New ObamaCare mandate: no co-pays on contraceptives

posted at 12:45 pm on August 2, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The ObamaCare bill has resulted in an explosion of ambiguity and arbitrary rulings, mainly focused at first on temporary waivers for some insurers and employers on requirements for meeting the threshold of payouts to premiums.  The Department of Health and Human Services stopped issuing waivers under pressure from Congress to explain their methodology, but a new ruling by Kathleen Sebelius will likely prompt even more protests.  The Obama administration ordered insurers to cover prescription contraceptives and a range of other “women’s wellness” services and products without co-pays:

Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.

The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women’s preventive care under President Barack Obama’s health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual “well-woman” physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

“These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The new requirements will take effect Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases. Tens of millions of women are expected to gain coverage initially, and that number is likely to grow with time. At first, some plans may be exempt due to a complex provision of the health care law known as the “grandfather” clause. But those even plans could face pressure from their members to include the new benefit.

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.

Does this solve some sort of pressing gap in society?  Not really.  As the Huffington Post report notes, contraceptive use is already nearly universal.  The report quotes a government study that shows 90 million prescriptions for contraceptives are dispensed annually.  Clearly, there is no big gap in access due to having co-pays for the Pill.  If poor women had problems paying the additional cost, then HHS could have ordered Medicaid to end co-pays, a power that was already within their jurisdiction before ObamaCare’s passage.

So where does this end?  Do we next mandate an end to co-pays on Lipitor because cholesterol is a problem in American health?  I can tell you that the co-pays on that medication are higher than on most and probably represent more of a barrier to access than co-pays on the Pill, let alone access to breast pumps and counseling on domestic violence.

This is a preview of life under ObamaCare.  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.  “President Obama protects women!” the copy will read.  In the meantime, rational provider-patient cost sharing on non-critical products and services will be discarded, forcing the rest of us to eat the cost in higher premiums.  It’s the ultimate in arbitrary exercises in authority.

And people wonder why employers, who have to price the costs of adding positions, aren’t hiring any more.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It doesn’t cost a penny not to fornicate.

Akzed on August 2, 2011 at 1:43 PM

The trouble is the failure rate. Young women cope with unwanted pregnancies through abortion or entering the workforce undereducated. Both are problems.

dedalus on August 2, 2011 at 1:56 PM

So where does this end? Do we next mandate an end to co-pays on Lipitor because cholesterol is a problem in American health?

No, silly.

Michelle Obama is working on closing down those evil fast food restaurants, so Lipitor and high cholesterol will be eradicated.

“Barack knows …”

VibrioCocci on August 2, 2011 at 2:01 PM

blink on August 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM

So it’s class warfare, eh? If Uncle is passing out free pills and rubbers I say give them to rich and poor alike.

MJBrutus on August 2, 2011 at 2:01 PM

The problem is that having sex is free. The consequences and mitigation of some of those consequences are not free. If we subsidize the costs of mitigating pregnancy we will have fewer unwanted pregnancies.

MJBrutus on August 2, 2011 at 1:11 PM

I shall disagree MJ.

As rockmom posted – the real world exists when a women properly uses birth control, whereas no one is there to make sure they take one, nor should there be. Its an individual choice – between a women and a Dr. Once a woman walks out the door and fills the prescription – we end up paying for the consequences – because Sally didnt realize missing 2 days out of the month render the pill useless.

So you will not only subsidize birth control, you are subsidizing stupidity.

In the end – if Sally gets pregnant or has an abortion – we will most likely pay for some of that + the intended birth control method that failed.

Odie1941 on August 2, 2011 at 2:02 PM

My first thought it, its a trap. One more step down the road to government funded abortion. Following the timeline of the court cases, first its free contraception as a right then free abortions.

infidel2 on August 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM

I got a letter from my insurance company yesterday.

Said that thanks to O-Care, my current plan is no longer available since it doesn’t meet the requirements. So here is another plan that’s just as good…for only 15% more than what your old plan cost.

I’m livid.

angryed on August 2, 2011 at 2:09 PM

because abortions are a response to an unwanted pregnancies

If you object to the correlation between higher use of contraceptives and high rate of abortion (and I sympathize with your reasons), I hope you don’t mind showing me the statistical analysis that proves the above assertion?

