Insurers oddly unenthusiastic about “cost-free” contraception

posted at 4:30 pm on February 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius insist that their new mandate for employers and their insurers to cover the cost of contraception and abortifacients won’t cost anyone anything. An HHS study claims that the costs of contraception get outstripped by the savings of preventing pregnancy and childbirth, and so insurers should be delighted to offer those products and services for free.  Oddly, however, insurers are not terribly enthusiastic about the notion, The Hill reports today, perhaps because they actually have to balance their own budgets at the end of each year … unlike Obama and Sebelius:

 But in private, the industry is dubious of the administration’s argument that the insurance industry wouldn’t take a hit because birth control is cheaper than unwanted pregnancies.

The trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans has limited its comments to saying it worries about the “precedent” the mandate would set. The concern is that the government could eventually require health plans to cover any number of preventive services – even prescription drugs – without copays or deductibles, under the theory that they save money in the long-term.

Privately, however, insurers say there’s nothing “free” about preventing unwarranted pregnancies. They say the mandate also covers costly surgical sterilization procedures, and that in any case even the pill has up-front costs.

“Saying it’s revenue-neutral doesn’t mean it’s free and that you’re not paying for it,” an industry source told The Hill.

Doctors still have to be paid to prescribe the pill, drugmakers and pharmacists have to be paid to provide it – and all that money has to come from insurance premiums, not future hypothetical savings, the source said.

I’ve addressed this a number of times over the past week or so, but it’s worth repeating.  The savings claimed by HHS are speculative and long term, even if one accepts the claim as generally true.  The costs have to be paid up-front immediately.  Regardless of whether risk pools operate on a for-profit or non-profit basis, they have to balance their books at the end of each year, which means that premiums have to cover at least all of the payments and administrative costs of the risk pool for that year.  That means extra costs have to be covered with extra revenue in the same year.

So, when this mandate goes into effect, insurance premiums will have to rise to cover the increased costs of providing these products and services, especially for surgical sterilizations.  Since the mandate blocks the assessment even of co-pays, that means that everyone in the risk pool will assume those costs in increased premiums, including the employers who normally cover a high percentage of premium costs for their employees.  For self-insurers, that means that the employer will pay all of the increased costs, and since employees will come and go over the period of twenty-five years or so of childbearing age, they are very, very unlikely to see any of the HHS-promised long-term benefits of being forced to provide those products and services for free.

That’s bad enough for employers in general, who will now have to wonder what the Obama administration will order them to provide for free next.  For religious organizations that have doctrinal objections to these products and services, it exposes the “accommodation” as a shabby lie (especially for self-insuring religious organizations).  Not only will the mandate force them to facilitate access to these products and services — which by itself violates doctrine in many Christian denominations — it will force religious organizations to fund them as well, especially since ObamaCare no longer gives them the legal option of ending health insurance.


Related Posts:

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

TANSTAAFL.

novaculus on February 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM

What the hell is that dealy in the picture? Looks like the Dalcon Shield with a wire attached.

Lanceman on February 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM

“You Lie” was the truest thing anyone ever spoke about this administration.

Schadenfreude on February 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Why do you keep showing JugEar’s dental retainer?

KOOLAID2 on February 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM

perhaps because they actually have to balance their own budgets at the end of each year … unlike Obama and Sebelius:
But in private, the industry is dubious of the administration’s argument that the insurance industry wouldn’t take a hit because birth control is cheaper than unwanted pregnancies.

The trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans has limited its comments to saying it worries about the “precedent” the mandate would set. The concern is that the government could eventually require health plans to cover any number of preventive services – even prescription drugs – without copays or deductibles, under the theory that they save money in the long-term.
Privately, however, insurers say there’s nothing “free” about preventing unwarranted pregnancies. They say the mandate also covers costly surgical sterilization procedures, and that in any case even the pill has up-front costs.
“Saying it’s revenue-neutral doesn’t mean it’s free and that you’re not paying for it,” an industry source told The Hill.
Doctors still have to be paid to prescribe the pill, drugmakers and pharmacists have to be paid to provide it – and all that money has to come from insurance premiums, not future hypothetical savings, the source said.

