fbpx
free birth control mints

“Free” Birth Control is not Free

If you were paying very close attention to the news earlier this week, you might have heard some medical news.

Oh no Kevin! Not another post about health care. Your last one didn’t go too well…

Well don’t worry, because this isn’t a health care post. It’s an economics post that just happens to be about a health care product. Specifically birth control.

Starting in August of next year, anyone with medical insurance will be able to get “free” birth control. Well isn’t America great! Through the magic of our delightful president, we don’t have to pay for something that used to cost us money.

Not only is birth control covered, but also any contraceptive (including condoms) or sterilization procedure. Also reproductive education. In fact, the law doesn’t stop there; there is a huge list of preventative care procedures that insurance companies will be required to cover without any co-pay or deductible.

free birth control mints

IT’S FREE!!!!!

Wait, no it isn’t.

There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch

You see, the companies that make birth control and condoms, and the hospitals that provide preventative care, well they aren’t making those drugs and performing those procedures pro bono. No, they are getting paid by someone. Enter the insurance companies.

And who pays the insurance companies? Oh, right. The people who have insurance.

Do you think the health insurance companies are going to eat the cost of all these new things? Are they going to let their profits fall, and allow their stock price to crash, and stop paying senior executives just to comply with this new law?

Or do you think they are going to raise their customers’ health insurance premiums? Gee, let’s think about that.

So instead of paying $200 a month for health care like you do this year, you’re going to be paying $225 a month next year. But hey, don’t worry about it. You’re getting FREE BIRTH CONTROL!!!

This is Another Tax on the American People

Let’s play a little logic game. The government passes a law that makes health insurance companies spend more money. When health insurance companies spend more money, they make their customers pay more money.

If we take out the middle man, it looks like this: The government passes a law that makes health insurance customers, or responsible US citizens, pay more money.

This is just a clever way to hide a tax increase into something as “wonderful” as free health care.

If you are one of the people who has health insurance and want birth control but can’t afford it, then congratulations! The US Government is forcing everyone who has health insurance and doesn’t want or need birth control to pay for yours.

Wasn’t that nice?

Potential Moral and Economic Impacts

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention two other impacts of this law.

Moral Impacts: Some people (like me) believe life begins at conception. Therefore, I consider the morning-after pill an abortion. I also believe abortion, aka killing a living human, is murder. In my opinion, if this law forces health insurance to cover the morning after pill, then as far as I’m concerned, this is government funded abortion. And if you disagree, please don’t waste your time trying to change my mind on when life begins in the comments. It would be the ultimate exercise in futility.

Economic Impacts: If you believe research like that presented in Freakonomics, you could argue that increasing contraception availability and therefore decreasing unwanted pregnancies will result in a happier, healthier, more productive and less costly generation of children. This could very well be the case, and if true, would save the country money and reduce crime. Because of this, it is possible that increased costs today will result in lower costs in the future. Having conceded that potential outcome, the fact remains that this “free” birth control will actually be paid for immediately in the form of higher health insurance premiums.

46 thoughts on ““Free” Birth Control is not Free”

  1. I’m not going to try and change your mind on the morning after pill and abortion. As you said, it would be an exercise in futility.

    I am however disappointed by this post. If you want to get in an uproar about insurance coverage, why not complain that the insurance companies immediately jumped at the chance to cover erectile dysfunction drugs, but 50 years later still have to be coerced by your government into covering women’s health products? In a country plauged by unwanted teen pregnancies and children being born into poverty, providing contraception is a blessing. Yes, you may have to pay a small increase in premiums, but that will be due more to the insurance companies trying to squeeze a profit from you rather than the actual cost of the care.

    The turn around time before the country starts to see a benefit is short: 9 months. Not only will you be saving in health care, but women who would otherwise drop out of school can go on to further education. Fewer children will be on welfare. Fewer children will have to go into social housing. This is making an impact on the people at the bottom of the food chain. Your overall costs WILL drop. Given the runaway costs of running your country, the drop is badly needed. Please don’t see this latest move by your government as a bad thing, it really isn’t.