Alternatively, I wouldn’t mind at all doing a regression analysis if you can provide the data on annual (or monthly) contraceptive use and abortion rates.

Scott H on August 2, 2011 at 2:11 PM

When’s the next “slut walk”?

…Too soon?

Fallon on August 2, 2011 at 2:11 PM

“I will take money from other people and give you freebies to buy your vote!”

Hooray says Paula as Peter is robbed to pay him

clnurnberg on August 2, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I suppose Viagra and Cialis are next on the no co-pay list. Old men need boners. It’s a health issue.

1IDVET on August 2, 2011 at 2:15 PM

“I will take money from other people and give you freebies to buy your vote!”

Hooray says Paula as Peter is robbed to pay him

clnurnberg on August 2, 2011 at 2:14 PM

If it means fewer babies for Obama voters, then it will likely eventually help the economy.

dedalus on August 2, 2011 at 2:17 PM

I would be worthwhile to spend a little money teaching those social parasites how to act responsibly and how not to breed like rats, but this is pure “BS”.

rplat on August 2, 2011 at 2:20 PM

It’s been bad enough with all the state mandates on insurance, making premiums much more expensive than they need to be, now we have the Feds doing the same thing.

Breat pumps aren’t prescription devices, since when does insurance cover them at all? I’ve always understood breasts to work just fine as nature intended, anything else is optional. At least that’s how things were the last time I had a baby.

Birth control pills are very cheap anyway, even with co-pays. They’re also available for free from Planned Parenthood, why do I, as someone who doesn’t need them, need to pay for the increated premiums?

Common Sense on August 2, 2011 at 2:20 PM

My liberal friends (who are women) go about how BC should be forced to be covered without co-pays because women take it for reasons besides BC. Of course, when I ask if it would be alright to make it so that BC could only be FORCED to be covered without co-pay if a doctor writes a recommendation, tey say “No, it should be for all woman”. Thus showing why they truely want “free” BC for.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 2, 2011 at 2:26 PM

I don’t have a problem with private companies choosing to cover birth control with no co-pay. I have a big problem with the government coming in and telling insurance companies that all their plans HAVE to cover something. There are all kinds of reasons to try and get your fees and rates knocked down by excluding something your employees are unlikely to use.

Most health plans that exclude something or another are usually subscribed to because of the conscience of the buyer or because the staff of a particular business is unlikely to use the excluded service in question. It’s not a bad thing to try and get insurance cheaper by excluding services you aren’t going to use—be it contraception, obstetrical services, alcohol treatment, the use of blood products, and so on.

Sekhmet on August 2, 2011 at 2:31 PM

I ride. Like having sex it presents risks. I think my car insurance company should be forced to pay for all of my protective gear.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 2, 2011 at 2:31 PM

OK, people.

What do you think “free domestic violence screening” entails? Why do we think all women need this covered, with no copay?
Which doctor do you go to for this?

It’s got to be there just to make some group happy. Who is going to get more funding out that provision?

MayBee on August 2, 2011 at 2:31 PM

OK, people.

What do you think “free domestic violence screening” entails? Why do we think all women need this covered, with no copay?
Which doctor do you go to for this?

It’s got to be there just to make some group happy. Who is going to get more funding out that provision?

MayBee on August 2, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Planned Parenthood.

And I will bet $20000 Alex – this was a last minute, back room deal to overcome the fed fund decrease – and exposure of illegally used funds for abortion.

Odie1941 on August 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM

fewer unwanted pregnancies == fewer abortions

MJBrutus on August 2, 2011 at 12:52 PM

….About that, umm let’s see. Birth control pills can cost 9 bucks a month, co-pays for routine visits are typically about 25-40 bucks, and you only need one a year unless you work at the Bunny Ranch. If you are on Medicaid, you get birth control pills for free. Condoms, which are practically everywhere, are about 5 bucks for a three-pack of the good ones—and they are a MUCH better idea than the Pill, especially if you are not monogamous.

And yet, still we have unwanted pregnancies. How is that?

Sekhmet on August 2, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Yet another case of Government interfering with private businesses running themselves.