We are balancing the budget and cutting the military on wars we are not going to be fighting….so what’s the problem?

KOOLAID2 on February 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM

In that case Obama should just mandate that pharmacies should foot the bill for contraceptives. I’m sure they won’t mind.

ctmom on February 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM

DeWine on Romney: He doesn’t write, he doesn’t call

LoL

SparkPlug on February 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM

another UnConstitutional mandate. Fruit of the Kelo decision.

pat on February 19, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Is that a fishing lure?

SparkPlug on February 19, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Is that a fishing lure?

SparkPlug on February 19, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Yes.

Bmore on February 19, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Lanceman on February 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Yes.

Bmore on February 19, 2012 at 4:43 PM

If these companies are concerned, maybe they should cease with the “private” and the “limited” comments, grow a backbone, and start fighting the good fight. Otherwise, I have no sympathy for them. If they’re willing to roll over and let it happen to them, it must not bother them too much.

xblade on February 19, 2012 at 4:44 PM

KOOLAID2 on February 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Yes.

Bmore on February 19, 2012 at 4:44 PM

In determining that the mandate will be revenue neutral, have they assumed that no one is using contraceptives unless their insurance pays for it? Because it would seem fairly safe to say that a lot of people pay for some form of contraceptive out of their own pocket already which means the mandate is shifting the cost of contraceptives without significantly increasing the use of contraceptives and that means it won’t have that big of an effect on unwanted pregnancies which will limit the insurance companies’ “savings” while jacking up their costs.

Rip Ford on February 19, 2012 at 4:48 PM

A Republican President who was serious about uprooting Obamacare would find all this useful.

David Blue on February 19, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I didn’t realize that companies that currently provide insurance couldn’t stop providing it, and simply pay the “fine”, which would be much cheaper for most of them anyway.

Of course, that is probably the gov’t’s plan anyway. Drive all employers out of the insurance provision business, require under pain of law all residents to have insurance they pay for, and then when the insurance companies can’t provide “affordable” insurance which covers all the insane mandated procedures, we can all be herded into the government single payer plan.

Back 20 years ago I, as a 30yo female, was able to get a decent private plan from Nationwide for around $100 a month. I was able to do this because I could opt to not pay for contraception or pregnancy insurance. Because contraception, if I wanted it, was affordable, and I had no intention of becoming pregnant if I wasn’t married.

LibraryGryffon on February 19, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Free love, the part of this story that bugs me the most is that we are costing out preventative measure against giving birth. To me that is such a phony argument. Its just one more reason I want less government logic in my life.` And know nothing is ever free. Free at what cost? Would be a better way to see it. Oh, and Ed, shouldn’t you be busy doing nothing but nice things for your better half? ; )

Bmore on February 19, 2012 at 4:51 PM

In the big flick, more contraception means fewer Social Security/Medicare contributors down the road.

So we’ve got that going for us.

J.E. Dyer on February 19, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Simple: just stop hiring women,

redguy on February 19, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I do not understand why these people do not just stand up for themselves and just say no.
It is an illegal order.
Make Obama and HHS take them to court.

NeoKong on February 19, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Thread song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyu4BMUMiB4

Bmore on February 19, 2012 at 4:53 PM

If these companies are concerned, maybe they should cease with the “private” and the “limited” comments, grow a backbone, and start fighting the good fight. Otherwise, I have no sympathy for them. If they’re willing to roll over and let it happen to them, it must not bother them too much.

xblade on February 19, 2012 at 4:44 PM

That was my first thought, exactly.

Yet, weren’t many of these insurers mute, at best, during the Obamacare debate? And shifting to drug manufacturers, don’t they love this idea? And is this a payoff for their support during the Obamacare debate? And, though I don’t presume to know the relative merits and costs of the various contraception devices and drugs, doesn’t this entire arrangement mean that only the topline, most expensive device/drug will be prescribed by the doctors? What the heck–someone else is paying for it, right?

