a day that will live in infamy

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by maxpower1227

You have got to be kidding me.

Nope, republickers seem to want women to be barefoot (well, technically I semi-made that up), pregnant and paying their own damn money for the privilege.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Travis

For whatever reason you seem to want poor women to be stuck with unwanted pregnancies. Hate is the only reason I can think of for someone wanting to wish that onto an entire segment of the population.

Yes, the freedom to choose whether or not you want to have a plan that covers such a thing (and then have to pay for it) couldn't possibly have a *********** thing to do with it.

If hate is the only reason you can think of, perhaps you should either think harder or just give up on the prospect of thinking altogether because you're not particularly good at it.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Turns out that birth control is much cheaper than pregnancies and associated complications.

I already addressed this above.

Read, then hit the "reply" button.

The order in which those two actions occur are actually quite important.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Yes, the freedom to choose whether or not you want to have a plan that covers such a thing (and then have to pay for it) couldn't possibly have a *********** thing to do with it.

There are dozens of things in my policy I would prefer not to pay for but the way insurance works is to balance the costs across a large population.

Such a concept is lost on libertarians, but then so is the concept of society and related shared benefits and costs. Oh and when you respond, don't use "coercion", that's so PC. Please figure out how to include "at the barrel of a gun", that always gives me a belly laugh.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Insurance companies have to provide a product free of charge when it was not free of charge before. Costs increase.

Ummmmm no. The insuree pays a fee to the insurer in order to be insured. The only thing this changes is additional out of pocket expenses to the insuree.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Insurance companies have to provide a product free of charge when it was not free of charge before. Costs increase.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Turns out that birth control is much cheaper than pregnancies and associated complications.

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

I already addressed this above.

Read, then hit the "reply" button.

The order in which those two actions occur are actually quite important.

1. I quoted you in full.
2. I've looked but don't see a post that addresses my premise.
3. Turns out that birth control is STILL much cheaper than pregnancies and associated complications (regardless of order). Let me translate that so you can understand. If the insurance companies pick up the tab for birth control then they will spend less in the long run.

Originally Posted by Time Magaine

Why Free Birth Control Will Not Hike the Cost of Your Insurance

The truth is that both insurers and employers who self-insure save money in the long run by covering contraception. So much money is saved that it makes financial sense to waive co-pays and deductibles. A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health estimates that not providing contraceptive coverage in employee health plans winds up costing employers 15% to 17% more than providing such coverage.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

Taxes are the user fees for living in society.

"For" here is a statement of intention. Intentions are a matter of inference. "For living in society" is not always the case. Sometimes taxes are the price people pay to avoid prison or the loss of their tangible assets. People pay taxes in North Korea. The Declaration of Independence listed taxes as one cause for war against the British crown. In any case, the coercion that Rep. Quayle observed is taxation to pay for contraception, not the contraception itself. Merits of coercion in this case aside, taxes are coerced.

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

"For" here is a statement of intention. Intentions are a matter of inference. "For living in society" is not always the case. Sometimes taxes are the price people pay to avoid prison or the loss of their tangible assets. People pay taxes in North Korea. The Declaration of Independence listed taxes as one cause for war against the British crown. In any case, the coercion that Rep. Quayle observed is taxation to pay for contraception, not the contraception itself. Merits of coercion in this case aside, taxes are coerced.

I believe ground was specifically "taxation without representation", not just taxes. Something about not having a say about not being able to say what is an appropriate tax rate, etc.

There was also the not wanting soldiers garrisoned there (the French having been defeated, why were there still soldiers still there - a very English attitude), and of course the ability to displace former allies from their home territories (they were only savages afterall).

[jj]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

And that idiot would be the one who drafted the bill. There's no reason to mandate coverage for birth control at all, let alone to mandate it without a copay.

Meanwhile, costs will increase and politicians (and other idiots) will use it as more reason to overhaul health care (again) or do away with the insurance system altogether.

So, it's more expensive to pay for medical care for one person using birth control than it is for 10 children without birth control?

Please explain this, it runs counter to every bit of evidence I've ever seen.