But, a big thing that gets missed is that these mandates yet again violate the Commerce clause. Insurers are not allowed, but federal law, to ofter insurance across state lines. So, there can be no interstate commerce. So, Los Federales have no constitutional right to interfere and mandate what an insurer is required to cover. But, hey, that Constitution thingy is so outdated, ya know.

Furthermore, this is also a way to attempt to drive more insurers out of business, or at least to limit who they choose to cover, which would allow Dems to say “see! They’re mean and evil, so, Government will just have to cover more people!”

William Teach on August 2, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Something else I’ve noticed. The “loser” the woman, the more happy she is about this. At least that’s what I’ve noticed about the women I talked to about this with.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 2, 2011 at 2:42 PM

That shoudl read “looser”.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 2, 2011 at 2:42 PM

I agree, Odie. Planned Parenthood is a good guess.

It just seems such an odd inclusion. Any doctor giving a wellness check would look for signs of domestic violence anyway. As would an OB/GYN.
It has to be a way to please some group that needs to see women as victims.

MayBee on August 2, 2011 at 2:44 PM

If it means fewer babies for Obama voters…

dedalus on August 2, 2011 at 2:17 PM

That’s the original justification for progressive-democratics support for abortion. It was all about eugenics. I guess birth control goes along with it.

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I’ve spent quite some time searching and have asked for help in the search. I cannot find any data indicating how many unintended pregnancies occur in the US because the woman could not afford birth control. What I’ve been able to find indicates that it is insignificant. If anyone has relevant data, please share it.

Barring that, I’m convinced that this does essentially nothing to increase access to birth control, and therefore will have essentially zero impact on unintended pregnancy rates.

All this does is shift a huge portion of the costs of birth control to people who do not use it.

remywokeup on August 2, 2011 at 2:45 PM

It truly distresses me more than the birth control, because it is such a blatant indicator of what this process is going to be about. Pleasing donors and favored groups.

MayBee on August 2, 2011 at 2:46 PM

It’s got to be there just to make some group happy. Who is going to get more funding out that provision?

MayBee on August 2, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Planned Parenthood.

And I will bet $20000 Alex – this was a last minute, back room deal to overcome the fed fund decrease – and exposure of illegally used funds for abortion.

Odie1941 on August 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Ding ding ding ding ding!

More funding AND more customers for expanded services…which will need more funding in the future…on and on.

This is a huge boost to Planned Parenthood and a sop to the left heading into an election year.

Just one more neat lever of power that government intervention in health care provides – freebies for your voters, and freebies for your special interest groups, all courtesy of the taxpayer and/or the private sector.

Obamacare is going to destroy this country if something else doesn’t get there first.

Missy on August 2, 2011 at 2:47 PM

It truly distresses me more than the birth control, because it is such a blatant indicator of what this process is going to be about. Pleasing donors and favored groups.

MayBee on August 2, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Exactly, MayBee.

Missy on August 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM

The culture of death rolls on and we are all forced to pay for it. Molloch laughs.

Mason on August 2, 2011 at 3:00 PM

The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women’s preventive care under President Barack…

Wasn’t this the reason that it was oh-so-criminal to cut funding for Planned Parenthood and their “family planning” services? Ain’t women’s health and contraception one of the many tasks they pretend to do and why they can be cut funding?

Lord…

ptcamn on August 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Actually the explosion of people who don’t use readily available contraceptive products gave us more abortions and bastardy.

Akzed on August 2, 2011 at 1:32 PM

FTFY.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on August 2, 2011 at 1:49 PM

This is not an uncommon problem. A lady friend who grew up with a horribly toxic family wanted to get her tubes tied when she turned of age to break the cycle. She had to threaten the Dr with a lawsuit before the breederbrain would even consider her for the operation.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 2, 2011 at 3:09 PM

My first thought it, its a trap. One more step down the road to government funded abortion. Following the timeline of the court cases, first its free contraception as a right then free abortions.

infidel2 on August 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Morally speaking, that might be true, but financially and in terms of government power, “free” contraceptives is the trap.

The requirements of Obamacare are a deliberate attempt to put health insurance beyond the reach of the working, middle, and even upper-middle class. This will cause the health insurance industry to collapse – few of their customers will be able to afford these massive, bloated plans – and usher in another “reform,” this time to single payer government health care.

