will cover it, what with job changes and all.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)and would have done so decades ago.
I don't see how you can argue that fact.
Actuarial tables don't apply to single entities.
Plain and simple: If the actuarial tables said it was cheaper to offer FREE services than to charge for NOT offering those services, FREE would have won decades ago.
Don't make this argument about ideology. Kathleen Sebelius didn't. She made it about money, and I submit she was wrong. Nothing more.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)but don't let that stop you.
Please see post 21 above.
And get the facts so you aren't wrong anymore.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)had they just offered free contraceptives.
I posit if that were true; they would have been doing it from the very beginning, or at least from the time of the publication of the first actuarial tables.
You're arguing from the position of ideology and not an accounting point of view.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Uh...no, that would be where your argument originates, I prefer studying the ACTUAL numbers. Please don't think you're the first person to argue this point with me.
Insurance companies have done many things that are not in the fiduciary interests of their stockholders. AS have nearly all American Big Businesses. But some people still have faith in the "system."
I have faith in the facts.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Several decades ago the cost of having a baby was nothing like it is these days.
And several decades ago the advanced medical procedures to save a tiny tiny premature baby did not exist.
If you go do a search on the internet there are probably several articles that you can find that show how much it costs to keep a premmie in the NICU for months/weeks.
Some babies rack up hospital bills of what 1/2 million to one million dollars (when severe complications are involved)?
I remember when my baby brother was born 40 years ago it didn't cost very much at all.
You can't even go to an ER nowadays without having to take out a loan if you don't have insurance.
So, any way the COSTS nowadays of medical care in a hospital are WAY MORE expensive to an insurance companies' bottom line than it is for the to foot the bill for birth control.
I'm sure there are graphs and statics out there on the net and one of the DUers around here will more than likely eventually post 'em 
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Since you couldn't, or WOULDN'T, this post means squat.
No person or business should be forced to give away services for free. That's my whole argument here.
Find the relevent clause in the Constitution of the United States where the government is given the authority to demand free services for one segment of the population and then get back to me.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I always get a kick out of folks that can post tons of replies on a thread but can't take five minutes out to go do a few searches for information. Ciao
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)the US Government the right to force companies to give free services to a single segment of the population is because it doesn't exist.
But you knew that.
Would you google a way to catch sharks in ponds? Paint teflon? Fly using your arms?
Probably not, because you know googling those things would be just as futile.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)You were the only one talking about the U.S. Constitution when you tried to change the topic of the conversation.
LOL
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Or not.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Watch: Lawrence O'Donnell interview with Dan Boies - Constitutionality of birth control mandate
VIDEO segment here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#46320611
I recommend that EVERYONE watch the video on the above link.
Goodnight
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I hope this exchange doesn't end our friendship.
You gots your opinion, and I gots mine.
In the end though, we BOTH vote the same way, which puts us both squarely on the same team.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,362 posts)which forces businesses to spend money, within reason, to give services, without extra charge, to a single segment of the population, that makes their end result equal with all others. Men, women beyond child-bearing years, and infertile women do not run the health risks of getting pregnant; this is saying that a health insurance firm must offer the facility to allow women who can get pregnant to avoid it as others can.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)is free. They insure. This means people pay premiums in case of need, and the company agrees to pay for the needs that arise, if they arise, if they don't, Company keeps all the premiums. No refunds.
So you keeps saying 'for free' as if the Policy itself did not cost thousands a year. Yes, we pay 30K a year to join the Country Club, then the lemonade is 'free'.
Nikia
(11,411 posts)Years ago, child birth costs were cheaper in general and there were few cases of really expensive births. I am guessing that birth control pills may have been relatively more expensive than they are now since they were newer.
At some point, it became more expensive to pay for births than contraceptives. I think for a while though that insurance companies, insuring mostly middle class people, hoped that couples would pay for contraceptives on their own because it was in their interests. While that is mostly true, the costs of birth have risen enough that if a certain percent of insured couples have even one intentional birth because to save money they were using the withdrawal method or the less scientific form of natural family planning instead of birth control pills, that it becomes more costly to the insurance company.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)says the catholic church....
