Joined:
Feb 3, 2011
Messages:
4,991
Likes Received:
0
Summary
Is the Obama administration correct when it claims its contraception mandate will be “cost neutral” for insurance companies? Or are the critics right when they say Catholic institutions will pay a hidden cost in the form of higher premiums when their insurers are required to give “free” contraceptives to their female employees?
We’ve found plenty of evidence. But it’s often conflicting — and ultimately inconclusive. Some leading examples:
The administration cites Hawaii’s birth-control mandate, which a study said “did not appear” to increase health insurance premiums. Interestingly, the same study also showed an increase in the number of pregnancies after contraception coverage was required.
The administration cites a 1995 study that found significant savings from contraception. The study also said insurance company costs are likely to increase if coverage is simply provided to people who would otherwise buy birth control.
When Pennsylvania considered a birth-control mandate, an independent state agency concluded that “the amount of possible savings relative to the cost of the legislation is unclear.”
Connecticut also could not conclude whether private insurance plans saved enough from reduced pregnancy costs to cover the added expenses of providing coverage under that state’s mandate.
A Texas study estimated that covering contraception would not produce enough savings to cover the added cost. It reasoned that, in most cases, women would get contraceptives on their own even if not covered by insurance.
Premiums did not increase when the Federal Employee Health Benefit System was required to cover contraceptives. Some of the 300 plans in the system covered contraception prior to the mandate.
A recent survey of 15 insurance companies said six of them expected costs to rise while another three believed the mandate would be cost neutral. None predicted a net cost savings by reducing unintended pregnancies.
There are other studies, some of which we describe in the Analysis section which follows. But altogether they produce a murky picture. Until better data are available, we’re unable to conclude whether the Obama birth-control mandate is likely to result in a net cost increase or not.
Note: This is the first story prompted by our Spin Detectors feature, through which we ask our readers to help us monitor political claims and campaigns across the country. Our thanks to Hugh Haines of Sacramento, Calif., who sent us a press release by Republican Rep. Dan Lungren of California. Lungren is among those saying the administration’s announced compromise will still force Catholic institutions to pay for birth control through higher premiums.
Click to expand...
http://factcheck.org/2012/02/cloudy-contraception-costs/
Site Supporter
Joined:
May 30, 2006
Messages:
20,914
Likes Received:
706
Someone has to pay for the stuff.
The question is who will it be?
Joined:
Feb 3, 2011
Messages:
4,991
Likes Received:
0
Site Supporter
Joined:
May 30, 2006
Messages:
20,914
Likes Received:
706
The person who needs it.
Click to expand...
That's how it worked out for the first half of my marriage but I guess now the government needs to step in??
Joined:
Feb 3, 2011
Messages:
4,991
Likes Received:
0
The extreme left wing wants all contraceptives to be free to women and a right. It looks to be part of the population control agenda.
Site Supporter
Joined:
May 30, 2006
Messages:
20,914
Likes Received:
706
Yep.
Too bad my husband's asthma medicine couldn't be his "right" as well.
He has to pay $60 a month for that and without that, he could die.
:BangHead:
THAT is true healthcare.
Joined:
Jun 28, 2000
Messages:
11,414
Likes Received:
2
Every child added to the welfare roll will probably cost the taxpayers $200,000 over the first 18 years. How many birth control pills will that buy?
Site Supporter
Joined:
Jun 26, 2003
Messages:
15,549
Likes Received:
15
Joined:
Jun 28, 2000
Messages:
11,414
Likes Received:
2
Right wingers don't understand the difference between "voluntary" and "mandatory?"
Paying taxes is mandatory. Using contraceptives is voluntary.
Site Supporter
Joined:
Jun 26, 2003
Messages:
15,549
Likes Received:
15
That would include abortion.
Joined:
Jun 28, 2000
Messages:
11,414
Likes Received:
2
Site Supporter
Joined:
Jun 26, 2003
Messages:
15,549
Likes Received:
15
Agree. Your point?
Click to expand...
I have been told that many get an abortion as a form of contraception. Is the underlying proposal for them to be joined?
Joined:
Jun 28, 2000
Messages:
11,414
Likes Received:
2
Still be much cheaper than $10,000/year for every kid on welfare for 20 years.
Site Supporter
Joined:
Oct 14, 2004
Messages:
25,823
Likes Received:
1,167
Faith:
Baptist
True, but that's not really the issue.
Violating the first amendment rights of Catholics and the Catholic church is.
The government has no right to force any religious organization to violate their beliefs.
InTheLight
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Dec 17, 2010
Messages:
24,988
Likes Received:
2,268
Faith:
Baptist
Site Supporter
Joined:
May 30, 2006
Messages:
20,914
Likes Received:
706
Exactly.
One way or another, because it's provided for "free" to the patient, it's being paid for by someone else.
The employer usually pays for the insurance.
If President Obama says that the "insurance company" is paying for the medication, you bet the insurance company is passing on the costs in premiums to the employer - thus the employer is STILL paying for the medication.
So either way the employer is paying for it - even if it is against their religious beliefs.
I can't believe that the government is really doing this.
To me it's just so incredible - but they are.
Stepping on the Constitution does not even begin to describe it!
Site Supporter
Joined:
May 30, 2006
Messages:
20,914
Likes Received:
706
Seriously? Link, please.
Click to expand...
It's not even the extreme left wing.
I'm on a secular board with mostly young women in the horse world.
This topic came up and they are screaming that it is basic health care that every woman should be allowed to have and that the church has no right to say that women can't have birth control.
THEY are saying that the extreme right is trying to outlaw birth control all together.
Site Supporter
Joined:
May 30, 2006
Messages:
20,914
Likes Received:
706
Seriously? Link, please.
Click to expand...
Oh - and it's not a "want" it's already a reality:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bir...-say-its-not-about-birth-control-gop-counters
InTheLight
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Dec 17, 2010
Messages:
24,988
Likes Received:
2,268
Faith:
Baptist
Thank you. To be pedantic, the "right" they are clamoring for is for insurance companies to cover it. Not that it should be "free".
Site Supporter
Joined:
May 30, 2006
Messages:
20,914
Likes Received:
706
True.
"Free" for them.
:)
The young people that I've discussed it with scream that it's medical care that they have a right to.
Some say that they need it for menstrual issues.
I argue that my husband needs asthma medication to live so why can't his asthma medicine be free instead of $180 a month?
They said that it's not part of basic medical care like birth control should be.
:BangHead:
They will live with a crampy period.
My husband will die without breathing.