Obama admitted this in exact words five years ago to supporters.

HitNRun on August 2, 2011 at 3:16 PM

My middle daughter has two sons; she has a condition that makes it difficult to carry a child to term (her eldest was born at 1 pound, 9 ounces). Before her second child was born (full term, thank heavens), she literally had to threaten the doctor with bodily harm for her to get a tubal (as she was having a caesarian).

He kept asking her over and over, “What if you want a little girl?” She finally got fed up and said, “Look, if I want a !@#%# girl, I’ll adopt one from India. I want a tubal ligation when the baby comes.”

Sarah2053 on August 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM

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.

Yeah, it’s not like preventative care will prevent.. you know, further disease, saving greater costs in the long run.

Which is easier to pay for, a box of condoms or aids medicine?

Do the math.

triple on August 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM

This is just another tax on one group to fund another’s entitlement freebies… My wife and I are late 50 something. Why should we have to pay for our neighbor’s contraceptives?

The object is to create another entitled group to support Obamacare.

As far as Obamacare goes, I thought one of the reasons we had to wait 4 years for it to get implemented was so they could start collecting money to help pay for that disease. With trillion dollar deficits, one must gather that’s not going so well. Any Obamacare money collected is just being spent buying votes on other spending programs…

drfredc on August 2, 2011 at 3:25 PM

I just wonder who they hink they’re helping. Women with insurance either have money or jobs. They’re not the highes-risk category. The leftists are, once again, not bothering to check if the solution they propose is remotely connected to the problem they’re addressing.

I’ll ever forget what happened when I was a graduate student. The students pressured the university to add birth control pill coverage to their coverage and were shocked to find out this would mean premiums going up by … exactly the cost of the pills.

This perfectly illustrates the problem with health insurance in this country. People think insurance is there to give them free stuff. Insurance exists to make costs more manageable and regular and to *insure* against unexpected massive costs.

Hal_10000 on August 2, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Wow, this means that those leftist clerics at Notre Dame will probably honor the poster child for abortion one more time.

Don L on August 2, 2011 at 3:36 PM

On the other hand, if some tramp in Hawaii had free BC pills fifty years ago…

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Shut the thread down. We have a winner!!!

GrannyDee on August 2, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Which is easier to pay for, a box of condoms or aids medicine?

Do the math.

triple on August 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM

We shouldn’t be paying for any of it.

Do the math.

darwin on August 2, 2011 at 3:40 PM

The requirements of Obamacare are a deliberate attempt to put health insurance beyond the reach of the working, middle, and even upper-middle class. This will cause the health insurance industry to collapse – few of their customers will be able to afford these massive, bloated plans – and usher in another “reform,” this time to single payer government health care.

Obama admitted this in exact words five years ago to supporters.

HitNRun on August 2, 2011 at 3:16 PM

It’s amazing the number of people who refuse to see this.

darwin on August 2, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Welcome to the future of legislation in this country.

Imagine if someone had proposed a bill in this congress to provide contraceptives for everyone paid for by a tax increase;

how many votes do you think that bill would get? Would it even get out of the committee?

Not a chance.

Now, look at this situation. We MANDATE contraception coverage and it’s paid for by a (necessary) increase in the insurance premium that EVERYONE is obligated to pay, or, if they can’t pay for it, the premium is paid by the government (ie us.)

Same end result, different method.

Insurance premiums become the new taxes when we are not able to opt out of the mandated plans.

And those mandates are not set by your elected representatives, but rather by the unelected bureaucracy.

PackerBronco on August 2, 2011 at 3:44 PM

My middle daughter has two sons; she has a condition that makes it difficult to carry a child to term (her eldest was born at 1 pound, 9 ounces). Before her second child was born (full term, thank heavens), she literally had to threaten the doctor with bodily harm for her to get a tubal (as she was having a caesarian).

He kept asking her over and over, “What if you want a little girl?” She finally got fed up and said, “Look, if I want a !@#%# girl, I’ll adopt one from India. I want a tubal ligation when the baby comes.”