Free contraceptives saves money.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)where other countries are concerned. This ISN'T about the Catholic church. It's about what the US GOVERNMENT can force you or I to do. Today you're okay with the government forcing companies to give away their product for free.
Tomorrow you're okay with... what?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)At least you are honest after being proven wrong repeatedly in this thread
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So to you, a company that is paid many thousands to insure people is doing it 'for free' if they actually insure people?
For that to count as 'free' they would need to cease charging premiums at all. And they charge plenty. So free is not a word that applies here at all. No matter how often you type it.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)"for free", as if they just walked down to the ol' insurance store one day and said "Sign me up for those free pills!" They have policies and coverage that they are already paying for. It's just that there's no copays attached in this case.
global1
(25,270 posts)Wellness programs and preventative medicine also keeps people healthier and out of the health care system. Insurance companies haven't done a good job on that either. I never could figure out why - except that if people were healthier - they wouldn't be seeing MD's as much. They wouldn't be placed in hospitals as much. They wouldn't be having to take prescription drugs as much. They wouldn't be using the health care system as much.
Do we really have a "Health Care" system or is it a "Sick or Illness Care" system?
Which do you think keeps the money churning more? There in lies your answer.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)from the pharmaceutical plan.
I will never forget that meeting/announcement. Thousands in the auditorium on campus collectively going 
I guess they figured pregnancy and dependent care would cost less than a few pills.
It was bizarre beyond belief.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Not because Kathleen Sebelius was wrong, but because you have your mind made up, your chest out and you aren't going to be convinced. Why ask people to convince you of something you refuse to believe? Several people have made obvious arguments and you have blown each and every one off with "It that were the case, insurance companies would already be doing it."
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)You mean all along I've been misguided in my belief that insurance companies exist to provide some kind of profit? And that said companies actually limit their profit due to some kind of ideology that can be ascribed to their shareholders?
Or am I wrong because of some clause in the Constitution I'm not aware of gives the government that authority to demand that one or another company give away their product for free, and only to a certain segment of the population?
renie408
(9,854 posts)I mean you have already made up your mind, so what is the point of a discussion? And you seem kinda angry about it, too. You want your point validated, I understand that.
And yeah, I am telling you that corporations will do something that results in a net loss if it saves them the hassle of having the religious right on their backs.
Chic-Fil-A is a corporation. It is closed on Sunday for religious reasons. This policy results in a HUGE net loss for them, but they do it anyway. Why would they do that? Oh, that's right...it's based on some kind of ideology.
Now you tell me why I am wrong because I don't agree with you and we are right back where we started. You think what you think, so what is the point?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)The Constitution doesn't say a business has to stay open on Sundays. Chic whatever isn't bound by any law that says it must. And finally, if it's a publicly traded corporation the SHAREHOLDERS decide what the company does. If they weren't getting a fair return on their investment, I'm sure they'd be open 24/7 if need be.
I think the Constitution is a document dictating what the government MUST do, and has been amended 27 times. Those amendments LIMIT what the government CAN do.
I don't think you'll find ANYWHERE (in fact I KNOW) in the Constitution where the government is given the authority to FORCE a private entity to give away free services.
It's really quite simple.
Read the document. I have.
renie408
(9,854 posts)So why muddy it up with all the Kathleen Sebelius-birth control-insurance company stuff?
And I have read the Constitution. All of it. I homeschool my daughter and last semester we studied it clause by clause and rewrote the whole thing in our own words. It took a damn long time, too. But I think it's really important that she know what's in there.
I also noticed that there is nothing in the Constitution about speed limits. Not mentioned anywhere. Damned government...
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)but we do know what Jefferson thought of corporations. He said "I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations".
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)and now is an "anti-Obama, anti-government" rant.
