Monday, August 01, 2011
Our newest entitlement: Outlawing co-pays for the Pill
Yes, we may have just made a minuscule dent in our nation's long-term fiscal problem. But on the same day that our Congress finally stitched together an almost embarrassingly small reduction in federal spending after a titanic fight that threatened to bring the financial system to its knees, again, the Obama administration announces the latest entitlement: A ban on co-pays for women's "wellness" care, including for FDA-approved contraceptives. Yes, it will be against federal law for insurance companies to require so much as a nickel in co-pays for birth control pills and their ilk.
Note, however, that there is no entitlement, or even subsidy, for condoms. Apparently we still expect men who want sex without consequences -- and, to be clear, I am not judging here, rather enjoying sex without consequences myself -- to go out-of-pocket.
Free contraception for women is allegedly calculated to "reduce health care costs". The question is, how will it reduce health care costs? We know, for example, that Wall Street analysts (Lazard, for example) are saying that this is good news for contraceptive manufacturers such as Conceptus, so there will be more, rather than less, money spent directly. The argument must be that more contraception today saves money down the road. Presumably by preventing downstream healthcare expenses. Such as those associated with bearing and raising children.
Of course, if we stop reproducing entirely we can cut "health care costs" to zero.
Release the hounds.
11 Comments:
By 
Bomber Girl, at
Mon Aug 01, 03:53:00 PM:
Probably just like a title IX equalization thing going on here. At a buck a day for the pill vs. let's say 20 cents for a condom, you gents would have to, er, burn a lot of rubber in order match out of pocket expense. So to speak.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Aug 01, 03:55:00 PM:
I suggest we leave unexplored the question of how many condoms one might be expected to, er, use in a day.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Aug 01, 03:56:00 PM:
That said, BG, condoms cost a lot more than 20 cents -- more like a buck -- at least if you pay retail.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Aug 01, 04:27:00 PM:
Isn't this an incentive for insurance companies to drop such coverage entirely, since it's nothing but dead weight loss now?
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Aug 01, 04:30:00 PM:
No, DF, Obamacare will require that insurance plans cover all of these items with no co-pay or separate contribution from the woman.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Aug 01, 05:45:00 PM:
So it *is* an incentive to drop... they just aren't allowed to do so.
How come for liberals it's horrible and evil when you force people to do things for free, but virtuous when you force businesses to do things for free? Businesses are made up by, and for the benefit of, people. It's like forced servitude is only ok if you do it on a large enough scale, with a fig leaf.
By 
, at
Mon Aug 01, 07:30:00 PM:
It's always been possible to get free condoms if you want them. Almost every health-care clinic will give them to you. Also, any man or woman can walk into a planned parenthood office and walk out with a fistful. It's even easier for people who might be assumed to have a more difficult time to pay for condoms, since free health care clinics will probably have them available in a more obvious place than a typical doctor's office, and college students can expect to find them free in dorm bathrooms. If anything, we've gone too far since we started making them available to high school students.
The free stuff may not be the "fun" varieties, but they will stop unwanted pregnancies and std's as well as the fancy ones. Birth control pills will only stop the unwanted babies.
I'm not disagreeing with your whole post by the way - just the assertion that the government won't subsidize birth control for men.
By Stephen, at
Mon Aug 01, 07:49:00 PM:
How is it that the executive branch can pass laws on its own? Or does Obamacare mean they can make edicts about anything related to healthcare? Another reason to get rid of Obamacare.
By , at
Tue Aug 02, 08:06:00 AM:
I'm kind of wondering if there isn't a way to get in on the federal gravy train here. For instance, I'm an investor in two hotels, and think our business would benefit if short term hotel stays could also be covered by the regulation. Maybe a package coverage of some sort...free contraceptives and a certain number of covered one night hotel stays...I know we would be glad to through in a split of some decent California chardonnay. Just spitballing, but this could really be a big effing deal, to quote the Veep.
By , at
Tue Aug 02, 08:08:00 AM:
That was "throw in" not "through in", though my iPad obviously disagrees.
By , at
Wed Aug 03, 11:27:00 AM:
Hey, you can get into very serious trouble by being critical of an Imperial Decree!