Ulimately, allowing the federal government into so much of our lives only enables it to increase its control of our lives in so many other ways. And major groups, such as the insurers here, will only gripe in private for fear of retribution.

BuckeyeSam on February 19, 2012 at 4:53 PM

When will a brave insurance omany step forward and refuse to comply with unconstitutional mandates o provide “free” goods and services? If they don’t protest then their silence is apocalypse nd permission for more mandates later.

Just say no!

Charlemagne on February 19, 2012 at 4:56 PM

So when Obama says he’ll give me free stuff,
someone else still has to pay for it ?
Goshdarnit…capitalism sux

burrata on February 19, 2012 at 4:57 PM

All part of the plan.

If Insurance companies will not give them for free, make pharmacies if they will not make the pharmaceutical companies do it for free. State pharmacies with no private drug manufacturer and drug providers as they are against women’s rights.

tjexcite on February 19, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I just wonder – what do Obama and company think they will achieve if they succeed in driving us into poverty? Eventually, there won’t be farmers for food; there won’t be businesses to tax; there won’t be any money to pay anyone for anything, including government employees. They won’t have anyone to fight their “current” buddies who are using them once these “buddies” are done with them. What’s left? Every totalitarian regime falls apart sooner or later and leaves chaos in its wake.

There WILL be someone who will try to take us over or Obama an company will strike up an agreement with some other dictator and “split the world” but they will eventually use the weak one, Obama and possibly get rid of him.

I do understand people have different political philosophies but who in any kind of sane mind can be so arrogant and/or out of touch that they think they can drive the world’s most industrious, productive economy into the ground and survive? This attitude just boggles the mine.

MN J on February 19, 2012 at 4:59 PM

A Republican President who was serious about uprooting Obamacare would find all this useful.

David Blue on February 19, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Heh. I know you ain’t talkin’ ’bout Romney.

Lanceman on February 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Don’t worry. I’m sure behind the scenes the administration is working on some convoluted scheme to address this new expense. It will be the functional equivalent of the “doc fix,” but for the insurance industry. Call it the “condom fix.”

They legislate like socialists and manage the economy like fascists.

I look forward to the day when these crony capitalistas (and their business cronies) are shown the door. These crony capitalists really think they haven’t built their businesses on sand.

To the Warren Buffetts of the world: We’re on to you.

EMD on February 19, 2012 at 5:03 PM

POTUS does not have the power to order private companies to give away products or services for free. This is unconstitutional, plain and simple, and the american people are too distracted by American Idol and Whitney Houston to care.

The non-reaction and silence of this unprecedented illegal action by the 5th column and our own GOP candidates is shocking.

JustTruth101 on February 19, 2012 at 5:05 PM

When I was young growing up on ranch in TX my grand dad told me everything was about one thing. Keeping the herd together. Now I live in MA. It’s true here as it was there. It’s true now as it was true then.

rik on February 19, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Isn’t this considered an elective procedure? Does insurance coverage elective procedures?

Red Creek on February 19, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Isn’t this considered an elective procedure? Does insurance coverage elective procedures?

Red Creek on February 19, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Basic Fundamental human right. It says so, right there in the classified, President Eyes Only copy.

BobMbx on February 19, 2012 at 5:09 PM

***

Just say no!

Charlemagne on February 19, 2012 at 4:56 PM

For now, they’re probably content to sit quietly on the sidelines awaiting the oral arguments and the decision in the case before SCOTUS right now. Insurers are entirely willing to go along with Obamacare if everyone in the country can be forced to buy their product. If the individual mandate falls, even if SCOTUS finds that it’s severable–and, so, much of Obamacare can proceed–then I’ll bet that the insurers will become more critical in public.

BuckeyeSam on February 19, 2012 at 5:09 PM

DeWine on Romney: He doesn’t write, he doesn’t call

Neither did/does Obama…but DeWine was always a whiner, and has not changed.

Schadenfreude on February 19, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Isn’t this considered an elective procedure? Does insurance coverage elective procedures?