But for anyone who wants more info beyond the Reaganesque posturing:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/1/gpr140107.html
"Costs and Cost-Savings
Yet, although the costs of contraception can be daunting for individual women, insurance coverage of contraceptive services and supplies—both public and private—actually saves money. Guttmacher Institute research finds that every public dollar invested in contraception saves $3.74 in short-term Medicaid expenditures for care related to births from unintended pregnancies. In total, services provided at publicly funded family planning centers saved $5.1 billion in 2008. (Significantly, these savings do not account for any of the broader health, social or economic benefits to women and families from contraceptive services and supplies and the ability to time, space and prepare for pregnancies.) A 2010 Brookings Institution analysis came to the same conclusion, and projected that expanding access to family planning services under Medicaid saves $4.26 for every $1 spent. " (Emphasis mine)
Obama is trying to accommodate women who work for medieval institutions that refuse to provide coverage for their female employees. He is requiring insurance companies to take up the slack for these women.
In the end, this saves us all money. And the insurance companies will profit.
As for private companies being "issued edicts," people said the same thing about Social Security, medical and family leave, rules about breaktimes and lunch during the workday, and compliance with OSHA.
"You mean I have to provide a safe workplace at my own expense????"
Yup.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I voted for President Obama. And, I'm not ANTI government. What I am, is pro-Constitution. Unlike others, I don't think the Constutution GIVES the government "rights".
Please find for me the clause that gives the government the "right" to demand that a private entity give free services to a SPECIFIC part of the population.
You might not like where my argument started, but it started where it started. I defy you to defend this whole contraceptive issue CONSTITUTIONALLY.
Did I simply MISS the clause that gave the government the right to force private entities to provide services for specific parts of the population?
renie408
(9,854 posts)Like the open ended POWER to regulate interstate commerce.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Please see my post 57 above for more examples.
And I can provide many, many more if you like.
And it's not about what I like or dislike. You could have been honest about your concerns from the start, rather than moving the goalpoast all over the field, but that's merely a suggestion.
I've been rather amused by the whole thread so its entertainment value has been "cost effective" to me.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)As for being honest, I didn't mean to be DIShonest.
You may have noticed that there are times DU'ers are consumed by what they feel as opposed to what is legal, at least in a constitutional sense. I think this is one of those times.
What a majority of DU'ers see as a victory over the Catholic Church I see as a step over the boundary of what the Constitution allows, and what it limits.
This is a fucking slippery slope that will someday be usurped by a republican admistration/congress. Mark my words. It's a bad precedent to set.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Whether or not the statutes enforcing the offering of birth control in insurance coverage by employers overstep the bounds of what the Constitution intended for government interference is something for intelligent people who have had a lot more sleep than I have to discuss.
But that should have been your starting place and now the point you thought important enough to start a thread over and to get defensive about has been lost. You got snotty with me about reading the Constitution when how the hell was I supposed to know this was a Constitutional debate? I thought it was a debate about whether or not offering birth control saved money and whether or not corporations would engage in policies which reduced their profit based on ideology.
renie408
(9,854 posts)and I would like to hear what you have to say about them.
I'm waiting.
renie408
(9,854 posts)BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)I note that you are the only one on the thread throwing out profanities. You seem very angry. Do you own an insurance company? I'm not sure why you have such personal animosity toward this issue. It will save thousands of dollars for individual people. It will give women in every state the chance to be the most she can be without having to do that and be a full time parent.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)There were TONS of insurance policies already covering birth control BEFORE the Obama Administration announce the new rule.
Currently there are even Catholic organizations that are offering insurance policies that cover birth control.
If you 'really' want an answer to "what you're confused" about, then go do some research
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)Progressivecherokee received TMI and has shut down. Unable to sustain the unsustainable and unable to take the step forward on the evolutionary scale to become a full human who cares as deeply for others as they do themselves with the admission of being incorrect.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Things that are free under my coverage:
Annual physicals/checkups
Mammograms and certain other cancer screenings
Dental cleanings/checkups twice annually
Contraception
Nutritionists
Smoking cessation products
renie408
(9,854 posts)
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Actually insurance companies don't make more money from this. In most cases new immigrants or poor and low-income women tend to actually have more kids. But they don't have health insurance. In effect we the people end up paying for their health care through the government. Offering up free birth control will actually bring down medical costs considerably. Think for example how much pregnant women cost. I mean they have to be regularly checked up by their doctors every month or two months or three months. Then they have have prenatal care. And if there is problems they then have to be put on medicine for that. Additionally, there is hospital fees for emergencies and/or time of birth and there is care for the child. This is more like preventative care in actuality because of these costs. But this also works for women with health insurance because in many cases many things that mothers and babies may need may not be met by their health insurance. No pregnancy, no additional costs. Not to mention some of us females like myself need to take birth control for our health---not to prevent pregnancy, and that would keep us out of hospitals and doctors cares if we just get our hormones.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)ignores several important factors.