    1. You are acting like ED drugs are free and birth control wasn’t even subsidized by health insurance. ED drugs are covered today just like birth control. The person who wants it has to pay some kind of copay to get it. The only difference next year is that birth control will have no copay or deductible, with ED drugs will still have copays and deductibles.

  2. Gotta disagree. One of the reasons health care is so expensive is due to people thinking their insurance coverage MUST cover every band-aid, every headache, every hangnail. When I had my tubal ligation procedure (ironically, 37 years ago today), insurance didn’t cover ANY of it….and I had to come up with the cash. $500 for the doctor’s bill and the hospital stay. Yes, inflation, but I honestly believe if the insurance companies would only insure against catastrophic illnesses, the overall costs would go down (otherwise why do your insurance premiums go down when you choose a higher deductible and copay)?

    The other factor is: why is it necessary for me to pay for someone else’s medical procedure and birth control? Nobody paid for mine, nor should they have.

    Finally, I don’t think it’s necessary to require anyone to state their beliefs concerning when life begins, because truly: it’s just a belief (a conclusion not back by verifiable evidence). If one has a belief about it (either way), that’s FINE, and they should not be required by law to pay for the enabling of someone else’s opposing belief, which, as you mention, is what is now going to happen.

    The problem here is that you, or I, or anyone else, now has the right to vote away someone else’s paycheck (didn’t start with this, but this is an egregious example). For an interesting view of the whole voting situation, Google Richard Nikoley’s recent postings on the topic.

    Have I rambled enough? 🙂 Sorry! I’ll stop!

    1. I agree with your assessment of the health care insurance industry. Most health care insurance policies are the equivalent of having a home insurance policy with a $0 deductible. That’s not insurance in the least; it’s pre-paid home reconstruction. Meanwhile, prices are hidden from the end-consumer, effectively financed over a period of many years which makes higher prices more affordable.

      I’m not so sure I have a problem with birth control though in the sense that paying for birth control will result in fewer children from people who simply cannot afford to have children, or people who do not have the capacity to tend to a child. So there’s a cost in paying for birth control through health insurance, but there’s a gain in fewer costs to social programs.

      1. Yes, I agree about the future children that won’t be a burden, and I’m all for birth control. I just don’t believe it’s appropriate to FORCE the payment for it by the population as a whole. If there are so many people in favor of it, why not let them donate to the fund? Hint: it’s because so few people REALLY believe in it to the point of paying for someone else, the program would go broke. See, it’s much easier to force EVERYONE to pay, whether they really want to or not.

        I agree with Kevin in that there are many programs I disagree with (not necessarily the same programs as he disagrees with, but that’s not a requirement). Why should you (generically speaking) be able to make me pay the salaries, for example, of the deputies who dumped 10,000 gallons of raw milk in the past couple of days “to protect the consumer” when there is plenty of pasteurized milk to be had by anyone who wants to buy it? Why couldn’t these employees have instead been busy arresting people who actually hurt other people, since “other people” including me, will have to pay for it?

        1. I don’t think it’s appropriate either. If I had my way, we’d live in a near libertarian utopia where everyone takes care of their own matters. However, working within the existing framework, this is a solution I can appreciate, even if I might favor a complete overhaul of the system itself.

          As for milk, I love the debate it can create. Why should milk have to be pasteurized? It shouldn’t, in my view. I don’t think we should have congressional limits on the amount of sugar that can be imported, either, which is mostly the reason why HFCS has replaced cane sugar in sodas.

          I complain that I have to go to the doctor every four months to “check up” with him about a certain prescription. The only reason I have to go is because it’s a controlled substance, and while it doesn’t cost me that much out of pocket, everyone pays for it through higher premiums. In effect, I’m paying for someone else to tell me that I’m not a drug addict. To be 100% frank, it really pisses me off.

          We agree, I think. We just have a different perspective (in or out of the existing framework.)

        2. Fact of the matter is that we have health insurance companies, and we all are forced to rely on them. Unless health insurance is eliminated, you will always be forced to pay for the masses, whether the masses are Medicare recipients or the members of your personal plan.