Red Creek on February 19, 2012 at 5:06 PM

It’s not considered a “procedure” at all. It’s a non-essential drug. But to answer your question in-essence, no. Insurance doesn’t cover those either.

gryphon202 on February 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

To the Warren Buffetts of the world: We’re on to you.

EMD on February 19, 2012 at 5:03 PM

How many free contraceptives can women get with the more than
$ 1 Billion which Buffett owes the IRS in back taxes ?
NOW and PP should bus their hags to protest outside Buffett’s home and every where he goes

burrata on February 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Saved or created abortions.

crash72 on February 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

the costs of contraception get outstripped by the savings of preventing pregnancy and childbirth

Only if you use a aspirin held between yer knees, Andrea.

petefrt on February 19, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Still trying to figure this one out. Not Ma and Pa Kettle, Mr Spock, PeeWee, Janis, or my Arkansas cousins think anything made is made ‘free’, let alone distributed ‘free’. Who the hell fell for this fishing line? Best I can tell it is just those college educated journalists.

Limerick on February 19, 2012 at 5:18 PM

In light of this being only about the pill or condoms or IUDs. Its sure comforting to know that the liberals who support the President’s mandate will stand up against the President should he decide to force Catholics to provide abortions.

Speakup on February 19, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Everybody must eat broccoli because it’s healthy and so it will be provided free buy the farmers and grocers. If that sounds sane to anybody, those people are insane.

wb-33777 on February 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Everybody must eat broccoli because it’s healthy and so it will be provided free buy the farmers and grocers. If that sounds sane to anybody, those people are insane.

wb-33777 on February 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Scientific fact…broccoli is a gas maker. Gas is a global warming maker. You need a different example./s

Limerick on February 19, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Its sure comforting to know that the liberals who support the President’s mandate will stand up against the President should he decide to force Catholics to provide abortions.

Speakup on February 19, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I find it amusing that Obama sold exemptions to his Obama-scare law to unions and companies, but he refuses to sell his exemptions to Catholic Church .
I’m sure if the Church makes an offer and negotiates, Obama will sell his precious exemption to them too, afterall he has nothing against the Catholics, right ? Right ??

burrata on February 19, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Privately, however, insurers say there’s nothing “free” about preventing unwarranted pregnancies.

As a side point, is this a typo for unwanted? If not, what makes a pregnancy unwarranted?

philoquin on February 19, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Limerick on February 19, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Lol! You got me thinking, is there anything, anything that can be offered free of charge or without infringing on someone? Anything?

Bmore on February 19, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Is it still cost neutral if a woman decides to get pregnant after years of “free” contraceptives? Or is it only unwanted pregnancies that count toward the costs?

tj4osu on February 19, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Is it still cost neutral if a woman decides to get pregnant after years of “free” contraceptives? Or is it only unwanted pregnancies that count toward the costs?

tj4osu on February 19, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Does the law require insurance to pay for all the expensive methods middle-aged infertile couples use to have children? That seems to be as much about women’s “reproductive rights” as contraception.

philoquin on February 19, 2012 at 5:44 PM

They either tell you you’ll be paying something extra or they don’t tell you you’ll be paying something extra, but in either case you’ll be paying something extra. “Cost Free” medical services make as much sense as “cost free” steering wheels on new cars.

Fred 2 on February 19, 2012 at 5:44 PM

If not, what makes a pregnancy unwarranted?

philoquin on February 19, 2012 at 5:33 PM

If the baby daddy hasn’t got no warrant ,
the pregnancy is unwarranted …I think :O

burrata on February 19, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Ed, why do you hate women?!?!!11!!? /sarc

KS Rex on February 19, 2012 at 5:52 PM

If these companies are concerned, maybe they should cease with the “private” and the “limited” comments, grow a backbone, and start fighting the good fight. Otherwise, I have no sympathy for them. If they’re willing to roll over and let it happen to them, it must not bother them too much.