[BenBurch]

I'd say having a copay isn't horrible but there is a reason for this. If you set the copay for all drugs to 100% you can avoid paying a dime for birth control at the expense of covering anything at all. And some religiously affiliated employers might just do that.

[Kestrel]

Copays exist to assure that people only go to the doctor when necessary. The problem is that some people will avoid preventive care because of the cost. Care that oven saves money in the long run.

[Roadtoad]

The day might live in Infamy.

I live in California.

(What?)

[IchabodPlain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

[list=1][*]I quoted you in full.

You did, but not the post GA is referring to.

Quote:

[*]Turns out that birth control is STILL much cheaper than pregnancies and associated complications (regardless of order). Let me translate that so you can understand. If the insurance companies pick up the tab for birth control then they will spend less in the long run.

Irrelevant unless you don't think there should be copays for any preventative medicine. Providing insulin is cheaper than being treated in the ER. Same with cancer screenings, same with any other drug. What GA, I believe, is arguing (and please correct me if I am wrong), is why should birth control be treated differently than these other preventative services? Personally, I would be fine with some sort of means test, but I am skeptical that a $5 or $10 copay is going to cripple anyone financially.

[BStrong]

If this trips anybodys "Day of Infamy" switch, they need to start paying attention to what is going on.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by BStrong

If this trips anybodys "Day of Infamy" switch, they need to start paying attention to what is going on.

Amen.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

You did, but not the post GA is referring to.

Thanks. FWIW: It's not my job to find and read every one of his posts. That said, his gut feelings don't trump science. In fact, they don't mean ****.

Quote:

Irrelevant unless you don't think there should be copays for any preventative medicine. Providing insulin is cheaper than being treated in the ER. Same with cancer screenings, same with any other drug.

If the experts conduct a meta study and determine more money will be saved by doing away with co-pays, then hell yes there shouldn't be co-pays. How hard is that to figure out? That said, I suspect that such a study won't have a similar finding.

Quote:

What GA, I believe, is arguing (and please correct me if I am wrong), is why should birth control be treated differently than these other preventative services?

Well, instead of relying on your beliefs why not look at what he says instead.

Originally Posted by GA

Insurance companies have to provide a product free of charge when it was not free of charge before. Costs increase.

No, I don't think he is arguing what you are. He stated his position explicitly. He's wrong.

[IchabodPlain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thanks. FWIW: It's not my job to find and read every one of his posts. That said, his gut feelings don't trump science. In fact, they don't mean ****.

It's a short thread. But you're right, his interpretation is just that, not to be confused with evidence.

Quote:

If the experts conduct a meta study and determine more money will be saved by doing away with co-pays, then hell yes there shouldn't be co-pays.

Fair enough, but then, stuff costs money. And unless copays are what is preventing women from using the pill, then removing them altogether only increases the free rider problem. A more efficient method, in this case, would be a means test.

Quote:

That said, I suspect that such a study won't have a similar finding.

Why not? At $5/mo copay, insulin is - even after decades - cheaper than one visit to the ER to treat the diabetic shock from not having it.

Quote:

No, I don't think he is arguing what you are. He stated his position explicitly. He's wrong.

You are correct that his primary point is that it shouldn't be covered in the first place and that it's coverage will increase costs. I'll let him argue the libertarian cause on that.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Fair enough, but then, stuff costs money. And unless copays are what is preventing women from using the pill, then removing them altogether only increases the free rider problem. A more efficient method, in this case, would be a means test.

If you think about it, the system being set up has a means test. Wealthy women pay the full price for insurance coverage, poor women have the cost subsidized. Preventive care including contraception is included in the price of the insurance. There is no need to complicate it further by having a seperate means test for copays.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Infamy-ly way? I thought birth control was designed to prevent that.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Copays exist to assure that people only go to the doctor when necessary. The problem is that some people will avoid preventive care because of the cost. Care that oven saves money in the long run.

Thanks. This succinctly addresses my concerns up thread. The medicines that I listed are for treatment of chronic conditions, not prevention.

Since it is shown that the cost of preventative medicine saves money in the long term, then I am sure that Insurance companies are for it and willing to pay the costs as it ultimately saves them money.

However, the objections to this do not seem to be coming from the Insurance companies.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Insurance companies have to provide a product free of charge when it was not free of charge before. Costs increase.