          I, for one, would much rather pay the tiny (let’s be honest, it will be minuscule) increase in premiums to see a long term gain (as Cassie pointed out, we should “see” benefits in 9 months). This is a good thing! If I had it my way, I’d REQUIRE families on the low income Medicare plans to take them before receiving benefits. You want my money? Play by my rules.

          1. Tom, the problem is that putting birth control on an insurance plan only helps those that are already planning enough for it to not be a problem. I’d prefer to see forced sterilization for anyone on any long-term government assistance. If you can’t pay your bills, you shouldn’t be having kids.

            If your children have been taken away due to drug use, neglect, etc., same thing. No more kids.

          2. @Kathleen,

            Wow.

            How about NO?

            I thought I was being extreme and ridiculous. Sterilization? Seriously?

            You know, the Nazis used to practice eugenics…

  3. Frankly, I’m surprised by your view.

    Short term pain (slightly increased insurance premiums) for long term gain (greatly decreased insurance premiums).

    I’m very fiscally conservative, but this program just makes sense to me. Preventative care is always a billion times more preferable and cheaper than reactive care, which our system is based on.

    The problem with your view is that it’s short sighted. Our heath insurance costs are skyrocketing because of a lack of prevention and lack of visibility by the consumer. We’ll never get rid of health insurance companies or Medicare, so we’ll never really have control or visibility over our health care costs, which is why they are rising (again, do you know the cost of an x-ray? me either). Preventative care is our only weapon. I would much rather pay for free screenings, birth control, and other preventative measures today than pay for issues and children tomorrow.

    Funding the morning after pill is another story. If they are funding free condoms and BC, then the MAP should not be necessary. I’m not getting into that moral minefield.

  4. In response to the idea of “it’s because so few people REALLY believe in it to the point of paying for someone else, the program would go broke. See, it’s much easier to force EVERYONE to pay, whether they really want to or not.”

    The private health insurance system is based on forcing me to pay more to support other people’s medical costs. Having worked at small companies it’s most clear how my premiums are impacted by the other ‘members’ of the group plan. The boss’ family has a host of medical issues – I pay higher medical premiums as my ‘share’ of the company’s overal premiums. If the boss and his family like to eat fast food, don’t exercise, and are over stressed and overweight, I pay when they end up in the hospital (as my next year’s premiums are higher). Read: I am forced to pay more because of the lifesyle choices of my boss and his family. That’s our reality now. I WISH they would take advantage of preventative care.

  5. Sandy - yesiamcheap

    I won’t change your mind or try to since we are on opposite ends of the spectrum on just about everything. I can respect your views though.

    The insurance companies will now cover birth control. I don’t care either way. I pay lots for insurance right now and either coughed out my $25 copay or prayed over the condom whenever I had sex. Jokes!

    But here’s the thing..the cost to all of us for a couple of kids with disabilities far outweighs the cost of preventing a bunch of unwanted pregnancies. One abortion costs more than a year of birth control. Your insurance is already covering abortions because, guess what, it’s cheaper for the insurance company to pay for one abortion than the birth of a child. I’ll pay the cost to prevent them.

  6. First of all, the morning after pill will only work BEFORE conception (which takes place anywhere from right away to 4-5 days after intercourse). The morning after pill is kind of like the Pill on crack, but it is NOT an abortion, because if you take it even a couple hours after the sperm has done the tango with the egg, it will NOT work. At all. So the debate about the morning after pill isn’t about when life begins at all. If life has begun, it will not work. You’re welcome to your own views about abortion, but I just wanted to clear that up. (There IS such a thing as an abortion pill, which is taken before the eighth week of pregnancy and is exactly what it sounds like, but that’s a totally different thing from the morning after pill.)