xblade on February 19, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Crony capitalism means betraying your principles in order to get in on all that government “action”.

ardenenoch on February 19, 2012 at 5:57 PM

What about sex toys? Items that would encourage non-coital pleasuring? Youu know, dildos, latex vaginas, yadda yadda .. I mean, those could surely be regarded as a form of contraception. Plus they’re re-usable, which makes them fiscally beneficial to over-burdened taxpayers. Government should be providing these items free-of-charge as well. Absolutely.

minnesoter on February 19, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Wait, aren’t insurance companies in the business of assessing and pricing risk? Wouldn’t they have figured out by now the “long-term savings” being touted would “pay” for these contraceptives and procedures and offered them “free of charge” already if that were so?

It is the height of arrogance that the administration (and the left in general) to assume they know better than the people who are in the business.

And that’s just the insurance business. They presume to speak for the Catholic Church, too. But then again, this administration has shown repeatedly that their arrogance has no limit.

JeffWeimer on February 19, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Dear Hotgas (actually Dear Townhall,)

Please continue talking about contraception. Considering 98% of women in the religion you claim are being persecuted use contraception, and the other 2% have never got laid, you’re doing me a solid.

Signed,

Obama

triple on February 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM

As long as we’re giving away free stuff, I’d like a pony. And a Range Rover.

Adjoran on February 19, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Huh. Well, how do they feel about free abortifacients?

Jaibones on February 19, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Cry me a freaking river……these are the same crony capitalists who paid for ads touting Obamacare because it meant they would provide a service that would be mandated.

All this while team Obama is vilifying them (and medical device makers). Disgusting.

jb34461 on February 19, 2012 at 6:40 PM

triple on February 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Forget that the government is dictating what insured people are paying for?

Oh yeah, you love tyranny.

See you in the gulags, comrade.

tom daschle concerned on February 19, 2012 at 6:40 PM

From lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist FANTASYLAND: “FREE contraception!!!”
Yep, in d-cRAT socialist FANTASYLAND there are NO COSTS to manufacture any contraception items, there are NO COSTS for packaging any contraception items, there are NO COSTS for distributing any contraception items, there are NO COSTS for visiting a doctor for any contraception prescription, there are NO COSTS for a pharmacist to dispense any contraception items…it’s all FREE, FREE, FREE in lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist FANTASYLAND – just like all that FREE crony capitalist taxpayer money, bailouts, pork and other socialist welfare boondoggles.

TeaPartyNation on February 19, 2012 at 6:46 PM

If not, what makes a pregnancy unwarranted?

philoquin on February 19, 2012 at 5:33 PM

A pregnancy is unwarranted if he doesn’t kiss you too.

A pregnancy is unwarranted if he doesn’t buy you dinner first.

A pregnancy is unwarranted if, just before orgasm, he calls out your sister’s name.

petefrt on February 19, 2012 at 7:04 PM

…the administration’s argument that the insurance industry wouldn’t take a hit because birth control is cheaper than unwanted pregnancies.

The administration’s problem here is that it cynically assumes women will irresponsibly get pregnant SIMPLY because they can’t pay $15 a month for birth control pills. If this was a Republican position, the feminista would be attacking us for our low opinion of women. Democratics, not so much.

slickwillie2001 on February 19, 2012 at 7:04 PM

If Hitler mandated that I allow a group of people to purchase a product from my company at no cost I would probably do it and keep my mouth shut.

What company is willing to fall on the sword for the benefit of its policyholders and the country? Maybe if Obama’s approval rating was 40% they would go out on a limb, but the way things look right now they aren’t willing to be labeled an enemy of the state.

Wigglesworth on February 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM

“Saying it’s revenue-neutral doesn’t mean it’s free and that you’re not paying for it,” an industry source told The Hill.

Doctors still have to be paid to prescribe the pill, drugmakers and pharmacists have to be paid to provide it – and all that money has to come from insurance premiums, not future hypothetical savings, the source said.