Sarah2053 on August 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM

I had my son when I was going on 24 and got my tubal 3 1/2 years later. When I got remarried in 2002 (Bride 32. Groom 43) some immediately started in about how I should get it reversed because I ‘owed’ him a child. WRONG!
I have the natural maternal instinct of a gnat. I made the right choice.
Btw: Brother and s-i-l are considering adoption.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM

I got a letter from my insurance company yesterday.

Said that thanks to O-Care, my current plan is no longer available since it doesn’t meet the requirements. So here is another plan that’s just as good…for only 15% more than what your old plan cost.

I’m livid.

angryed on August 2, 2011 at 2:09 PM

I got that same letter. Isn’t ZeroCare grand?! It bends the cost… err… downward or something.

stvnscott on August 2, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Nothing is free!!! You will pay for it upfront or on and get it in the back end.

Tasha on August 2, 2011 at 12:48 PM

FIFY

pain train on August 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM

The trouble is the failure rate. Young women cope with unwanted pregnancies through abortion or entering the workforce undereducated. Both are problems.

dedalus on August 2, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Sure, but women who use contraceptives are a large percentage of those who have an abortion. The pill won’t keep you from getting pregnant if you aren’t consistent in taking it.

In fact, unwanted pregnancies have only increased (by percentage if I’m recalling this correctly) as we’ve have greater access to contraceptives. My theory is that it’s given people, especially teens, a false sense of security that should only come with near paranoid use.

I agree with you about those two problems. I might disagree that this in any way presents a solution.

Esthier on August 2, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Yeah, it’s not like preventative care will prevent.. you know, further disease, saving greater costs in the long run.

triple on August 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Should health insurers be mandated to cover bike helmets?

Should private citizens be mandated to purchase such insurance when they don’t even own a bike?

PackerBronco on August 2, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Forest, Stupid is as Stupid does.

Herb on August 2, 2011 at 4:48 PM

I got a letter from my insurance company yesterday.

Said that thanks to O-Care, my current plan is no longer available…

I’m livid.

angryed on August 2, 2011 at 2:09 PM

I guess I’m lucky; my insurance company said I could keep my current plan (which I like) but, thanks to O-Care, if I change anything all bets are off and the plan is null & void and I have to start over from scratch.

That’s the “up yours” version of what Barry was talking about when he said “If you like your plan you can keep you plan!”

pain train on August 2, 2011 at 4:49 PM

HitNRun on August 2, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Exactly. Once its free, its expected that it will continue to be free, an entitlement so to speak. Then, with government growth, similar services will also be seen as entitlements.

infidel2 on August 2, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Don’t men buy contraception? Are there no elements to male wellness?? Fellas, you’re getting hosed yet again.

SukieTawdry on August 2, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Should health insurers be mandated to cover bike helmets?

Should private citizens be mandated to purchase such insurance when they don’t even own a bike?

That’s not really the point I was making.

I’m actually against public healthcare.

But we ARE paying for it, and spending more on prevention will save us more in the long run.

Prevention isn’t an expense. It’s an investment. There’s a difference.

triple on August 2, 2011 at 4:56 PM

That’s the original justification for progressive-democratics support for abortion. It was all about eugenics. I guess birth control goes along with it.

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Parenting is a challenging endeavor even for those who are ready in terms of resources and emotions. Those who aren’t in solid marriage or even grown-up themselves aren’t likely to do a great job raising the next generation.

dedalus on August 2, 2011 at 5:02 PM

But we ARE paying for it, and spending more on prevention will save us more in the long run.

Prevention isn’t an expense. It’s an investment. There’s a difference.

triple on August 2, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Tell again why we have to pay for it? Why do men for instance, have to pay for the following:

Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual “well-woman” physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

Breast pumps? domestic violence counseling? Diabetes testing during pregnancy? PAP smears? Other services? What the hell is that?
If a woman wants a “wellness” check then make an appointment and get one.