You're not looking at the entire picture.

Do you understand what birth control does?

In fact, it's far cheaper for us to pay for birth control than to pay to support unwanted children.

By your approach, it would be a cost savings to me to quit changing the oil and filter in my car.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

I already addressed this above.

Only if you reason in such a way that me not changing the oil and filter in my car is less expensive than doing so regularly.

That's not a very intellectually honest way of responding to my first post.

I'll happily admit this is a policy that takes away a bit of freedom--though it's a freedom that is pretty meaningless (you don't have to use birth control, and you as an individual are not paying anything extra for it), but overall, there is a public interest in increasing access to birth control, and there is a long term cost savings. That public interest outweighs the limitation on freedom (one that exists only in principle and has no actual effect of limiting one's freedom).

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

There are dozens of things in my policy I would prefer not to pay for but the way insurance works is to balance the costs across a large population.

Such a concept is lost on libertarians, but then so is the concept of society and related shared benefits and costs. Oh and when you respond, don't use "coercion", that's so PC. Please figure out how to include "at the barrel of a gun", that always gives me a belly laugh.

I'm not here to entertain you. The only point here is that there's no choice available anymore, by law.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Ummmmm no. The insuree pays a fee to the insurer in order to be insured. The only thing this changes is additional out of pocket expenses to the insuree.

Which now means the additional out-of-pocket expenses the company was receiving must be recouped by other means. Like premium increases.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thanks. FWIW: It's not my job to find and read every one of his posts. That said, his gut feelings don't trump science. In fact, they don't mean ****.

Then why are we having this conversation? If you can find some study that says the number of pregnancies prevented will offset the cost to the insurer of losing the copay, then maybe it's a better scenario. But it shouldn't be by law, and if it were a net cost-saver, why aren't the insurers already doing it?

Until you do that, your gut feelings don't mean ****.

Quote:

No, I don't think he is arguing what you are. He stated his position explicitly. He's wrong.

He's got a point also.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

In fact, it's far cheaper for us to pay for birth control than to pay to support unwanted children.

We're not talking about supporting unwanted children. We're talking about the cost to the insurer. The insurer doesn't have to support unwanted children; they only have to cover the medical costs associated with the pregnancy. And not covering the costs of an unwanted pregnancy is offset by this law only if the number of women who are not on BC only because of the copay and who would get pregnant without a no-copay pill is large enough.

Is it?

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Then why are we having this conversation? If you can find some study that says the number of pregnancies prevented will offset the cost to the insurer of losing the copay, then maybe it's a better scenario. But it shouldn't be by law, and if it were a net cost-saver, why aren't the insurers already doing it?

Until you do that, your gut feelings don't mean ****.

Are you intentionally ignoring RandFan, as post #46 by him already has a link to one such study.

Also, as I stated the reason we are having this conversation is not because insurance companies are unwilling to cover birth control, but because religious conservatives employers are making it an issue.

In short, religious business owners are claiming that their religious freedom includes being able usurp the religious freedom of their employees and restrict their access to certain types of preventative health care based on the employers religious beliefs.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Then why are we having this conversation?

Because I took exception to something you said. I knew there was evidence counter to your statement.

Quote:

If you can find some study that says the number of pregnancies prevented will offset the cost to the insurer of losing the copay, then maybe it's a better scenario. But it shouldn't be by law, and if it were a net cost-saver, why aren't the insurers already doing it?

And here is the source of the problem. It's a fallacy. It presumes that businesses only do what's in their best interest. Never mind that the notion is so obviously false. Business has an incentive to do what is in their best interest. However, being human and knowing what is in your best interest make that difficult sometimes. Implementing change can be difficult and businesses often are often more interested in next quarters profits than long term returns.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

We're not talking about supporting unwanted children. We're talking about the cost to the insurer. The insurer doesn't have to support unwanted children; they only have to cover the medical costs associated with the pregnancy. And not covering the costs of an unwanted pregnancy is offset by this law only if the number of women who are not on BC only because of the copay and who would get pregnant without a no-copay pill is large enough.

Is it?