But-but I thought the Conjurer-in-Chief could just twitch his nose or cross his arms and blink, and whatever was needed would magically appear. Wave his arms? Say abracadabra alakazam open sesame? And voila, your wish is fulfilled. What’s that? Pull it out of his butt? But–isn’t that where the mandate came from in the first place?

BTW, I’d suspect that’s where the budget came from but, who in the WH has got that big a butt?

stukinIL4now on February 19, 2012 at 7:23 PM

0 doesn’t understand that the ins. co cannot figure in ten years when they balance their budgets, like he claims to do.

Oleta on February 19, 2012 at 7:32 PM

How many free contraceptives can women get with the more than $ 1 Billion which Buffett owes the IRS in back taxes ?

burrata on February 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

I wonder if Warren Buffett’s secretary gets free contraception. It would be hell to pay a higher tax rate than Mr. Buffett and have to pay for her own birth control.

MessesWithTexas on February 19, 2012 at 7:40 PM

who will now have to wonder what the Obama administration will order them to provide for free next

i’m sure they have a long list prepared…and if he gets re-elected *shudder*

cmsinaz on February 19, 2012 at 7:55 PM

ain’t no stopping them now

cmsinaz on February 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Seriously, that picture, what is it?
(I’ve tried to google, no luck)

aquaviva on February 19, 2012 at 8:49 PM

I wonder if the Catholic cardinals who backed Obamacare are regretting it now?

Squiggy on February 19, 2012 at 9:17 PM

I do not understand why these people do not just stand up for themselves and just say no.

It is an illegal order.

NeoKong on February 19, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Um, you’re kidding, right? Ask the Chrysler bond holders how that whole “illegal” thing worked out for them.

climbnjump on February 19, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Please continue talking about contraception. Considering 98% of women in the religion you claim are being persecuted use contraception, and the other 2% have never got laid, you’re doing me a solid.

Signed,

Obama

Your stastistics have been addressed and refuted, Triple/Obama.

bmmg39 on February 19, 2012 at 9:39 PM

It’s the new math: 1 procedure + 1 pill + 1 presidential diktat = 0 cost…..wait, it doesn’t work that way? Math is hard

jayhawkingeorgia on February 19, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Leni Riefenstahl: Congratulations on the HHS Regulations
Memo: From Leni Riefenstahl
To: President Barack Obama
Schatzi, it’s been over a year since I last wrote you. Please forgive me.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/leni_riefenstahl_congratulations_on_the_hhs_regulations.html#ixzz1mrCs9dkN

Green eyed Lady on February 19, 2012 at 10:22 PM

How many free contraceptives can women get with the more than
$ 1 Billion which Buffett owes the IRS in back taxes ?
NOW and PP should bus their hags to protest outside Buffett’s home and every where he goes

burrata on February 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

THIS ^^^^^^ + 1000

NapaConservative on February 19, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Lol! You got me thinking, is there anything, anything that can be offered free of charge or without infringing on someone? Anything?

Bmore on February 19, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Love

NapaConservative on February 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Of course, this is “revenue neutral” in only one special case: single payer (i.e. government) healthcare. Not surprising, since that is what the Dems have been angling for all along. Submit comrades! Just submit.

tngmv on February 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM

In determining that the mandate will be revenue neutral, have they assumed that no one is using contraceptives unless their insurance pays for it? Because it would seem fairly safe to say that a lot of people pay for some form of contraceptive out of their own pocket already which means the mandate is shifting the cost of contraceptives without significantly increasing the use of contraceptives and that means it won’t have that big of an effect on unwanted pregnancies which will limit the insurance companies’ “savings” while jacking up their costs.

Rip Ford on February 19, 2012 at 4:48 PM

This this this right here is the hoodwink – think about it.