Not all pregnancies are unintended and not all unintended pregnancies are unwanted.
It also assumes that if insurance doesn't cover the preventive service the insured will simply forego it.
Making the cost-effectiveness claim on the macro level is difficult for any prevention argument because to prevent the small percentage of adverse events prevention must be provided for all (eg. Headstart costs "$X" while incarceration costs "$XXXXXXXX" .
Prevention may the right thing. It may be the smart thing. But it also may cost more, overall.
Is it a cost that's worth paying?
On the Constitutional issue: That ship has sailed. The government will exercise any power it can until the people decide that enough is enough.
Oh yeah... the government has NEVER, EVER claimed that a program or a project would cost one number but then wound up costing ten times more.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)companies are required to do all sorts and kinds of things to be in business by local, state, and federal regulations. There is nothing new about this. It has been a feature of the US economy from the beginning.
Dumping industrial waste in someone else's water supply is probably cheaper than bearing the cost of not doing it. We don't allow it and that is a good thing.
Painting kids toys with lead based paint is apparently cheaper than the alternatives, but we don't allow it and that is a good thing.
Butchering meat in unsanitary conditions is apparently cheaper than running a clean and sanitary operation, but we don't allow it and that is a good thing.
All these little things that government requires do have costs, many are quite important and most folks approve.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)All of the instances you cite pass the "compelling state interest" test.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)meaculpa2011
(918 posts)across state lines.
My health insurance premium will be less than half of what it is now in New York when we move to North Carolina next summer.
A big reason for the move.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)on your own without insurance? I have. I managed to pay off the costs of my daughter's birth and first 90 days of life by the time she was 10. One kid. The cost of a lifetime supply of contraception would have been much lower, and she was born healthy. The emergency C-section required because she apparently wanted to come out sideways took 10 years to pay off, and I only paid it off then because my parents passed and I inherited a small sum of money....
Insurance companies are required to cover many things. They charge for all of it and make plenty of money. Color me unconcerned.
renie408
(9,854 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I suspect its because they, like most businesses, focus on the short term bottom line.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)now provide free memberships at gyms and exercise classes for the elderly. How brilliant! My 85 year old parents now go to Gold's Gym twice a week and exercise and they both have lost weight, their blood pressure is lower and they are healthier. Go figure.
retread
(3,763 posts)
JVS
(61,935 posts)for the government or for private insurance.
Considering how many poor people are on the government's rolls for not only medical care, but all kinds of social benefits (welfare, foodstamps, etc.), for the government it may indeed be a cont reducer. For the private sector who deal with wealthier clients who are already have demonstrated willingness to pay for their contraceptives of choice, or the under insured who have medical coverage but can only afford to use it for emergencies and would be sparing in their use of doctors during a pregnancy, the free contraceptives would be a cost with no or minor benefits statistically speaking.
The chunk of the population who won't use contraception unless it's free and who pay for their own health insurance is likely quite small.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Pregnancy---especially an NICU stay for a preemie---costs Blue Cross or Cigna much more than contraception, so the insurers will cover it---unless they are told not to.
Even those groups that are self insured like some Churches probably have a catastrophic insurer to take care of the multi-million dollar cases. I am pretty sure that the company that will be in the line for the 6 month NICU stay will be more than happy to throw in a few dollars of birth control coverage to cut down the number of preemies they have to cover.
kemah
(276 posts)What do people do when the lights go out? They have sex. Just look at New York City black out and then 9 months later you had a baby boom. The so called black out babies. The Philippines is a very devout Catholic country so birth control is not really an option. The government came out with the idea of giving away small 13 inch black and white TVs. It worked the birth rate went dramatically down.
