The Obama administration has ordered insurers to cover prescription contraceptives and other "women's wellness" services and products -- including breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual “well-woman” physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy and counseling on domestic violence -- without co-pays:
Let's put this in its proper context. Thanks to this new mandate, insurers will eat hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of dollars in additional costs each year. Guess how they will recoup those costs? Premiums will rise across the board, meaning that everyone will pay the additional cost as well as the specific patients getting the services and products.
[. . .]
This edict got handed down from the mountain purely for political purposes. The Obama administration wants to bolster its standing with women ahead of the next election; this mandate will probably get featured in an endless series of campaign ads.
This could be railed against on so many levels. But, just one thing here: Would I be a wimpy, whiny Nancy boy for decrying the obvious unfairness of this sexist approach? Don't men deserve their "wellness issues" taken just as seriously as women's?
Comments
I take it you want a, um, pump.
Good news Obama voters! More free sh*t coming your way!!
You seem to have trouble grasping the whole equivalence thing, littlejohn. My "men's health" benefits without co-pays would include things like prostate cancer screening and Viagra. We're probably all going to need pumps, though, to get rid of all this stuff Washington is shoveling onto us.
Cute cover, ... but true.
Insurance company
As expensive as birth control pills are - and they aren't cheap - it's a whole lot cheaper to pay for reliable birth control than to try to get by with rubbers that split, Coca-cola douches, and coitus interruptus.
In the UK, where abortion is free and readily available, they have a much lower abortion rate, probably because birth control is free as well.
And given that breast-feeding is healthier for kids than formula, paying for breast pumps might also be cheaper than NOT paying for them.
If health insurance companies covered the same people for many years instead of workers having the carrier switched every 2-3 years, they'd probably have covered these costs years ago.
It's sorta like that old Fram oil filter ad. The mechanic warns us that we can pay him now - or pay him later. Preventative measures don't save money only in the automotive arena.
I believe all the European countries have negative population growth rates, around 1.8 babies per couple.
There is a lot of truth to what you say. The problem is who should pay the cost? Should those who are unable to have kids pay the same rates as those who are able to? Should those over 50 pay a surcharge for this added benefit? The problem with Government, they treat all the same, when some are responsible, others are not. In simple terms, Government reduces all to the lowest common denominator.
I don't think it's a "problem" that government treats all the same.
Libraries in Ohio have their own tax levies. It'd be easy enough to charge library users according to the number and cost of books they borrow, and how long they keep the books out. All that information is captured by the computer anyway. We could run libraries like a video rental store.
On the other hand, I'd rather have the kids in my neighborhood reading books than tagging stop signs and playing mailbox baseball. I'd rather have the lady across the street reading romance novels rather than fighting with her husband until the cops come. I'd rather have neighbors reading, so that they develop their brains and vote intelligently. I'd rather have the guy down the road waiting in the library rather than soaking up gin in some bar, and crashing into my car on the way home.
It benefits me when others use the library. Government doesn't always reduce people to the lowest common denominator. The fire department tries of elevate people who would otherwise be dead or homeless to alive and living well.
Public schools elevate people to a common denominator of literacy.
Assigning blame is difficult and expensive. Medicare claims are MUCH cheaper to process, because unlike commercial health insurance, there's no effort wasted on trying to avoid responsibility by foisting it on another through coordination of benefits, or claiming pre-existing condition. Life insurance claims get very inexpensive to process if the policy is two years old, because the claim is incontestable. Auto insurance is cheaper in no-fault states because the cost of assigning blame is avoided.
Behavior that hurts others is defined as a tort, and in many cases is a crime as well. Instead of trying to assess how much blame someone deserves, it's a lot saner to criminalize objectionable behaviors. At present, vehicular homicide is a crime. What we *should* be doing is to prosecute reckless operation, which the driver can control. Giving someone a pass because he had the good luck not to cause an accident, or the emergency room had a whiz bang on duty who saved a life, just doesn't make sense.
Harlo, I agree with much of what you said. However, at some point all these government services become burdensome. Libraries in most parts of the country are very poor compared to Allen County. Having lived in many parts of the country, the Allen County library is one of the top five in the country; better than San Diego, St. Louis, San Fransisco, Seattle). However, its quality would not have been reduced had the parking garage not been built. Allen County in my opinion wasted a ton of money on a parking garage.
"Public schools elevate people to a common denominator of literacy. " This is very debateble. I would have agreed with you 40 years ago, but today with all the government regulation, unions, non public schools or vouchers may be the way to bring back what was lost.
An insurance company that stipulates an increase in cost based on bad lifestyle or choices clearly is a good idea.
No fault insurance also has a negative in that the injuries are not compensated for by any responsible party. It lowers the cost of insurance because benefits are less. Medicaid pays less, but creates the cost shifting affect we all know and pay. Medicare does the exact same thing. It is projected that without Medicare or Medicaid, individual healthcare costs would drop by over 40%.
When government gets involved it creates unintended consequences.