ChicagoBlue on February 19, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Love

NapaConservative on February 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Took a while. Better late then never. Thank you for playing, and now without further adieu your free gift.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLh_hFnKpRQ

Bmore on February 20, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Took a while. Better late then never. Thank you for playing, and now without further adieu your free gift.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLh_hFnKpRQ

Bmore on February 20, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Enjoyed the video :)

Incidentally, the ad on the bottom was for foreclosed homes for sale.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! :-D

NapaConservative on February 20, 2012 at 1:10 AM

NapaConservative on February 20, 2012 at 1:10 AM

; )

Bmore on February 20, 2012 at 2:37 AM

Condoms cost a dollar and can be had nearly everywhere, or free in many clinics, schools, etc. There is not a single living soul in this nation who doesn’t have ready, immediate access to contraception. Obama’s argument is invalid.

ctwelve on February 20, 2012 at 2:57 AM

In determining that the mandate will be revenue neutral, have they assumed that no one is using contraceptives unless their insurance pays for it?
Rip Ford on February 19, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Yes, and they’re also assuming that most unwanted pregnancies result from lack of access to/affordability of contraceptives — another false assumption. Studies have shown that only a very small percentage of women cited lack of access to or inability to afford contraceptives as the reason for their unwanted pregnancy.

AZCoyote on February 20, 2012 at 7:17 AM

No wonder we have multi-trillion $ deficits. I go the the grocery store with the idea of buying a porterhouse on sale @ $5.99. I buy ground chuck instead at $3,49. Hey…I saved $2.50. Next week I buy more ground chuck at $3.49. Look…I saved another $2.50. Every week I go and spend money on ground chuck and save $2.50. With savings like this it won’t be long before my kids college education is paid for.
It works for everything. Go to the car dealer with the intention of buying a Porsche. Buy a Ford Focus instead. With the money you saved your kid gets to go to Harvard.

Unplanned pregnancies would be reduced only if you assume that they are the result of women not being able to afford birth control now. Most unplanned births are the result of the pill not working, not being taken properly, or just irresponsibility. Getting it “free” isn’t going to change any of the preceding.

JohnnyL on February 20, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Condoms cost a dollar and can be had nearly everywhere, or free in many clinics, schools, etc. There is not a single living soul in this nation who doesn’t have ready, immediate access to contraception. Obama’s argument is invalid.

Plus they prevent disease when used properly. More effective than the pill and a disease preventative. Why aren’t free condoms available under Obamacare? Oh…that’s right….they are for men.

JohnnyL on February 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Many women use birth control not to forever prevent pregnancies but only to postpone pregnancies. A young couple may use birth control to delay the start of a family for a few years, but when they finally do decide to have children, the insurer will still have to pay maternity expenses. There are no savings for the insurer in that scenario.

Colony14 on February 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

The Obama administration’s claim that the contraceptive mandate is “revenue neutral” also fails when one considers that millions of women currently use birth control and pay for it out of their own pockets. If a women who has not had contraceptive coverage has been using birth control anyway, forcing her health insurance company to pay for it does not in any way result in cost savings. In fact, she will now cost an additional $500 or so per year to insure. Obama’s claim is valid only if one assumes that many millions of women are not using contraceptives simply because they cannot currently get them for free. Obviously, many non-users become pregnant, resulting in maternity costs for their insurers. But any savings gained from providing non-users with free birth control pills will be offset by the billions of dollars that will be required to provide free contraceptives to those millions of women who have been relying on it at their own expense.

Colony14 on February 20, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Obama’s “revenue neutral” claim is equivalent to arguing that if all automobile insurers were forced to provide free tires for their customers every year it would save money because of fewer blow-outs and tragic accidents. But that would ignore the fact that most drivers ALREADY buy new tires when they need them, and that costs the insurers nothing. To force the insurers to pay for all new tires would result in higher premium costs for everyone — meaning that responsible drivers would be paying not only for their own tires but for the tires of irresponsible drivers who have never worried about driving on bald tires.

Colony14 on February 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM

I am sick and tired of this Dictator want-a-be and his BS. It is time for him to go and and any attempt by him to find a reason to remain other than by winning in November be met with the Congress escorting him out under armed guard. He has no respect for the people, the Nation, or The United States Constitution. He is a has been, so get out our Whitehouse, Obama.

old war horse on February 20, 2012 at 11:15 PM