This is nothing more than funneling billions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, which is apparently, the driving force in a democrat decisions.

darwin on August 2, 2011 at 5:06 PM

This is nothing more than funneling billions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, which is apparently, the driving force in a democrat decisions.

darwin on August 2, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Precisely. Eugenics in action, once again.

tcn on August 2, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Parenting is a challenging endeavor even for those who are ready in terms of resources and emotions. Those who aren’t in solid marriage or even grown-up themselves aren’t likely to do a great job raising the next generation.

dedalus on August 2, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Neither are they likely to get and properly use contraception. How hard is it to buy a condom? Apparently too hard for that segment of the population.

tcn on August 2, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Yeah, it’s not like preventative care will prevent.. you know, further disease, saving greater costs in the long run.

triple on August 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Actually, there’s a long-standing debate in the medical community as to whether preventative measures actually save money in the long-run. From the New England Journal of Medicine:

Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs. For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures.
snip
The focus on prevention as a key source of cost savings in health care also sidesteps the question of whether such measures are generally more promising and efficient than the treatment of existing conditions. Researchers have found that although high-technology treatments for existing conditions can be expensive, such measures may, in certain circumstances, also represent an efficient use of resources. It is important to analyze the costs and benefits of specific interventions.
snip
Some preventive measures save money, while others do not, although they may still be worthwhile because they confer substantial health benefits relative to their cost. In contrast, some preventive measures are expensive given the health benefits they confer. In general, whether a particular preventive measure represents good value or poor value depends on factors such as the population targeted, with measures targeting higher-risk populations typically being the most efficient. In the case of screening, efficiency also depends on frequency (more frequent screening confers greater benefits but is less efficient). Third, as is the case for preventive measures, treatments
can be relatively efficient or inefficient.

Trouble is, once “preventative care” become the watchwords, it becomes impossible to discriminate among the many types available because there will always be people lining up to sue for the procedures eliminated (this was the single greatest contributor to the failure of TennCare). Of course, preventing a pregnancy always saves money. Lots of money.

SukieTawdry on August 2, 2011 at 5:24 PM

So, was this in the Obamacare bill, or does Obamacare simply give Obama and Kathleen the ability to issue any mandate they want in the name of Obamacare?

xblade on August 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM

So, was this in the Obamacare bill, or does Obamacare simply give Obama and Kathleen the ability to issue any mandate they want in the name of Obamacare?

xblade on August 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM

The ObamaCare bill is mostly “The Secretary of HHS shall …” They insert as they go.

darwin on August 2, 2011 at 5:36 PM

“These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

What was the science that said these services had to be free?

SouthernRoots on August 2, 2011 at 6:04 PM

But we ARE paying for it, and spending more on prevention will save us more in the long run.

Prevention isn’t an expense. It’s an investment. There’s a difference.

triple on August 2, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Do you have anything to back this up, because everything I’ve read says the exact opposite. Which makes sense if you consider that sometimes preventative care means you won’t die, not just that you won’t get a disease. Getting a disease and living is what’s expensive for the person paying your medical bills.

Esthier on August 2, 2011 at 6:27 PM

I’m pretty sure everyone knows that abortions increased after the introduction of the pill.

Goldenavatar on August 2, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Meaning when the chick really wants to lay eggs she can’t ’cause the body w/all the hormones can make it harder for the BABY to nestle in.

ProudPalinFan on August 2, 2011 at 6:31 PM

This is screwing men to buy the women’s vote.

I’m sorry if that offends, but there is no nice way to put it.

WannabeAnglican on August 2, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Sex change operation for some person who wants it? Sure why not, it would be insensitive to exclude them.

Bishop on August 2, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Yeah prisoners demand some!

Stevens is one of more than 300 inmates in the state prison system diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, a psychiatric condition addressed in free society with hormone replacement therapy and, in some cases, sex reassignment surgery.

ProudPalinFan on August 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM

So will there also be a “free” pill for women who forget to take their birth control pills?

GarandFan on August 2, 2011 at 7:21 PM

If the past social meddling is any indication, this will just lead to higher unwanted pregnancies. It all follows Thomas Sowell’s paradigm in government intervention.

Rambotito on August 2, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Sarah2053 on August 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM

I’m sorry you had to go through all that grief for an unoffensive operation. There really needs to be some legal precedent that when women request such procedures, they should not have to endure a bunch of bullcr@p from their doctor to get them. Unlike abortions there is NO grounds for conscientious objection.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 2, 2011 at 7:44 PM

It seems a day doesn’t go by that this administration does not find a way to hurt job prospects. Truly. Pathetic.