    OK, now about the free birth control. Normally I’m very tolerant of your differing opinions but in this case you are absolutely, economically, wrong. Premiums should not go up (unless insurance companies decide to up them just because) because while insurance companies will have to eat the cost of the pills, the cost of the CLAIMS will go down. About 50% of the pregnancies in the U.S. and Canada are unplanned, and most of them end in a live birth which, according to the U.S. healthcare system, carries a pricetag of something like $14,000 for a normal complication-free delivery (not including doctor’s visits for nine months, ultrasounds, etc.), and upwards of $20,000 or $30,000 for a not terribly complicated C-section. Throw complications in the mix, and you’re well into the six figures. Do you know what birth control costs? Not that much. If the end goal is for the insurance companies to save money and therefore make health insurance more affordable, then it is in their interests to lower the amount they need to pay out for health care, therefore it is economically speaking an excellent plan to offer free birth control. This isn’t a “maybe in the future” type thing. It’s a “if we give them free condoms right now, we will be saving a shit ton of money nine months from now” thing.

    1. I’m no expert on how birth control or the morning after pills work, but it is my understanding that one of the multiple ways they prevent pregnancy is to inhibit a fertilized egg (aka, after conception) from attaching to the wall of the uterus. I can support pills that prevent fertilization, but not ones that stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus (both morning after or regular BC).

      As far as this saving money, you may be right. However, I find it unlikely. Here’s why.

      Insurance company A wants to generate as much profit as possible. So does Insurance company B. Also, the birth control pill company wants to make lots of money too. Let’s assume there is at least someone at the birth control capable of coming up with the “free birth control actually saves health insurance money” idea.

      They take this idea to Insurance company A. They say, “If you cover birth control 100%, your customers will spend less in medical expenses, which means you spend less on covering them. Then with the money you save, you can either pocket it as pure profit, or lower your costs to steal more business away from Company B, thus increasing revenue and profits. In addition, we will sell more birth control and increase our profits. It’s a win-win. Let’s do it.”

      Then company B would see Company A lowering prices and increasing profits, figure out how they did it, and then they would offer free birth control as well. And so on and so forth with more insurance companies until this “free birth control” idea is pervasive in health care without any legislation or government intervention needed.

      If all of this were true (like you say it is) then why hasn’t this already happened?

      What is more likely: the free market couldn’t have figured this out on their own, or they looked at it and decided it wouldn’t save money?

      I tend to believe the latter. The fact that this hasn’t already been adopted by the health care industry tells me it’s not going to save money.

      1. That’s not how the morning-after pill works. It basically simultaneously stops ovulations and kills sperm. There is a slight, slight chance that it could in some way harm an already fertilized eggs and prevent it from implanting, but it’s very slim. Basically the same chance as, say, accidentally getting pregnant on the Pill, not realizing, and continuing to take the Pill for a few weeks until you do. It’s just an unlikely side effect, not the mechanism of the pill. The same way it’s *possible* (though highly unlikely) that drinking coffee during the first trimester can trigger a miscarriage.

        And if I had to guess why this system is just going into place now, I’d say it’s because the issue of birth control is still a highly, highly controversial thing in the States AND there’s a big “free market, capitalism, I’ll take care of my own, and you take care of your own” attitude (surely you agree with both these points), so that creates a lot of issues with “Why should I be paying to subsidize someone else’s sins?” Know what I mean? I’d say the U.S. is just now getting to the point where something like free birth control as a preventative health measure wouldn’t be met with a revolt. Economists have been talking about the benefits of preventative health, rather than reactive health for decades, but it always takes the medical community a while to catch up (this is certainly true in Canada, too).

        Now, it’s possible that this WILL result in higher premiums because the insurance companies decides to charge more because of the free pills, despite the fact that they’re saving money elsewhere, but that’s the unfortunate reality of contracting our your healthcare system to a privatized, bottom-line driven system.

  7. This and the other changes that occurred with universal health care will be adding to the cost and premium. The increased benefits must be covered and this increases premium.

  8. Some people take “birth control” pills for other reasons. The drug was initially developed to regulate menstruation (minimize anemia), and then expanded its use to include birth control and acne control. Some women taking it may not be doing it just to have sex, so don’t be so quick to judge.

    It seems that the current government has the “spend money to save money” attitude at the moment, which I think is a rational assessment in this case. Teen Moms, pregnancy pacts, general lack of American female role models all contribute. Numbers speaking, sex education prevents more unwanted pregnancies than abstinence.