The Philippines have socialized medicine, so a $25 TV was cheaper than have to pay for medical care for a pregnancy. True story.
dsc
(52,166 posts)clients but it isn't if you don't. So if you are say the UK and insuring everyone then free bc pays for itself in spades. If you are acme insurance and your clientele turns over then not so much.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It is not for lack of birth control.
So there will be a portion of unwed pregnancies by poor women that won't happen. Otherwise, the middle class and working women....they were buying b.c., anyway. There will be no effect there, except cost increase for ins. cos., which translates into higher premiums.
The savings from unwanted pregnancies will pale in comparison to the huge cost. We'll be paying for b.c. for millions of women...monthly....every month....for years and years and years.
Maybe we should pay for diabetes medicine, too, since that will "save us money" from diabetes complications? (Medicaid pays for diabetes already, so I'm speaking of paying for it for the rest of us, as this contraception order does.)
As you can tell, I'm not in favor of this. My co's insurance cost will shoot up even more next year. Sigh. My co. has already laid off a lot of people, in no small part to the cost of ins. So hell, yeah...let's just pile more costs on. What the hell.
Meanwhile, many unwanted pregnancies will cont. to happen. Because some people don't understand WHY those young women get pregnant, in the first place.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,362 posts)Fuck, I didn't think the USA was as backward and barbaric as that. Diabetes is an illness; why on earth wouldn't the medicines for it be covered?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If that's the case, then why weren't insurance companies offering free contraceptives before? Insurance companies employ thousands of CPA's who pore over every number in actuarial tables in order to fatten the bottom line. "
...the hell is going on around here? You're confusing profits with the cost of care. There are a lot of cost-savings measures that insurance companies oppose because these mean more profits and not better care. If the insurance companies cared about cost savings, they wouldn't have opposed health care reform.
It's a cost saver for in terms of what an insurer and government pays for care.
The MLR rule is a cost reducer in the same way. Doesn't help insurers profits, though.
In any case, keep making RW arguments.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)particularly if the cartel is misrepresenting where they are on it now.
Weighing down the truth with something between misunderstood, over estimated, nonsensical, and false isn't helpful.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)particularly if the cartel is misrepresenting where they are on it now.
Weighing down the truth with something between misunderstood, over estimated, nonsensical, and false isn't helpful.
...that's an opinion, which reminds me of the the claim that regulations are bad because the banks will just increase costs.
Opinions vary: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294855
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Free oral contraceptives will reduce unwanted pregnancies; thereby reducing costs associated with those consequences.
In medicine, we all know that if something can be done to prevent an unwanted/unintended/untoward outcome, it should be. But in the land of insurance cos., the rules are different.
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)badly enough to pay for them while they could. Back when we had higher numbers of people insured with lower costs to employees, it might only cost 50 cents a day to pay for birth control. Now with higher deductibles and copays, women might not be able to afford it. They may skip the pill and go with a less reliable contraceptive that is used sporadically, like diaphragms or condoms. I suspect that one it really is cheaper to cover oral contraceptives and other forms of birth control.
But this is just a guess based on my personal experience.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)Young girl (high-school age) gets pregnant and has a baby with a young man who is the love of her life. They all live with parents and grandparents in the grandparents' home. Love of her life is mentally and physically abusive to her, her baby and her family. After six months, love of her life moves out.
Less than a year later, sister who witnessed all of this firsthand, gets pregnant with the love of HER life.
Rinse and repeat.
Contraceptives were available, free of charge, at the local PP facility and the school health office. Never mind that family planning products are displayed prominently at every gas station and convenience store where both young ladies gladly pay $10 a pack for cigarettes.
Am I cynical? Not nearly enough.
P.S. The baby is gorgeous and I hope that she's the one that break's the cycle.
yardwork
(61,711 posts)Remember that insurance companies don't insure everybody. They select a group of subscribers who are different from the U.S. population as a whole. The privately insured are healthier and wealthier and whiter than the U.S. population as a whole. The Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for everybody. Everybody includes a lot of people in the U.S. who are never going to be covered by private insurance.