CW on August 2, 2011 at 7:47 PM

So will there also be a “free” pill for women who forget to take their birth control pills?

GarandFan on August 2, 2011 at 7:21 PM

I believe there already is one – called Plan B or more commonly referred to as the “morning after”. Is it free? I have no idea. I’m sure access to it is buried down in page 1495 in fine print on the HC Bill.

sherry on August 2, 2011 at 7:48 PM

I believe there already is one – called Plan B or more commonly referred to as the “morning after”. Is it free? I have no idea. I’m sure access to it is buried down in page 1495 in fine print on the HC Bill.

sherry on August 2, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Oh you can bet it is paid for.

CW on August 2, 2011 at 7:53 PM

The problem is that having sex is free. The consequences and mitigation of some of those consequences are not free. If we subsidize the costs of mitigating pregnancy we will have fewer unwanted pregnancies.
MJBrutus on August 2, 2011 at 1:11 PM

how miopic

one of the least expensive ways one can take responsibilty of a serious issue but the state should handle it

the left doesn’t want independent citizens

they want cows in the fields and pigs in the stys

Sonosam on August 2, 2011 at 8:55 PM

The requirement applies to all forms of birth control approved by the Food and Drug Administration. That includes the pill, intrauterine devices, the so-called morning-after pill, and newer forms of long-acting implantable hormonal contraceptives that are becoming widely used in the rest of the industrialized world.

Coverage with no copays for the morning-after pill is likely to become the most controversial part of the change. The FDA classifies Plan B and Ella as birth control, but some religious conservatives see the morning-after drugs as abortion drugs. The rules HHS issued Monday do not require coverage of RU-486 and other drugs to chemically induce an abortion.

From yesterday’s Yahoo news. If you read the first paragraph it sounds like the morning after pill will be covered under the “no co-pay” rule. The second paragraph makes it sound like it will not. Murkiness- thy name is the Obama administration. One journalist will pick up the yes, the other the no and we will only find out for sure when there is a lawsuit.

(and I am against this no copay rule- just to be clear)

journeyintothewhirlwind on August 2, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Here’s my bet, 10 years from the day this takes effect, the rate of illegitimate births, in the black community, will be the same or higher. Any takers?

Vote Republican and only be called a racist one more time.

bflat879 on August 2, 2011 at 9:46 PM

darwin on August 2, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Contraception prevents unplanned pregnancy. It is reasonable to assume that if you provide more incentive to use contraception, the total “demand” for abortion will drop.

ernesto on August 2, 2011 at 12:54 PM

One would think that unwanted pregnancy and disease would be incentive enough to cough up $20 a month for birth control. What does a condom cost now? A couple of bucks? So for the price of a beer or two people can’t “afford” various forms of birth control?

So instead of people being responsible for their actions, the state has to get involved to “encourage” people to use birth control?

Do you realize how truly idiotic this concept is?

I find myself thinking this phrase more and more lately: “When I think I’ve finally found rock bottom, I find it’s someone’s ceiling”.

So now everyone has to pay towards those who don’t have the sense or ability or self-awareness to make birth control/safe sex somewhat of a priority.

Very sad.

kim roy on August 2, 2011 at 10:21 PM

my sister-in-law is having a different sort of problem. She and my brother have decided not to have any biological children. she wants to get a tubal-but because she’s 31 and never been pregnant…no doctor will agree to it. They’re ‘certain’ that deep in her heart she really wants children. She and my brother both have some medical issues that they don’t want to pass on to another generation-yet she’s been told that since she’s of child-bearing age she can’t get ‘fixed’ unless she has a child first.
WTF?!!!

annoyinglittletwerp on August 2, 2011 at 1:49 PM

That’s odd. I’ve heard that for hysterectomies, but not for a simple ligation. Maybe she needs to travel to another state or come up to Canada. I know they won’t remove healthy organs/tissue, but just a snip? She might even have a strange doctor(s) with their own issue(s).

kim roy on August 2, 2011 at 10:30 PM

I know they won’t remove healthy organs/tissue, but just a snip? She might even have a strange doctor(s) with their own issue(s).

kim roy on August 2, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Long story short, she’s encountering a side effect of a society that’s obsessed with reproduction. Announce that you’ve made a permanent choice to not participate, and everyone from relatives to doctors to total !@#$%ing strangers is suddenly against you.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 2, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Now we know why Anthony Weiner was so passionate about Obamacare…

TN Mom on August 2, 2011 at 11:41 PM

One would think that unwanted pregnancy and disease would be incentive enough to cough up $20 a month for birth control. What does a condom cost now? A couple of bucks? So for the price of a beer or two people can’t “afford” various forms of birth control?

kim roy on August 2, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Exactly. Whatever reason people have for not using various methods of birth control it is not economic. If they’re not paying for it now, very few will choose to use it when it’s “free”.