Yes, because children never get sick or need medical care. I'll make sure to tell my parents that my open heart surgery at 5 months old was just a figment of their imagination. And I'm sure my father is really looking forward to paying back his insurance company since I obviously wasn't covered by his insurance plan that he got through his company at the time.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Why not? At $5/mo copay, insulin is - even after decades - cheaper than one visit to the ER to treat the diabetic shock from not having it.

The study took into account lost productivity for workers who become pregnant. A woman who becomes pregnant typically, IIRC out of work for 2 - 3 months.

[Kestrel]

Some actual data from the report I mentioned earlier.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2011. Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Quoting from page 107:

Quote:

Although it is beyond the scope of the committee’s consideration, it should be noted that contraception is highly cost-effective. The direct medi- cal cost of unintended pregnancy in the United States was estimated to be nearly $5 billion in 2002, with the cost savings due to contraceptive use estimated to be $19.3 billion (Trussell, 2007). The cost-effectiveness of fam- ily planning is also documented in an evaluation of FamilyPact, California’s 1115 Medicaid Family Planning Waiver Program. The unintended pregnan- cies averted in this program in 2002 would have cost the state $1.1 billion within two years, and $2.2 billion within five years, for public-sector health and social services that otherwise would have been needed (Amaral et al., 2007).

Page 109 discusses contraceptive coverage in private insurance plans:

Quote:

In 2007, NBGH recommended that employer-sponsored health plans include coverage of family planning services, without cost sharing, as part of a minimum set of benefits for preventive care. The Guttmacher Institute also calls comprehensive coverage of contraceptive services and supplies “the current insurance industry standard,” with more than 89 percent of insurance plans covering contraceptive methods in 2002 (Camp, 2011). A more recent 2010 survey of employers found that 85 percent of large employers and 62 of small employers offered coverage of FDA-approved contraceptives (Claxton et al., 2010).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

We're not talking about supporting unwanted children.

[ETA: Just as a matter of fact, you're wrong. Several of us have raised this point. So we are talking about it. If you mean we shouldn't be, then see the rest of my post.]

Why not? Again, do you understand what birth control is and why there is a public interest in guaranteeing easy access to it?

Quote:

We're talking about the cost to the insurer.

Right, and when I consider whether or not to spend money on changing the oil and filter in my car, I should only consider the cost of the oil and filter and nothing else, in which case it's cheaper for me never to change the oil and filter in my car.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Because I took exception to something you said. I knew there was evidence counter to your statement.

And here is the source of the problem. It's a fallacy. It presumes that businesses only do what's in their best interest. Never mind that the notion is so obviously false. Business has an incentive to do what is in their best interest. However, being human and knowing what is in your best interest make that difficult sometimes. Implementing change can be difficult and businesses often are often more interested in next quarters profits than long term returns.

Can I just note that one possible reason that insurers aren't already doing it is because they have the ability to just drop patients if they get too expensive or otherwise not cover things? They might have ungodly deductables on various things, or even refuse to cover other stuff. So if they skimp on coverage of families, yeah, they might be able to create ways to make insuring families beneficial FOR THEM. It is not cost effective for society, because the costs they aren't covering are being left to the policy holder, and someone is still paying for it, just not the insurance companies.

The ACA doesn't let them do that.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Can I just note that one possible reason that insurers aren't already doing it is because they have the ability to just drop patients if they get too expensive or otherwise not cover things? They might have ungodly deductables on various things, or even refuse to cover other stuff. So if they skimp on coverage of families, yeah, they might be able to create ways to make insuring families beneficial FOR THEM. It is not cost effective for society, because the costs they aren't covering are being left to the policy holder, and someone is still paying for it, just not the insurance companies.

The ACA doesn't let them do that.

Or to put your point much more generally: there are some public interests that are at odds with market forces. That's why nobody really favors strict laissez faire capitalism.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by Travis

If you hate women and think that not allowing them control over reproduction is a good way to control and oppress them then there really is no reason to mandate it without a copay.

And if you don't give free stuff to people it means you're oppressing them. I know I certainly am oppressed.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

It seems to me we could pay for a lot of birth control for less money than it takes to support children (adding up things like the earned income tax credit, sCHIP, and various types of child welfare).