One of the goals of health care reform is to move away from the two-tier system we have now, where "winners" (people fortunate enough to be employed by large corporations or organizations that can negotiate decent health insurance coverage for their employees, and fortunate enough not to be laid off) and "losers" (people who have the misfortune to be actually pursuing the American Dream of self-employment, entrepreneurship, working for or running a small business or farm, that kind of thing that our country was built on) who don't have the clout to negotiate affordable insurance coverage and are therefore out in the cold, uninsured or with lousy, expensive health coverage.
Don't mistake private insurance industry standards for anything that is rational or reasonable for the population as a whole.
GobBluth
(109 posts)the Mirena I had placed a year ago. I did have to pony up the $450 up front (I do not understand medical billing!), but BCBS ended up pay like $300 of that, and my OB/GYN sent me a check. We do use the federal BCBS, so not sure if it is different with other people.
They also paid 100% of maternity care, which I used 3 times, so maybe they felt birth control was cost cutting in my case, lol.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Up and down this thread, OP, you say they are forced to offer free things to a 'segment of the population' when in fact they are required to include in their for profit and high priced Policies that which more than 90% of such companies already do. Your language implies that the company gets no compensation and that they are asked to 'give' contraception to any woman who asks, when reality is that this is a requirement for them toward their own paying customers only. The price includes contraception. That's it. This is a rule for treatment of customers in a mandated, for profit insurance system.
Other countries that mandate purchase make it illegal to profit from such Policies at all.
And Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution allows such regulations. Such regulation is common in all fields.
kemah
(276 posts)Benjamin Franklin even knew about prevention. A penny wise, but a pound foolish.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)mandated services? Like you feel it is wrong or counter-constitutional that policies be required to cover for sickle cell which only affects a certain population or I guess the same logic would essentially trickle down to any form of coverage requirement and largely then would apply to about any regulation.
I'm also not getting what is "free" since we have to pay premiums. You sound very much like the pushers of junk coverage that have a burning desire for the cartel to collect our money but with no responsibility to actually cover anything and for our employers to dictate what care we may and may not have.
edhopper
(33,616 posts)or just an idiot.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,438 posts)I'm sure that they have been well aware that pregnancy prevention is MUCH cheaper than pregnancy/potential complications/childbirth. The administration is, presumably, banking on this to win their support for the compromise.
peasant one
(150 posts)My insurance company has offered BC free of charge for at least 8 years and I work in a red state.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Corporations have demonstrated again and again that they will choose SHORT TERM PROFIT so that stock holders see larger returns now over any decisions (such as free birth control) that will only show profits in the future.
The people making decisions at the top get bonuses on having more money NOW then investing in objectives that pay off further in the future.
Fool Count
(1,230 posts)until ten or even twenty years down the road. What's an average tenure of an insurance company's CEO?
I'd be surprised if it is more than five years. It is clearly not in his/her interests to trade an immediate
expense for the benefit he most certainly wouldn't see. Moreover, it is likely that even an average shareholder,
who holds his shares for less than this "benefit time" wouldn't benefit either, so that even "fiduciary duty"
does not compel the CEO to do the right thing here. People now realize that interests of CEO and shareholders
are not always in line and that's what the executive compensation debate is all about. But they should also
realize that interests of different shareholders are also not the same and depend on how long each of them
intends to hold his stock. Interestingly, no shareholder, holding the stock for finite period of time, has the
same interest as the company as a whole, if that "interest" to be defined as long term survival and growth
of the company.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I don't think the insurers mind too much - they have the actuarial tables in front of them.
Lisa0825
(14,487 posts)Just my theory.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)In MA there is no copay for BC.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)for medical reasons - like reducing ovarian cysts, instead of needing surgery - she's absolutely right.
Having babies is also very expensive. Sooner or later, we WILL have to have the government step in with regards to medical care, because insurance companies are nearly at the point of being complete and total rip-off agencies. When that happens, we don't need more children and pregnant women.
That's the bottom line. It will happen. People know the problem is that insurance companies are gouging everyone and that they are the reason our health care costs are so high. Sooner or later, it will have to be addressed.