So the only people who will “benefit” from this mandatory coverage are almost exclusively the people who are already willing and able to pay for it on their own.

Of course, if you can get your fellow citizens to pay for a product or service, so much the better for you!

And in a very short time you start to feel you are entitled to it.

PackerBronco on August 2, 2011 at 11:56 PM

So the only people who will “benefit” from this mandatory coverage are almost exclusively the people who are already willing and able to pay for it on their own.

Nope

it’s the pieces of sheet pharmy comp in with the politicians who will make a percentage on whatever it takes to make and get that pill stuffed in the slaves mouths

Sonosam on August 3, 2011 at 12:24 AM

And yet, still we have unwanted pregnancies. How is that?

Because people don’t take them.

But don’t worry…this mandatory coverage edict will be followed up by one requiring all women take birth control, regardless of their desire or beliefs about the issue. And, thanks to technology, we can imbed little dissolvable microchips in pills to make sure women are complying.

They’ve already hinted that pregnancy is a “disease” that needs to be prevented:

“These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The next step will be realizing it’s a lot cheaper to force women to take the pill than it is to pay for 9 months of maternity care and another human being.

englishqueen01 on August 3, 2011 at 7:09 AM

Oh, and link to the microchips-in-pills thing.

Relevant graph:

That way, a doctor, nurse or even a relative will be able to confirm the patient took the medicine and see vital signs, such as respiration, heart rate and body temperature, even on a mobile phone.

englishqueen01 on August 3, 2011 at 7:10 AM

If they actually cared about preventing unwanted pregnancies, the copay reduction would be on IUDs and Depo shots. This is nothing more than a payoff to a manufacturer, or a way to soak and break the insurers.

jollycynic on August 3, 2011 at 7:32 AM

Morality, propriety, and abortion-fetish aside, you would think our current upside-down demographics and rocketship-trajectory debt charts would have persuaded liberals to stop thinking of pregnancy, any pregnancy, as “unwanted” or an “expense.”

HitNRun on August 3, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Why do these communists believe they have a right to other people’s money . . . and let’s stop beating around the bush, they are communists, or at best hard core socialists. \”Redistribution\” of wealth, leveling the playing field, \”fair share\” social justice = communism, purely and simply. You can wrap rotten fish in rose petals but it’s stench will always give it away.

rplat on August 3, 2011 at 9:08 AM

It’s apparently not enough that you have to pay someone else’s mortgage, and not enough that you have to subsidize someone else’s car, and not enough that you have to subsidize health care for illegals….now you have to be forced to pay to make sure they are sexually active!!!

Brave New World indeed: $8 light bulbs and $4 gas…but FREE TROJANS!!!

landlines on August 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Neither are they likely to get and properly use contraception. How hard is it to buy a condom? Apparently too hard for that segment of the population.

tcn on August 2, 2011 at 5:16 PM

If that’s the case then the $10K+/year we spend on their public school education is more of a problem.

Put the women on NuvaRing. It doesn’t require daily responsibility and if it prevents even a few abortions it’s worth it.

dedalus on August 3, 2011 at 1:18 PM

But who are “the women” that you want to put on NuvaRing? The ones that want no-copay birth control? Are you suggesting that free birth control be limited to NuvaRing?

blink on August 3, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Make it available “the women” who are statistically likely to have sex yet don’t have the means or desire to start a family. Whether it is NuvaRing or another contraceptive depends whether the studies support their cost-effectiveness.

dedalus on August 3, 2011 at 1:47 PM

How much longer before the gov requires women to have an abortion?

mamagetsamini on August 5, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2