Right, because if the co-pay isn't removed so many women will simply become pregnant!

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Just how the hell do you get from being against a law requiring insurance companies to not only offer birth control coverage but to offer it without a copay, to hating women and wanting to control their bodies?

Because if you don't give people free stuff, you hate them!

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Insurance companies don't have to pay for pre-natal care, delivery and infant care. Costs decrease.

And if birth control isn't 100% free to working women they will just get pregnant instead!

Originally Posted by jj

So, it's more expensive to pay for medical care for one person using birth control than it is for 10 children without birth control?

So your claim is that there will be a ten fold reduction in unwanted pregnancies for working women as a result that they now will not have to pay their birth control co-pay?

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

You're not looking at the entire picture.

In fact, it's far cheaper for us to pay for birth control than to pay to support unwanted children.

Right, now all the working women will decide to use birth control now that they don't have to make that co-payment.

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Some actual data from the report I mentioned earlier.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2011. Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Quoting from page 107:


Page 109 discusses contraceptive coverage in private insurance plans:

None of which says anything about it being cheaper to pay the co-payments verses unwanted children costs as a result of not paying the co-payments.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Can I just note that one possible reason that insurers aren't already doing it is because they have the ability to just drop patients if they get too expensive or otherwise not cover things? They might have ungodly deductables on various things, or even refuse to cover other stuff. So if they skimp on coverage of families, yeah, they might be able to create ways to make insuring families beneficial FOR THEM. It is not cost effective for society, because the costs they aren't covering are being left to the policy holder, and someone is still paying for it, just not the insurance companies.

The ACA doesn't let them do that.

Bollocks. Read Kestral's post.

The insurance companies are not the problem in this instance. They are offering plans that cover family planning and contraception because they know that they are cost effective. the problem is with some business owners requesting plans that do not cover such things in an attempt to impose their moral views on their employees.

Yes, insurance companies do many things that I don't like, but this is not a situation where they are causing the problem.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by cwalner

The insurance companies are not the problem in this instance. They are offering plans that cover family planning and contraception because they know that they are cost effective.

The insurance companies will happily comply and in turn jack up the premiums for everyone to cover the additional cost. They'd probably welcome even more mandated coverages. Obamacare has already increased the premiums for health care insurance as a result of the added coverages that they are forced to include. You do realize that all these great new benefits aren't free, right?

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by Neally

The insurance companies will happily comply and in turn jack up the premiums for everyone to cover the additional cost. They'd probably welcome even more mandated coverages. Obamacare has already increased the premiums for health care insurance as a result of the added coverages that they are forced to include. You do realize that all these great new benefits aren't free, right?

What new benefits? My insurance already covers everything that ACA is mandating. There will be no change for me personally except for the fact that should I lose my job for whatever reason, I will still be able to get coverage.

Which is part of my point. Insurance companies don't need to be forced to offer these services, they already are.

Oh, and also, the benefit in discussion in this thread is one that will actually result in lower total costs for the insurance company, so I don't see why this will raise costs for anybody.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by cwalner

What new benefits? My insurance already covers everything that ACA is mandating. There will be no change for me personally except for the fact that should I lose my job for whatever reason, I will still be able to get coverage.

And my and others insurance company doesn't, thus the premiums got jacked up because they were forced to add stuff I didn't want or need.

Quote:

Which is part of my point. Insurance companies don't need to be forced to offer these services, they already are.

Wrong, which is why they are included in the law. Covering birth control copay is just one example. More here.

Quote:

Oh, and also, the benefit in discussion in this thread is one that will actually result in lower total costs for the insurance company, so I don't see why this will raise costs for anybody.

No such evidence has been given for that claim plus it doesn't even make sense. Don't you think insurance companies would already do whatever they could including adding coverage if they knew it would reduce their costs?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Neally

No such evidence has been given for that claim plus it doesn't even make sense. Don't you think insurance companies would already do whatever they could including adding coverage if they knew it would reduce their costs?

A.) That a proposition is true doesn't mean everyone knows it is true. B.) I've already provided reasons why they might not. C.) Businesses do not always enact policies in their best interest. D.) The savings also takes into account lost productivity which isn't borne by the insurance company.