    All democracies need a little bit of socialism. I don’t have kids, but (some of) my taxes go to public schools and education of the next generation. Call it what you want, but it takes a village and everyone comes together some of the time. I would be more worried about Medicare – that’s where the REAL money drain is, just not as politically and ethically charged.

  9. Shawanda @ You Have More Than You Think

    When this news came out, it wasn’t a big deal to me. What health insurance company doesn’t cover birth control? Generic birth control pills are pretty inexpensive. Paying for an abortion or healthcare during a woman’s pregnancy – not so much.

    Americans will never be able to agree on when life begins.

    Here’s my personal opinion.
    Life begins at conception.
    Terminating a pregnancy after conception is murder.
    A woman should be able to murder anything that directly depends on her to support its life.

    We don’t want to pay welfare. We don’t want to pay for Medicaid. We don’t want to pay the costs, financial or social, that’ll result from what will likely be a non-productive member of society.

    1. I’ve never seen anyone claim that murder is okay if the thing you are killing directly depends on you to live. That’s an interesting theory I’d like to pursue further.

      Does that mean you can murder an infant? Because it is obvious that no infant could survive without directly depending on some human to take care of him or her.

      1. Shawanda @ You Have More Than You Think

        I’m different from most people. Matter of fact, I don’t know anyone else who will acknowledge that life begins at conception and at the same time support a woman’s right to have an abortion.

        Once a child is born, you can give him or her to someone else to care for. So, it’s not okay to kill an infant.

        1. OK, what about 9 months after conception, the baby is out of the womb, but the umbilical cord is still attached. Can we abort that baby?

          If not, then when do you draw the line?

          1. Probably where the child can survive independently of the mother’s reproductive system (IE with formula, etc). That is generally why abortions are unavailable past the second trimester.

          2. Actually, let me clarify my previous response. Personally, I believe a woman has a right to choose for herself whether or not to continue with a pregnancy.

            The point at which a fetus becomes a baby is when said baby can sustain itself outside of the womb without the mother’s care – IE, another adult can feed it formula, care for it, etc.

            I don’t personally know if I would have an abortion but I in no way want women bringing unwanted children into our already overpopulated world.

  10. As a disclaimer, before you read my comment: I will be paying roughly $100,000 in taxes this year, so I’m putting my money where my mouth is.

    Americans really need medicare. Here in Canada, medical care is paid for via a monthly fee based on your income (ranges from 0-$150 dollars per person monthly – goes up the more income you make). Yes, it is a costly governmental expense. But Canada as a nation is overall a) healthier b) less stressed and c) focussed on recuperative care as a nation. We also have a considerably longer lifespan than Americans. Preventative care saves more money (and lives!) than you can imagine.

    I personally think healthcare is a basic human right. I feel it is a tax that is mandatory on those who can afford it for those that can’t. If you couldn’t afford it due to no fault of your own – through disability, poor luck, etc… wouldn’t you want to be taken care of? I’d suggest looking up the “Veil of Ignorance”.

    Your extreme libertarian views are not feasible or compassionate enough in today’s world – not when we have the wealth and abundance available to us that we do. Feel lucky to have what you do. And feel EXTREMELY lucky to be able to share with those that are not as fortunate as you. Your worldview is incredibly self centred. Is that really a Christian way to behave, as you seem to be bringing religion into this discussion (vis a vis your beliefs)?

    1. Please don’t mistake my political views for a lack of compassion.

      I’m a big proponent of voluntarily providing services to people. I donate close to 5% of my annual salary to charity. I won the presidential service award in 2009 for doing over 100 hours of community service.

      There is a big difference between forced redistribution of wealth and voluntary redistribution of wealth.

      1. My question remains – if you couldn’t afford basic health care due to no fault of your own — disability, poor luck, etc… wouldn’t you want to be taken care of?

        Two years ago I was 24 and in a car accident that left me unable to move. I was rear ended in my car while stopped at a red light. The vehicle that hit me was a Dodge Caravan, and I was hit by a guy texting in a utility company vehicle. The guy was thoughtless enough that before he checked to see if I was alright, he FINISHED HIS TEXT while walking to my car.

        I suffered severe whiplash and a lot of other injuries to my back. The lawsuit is still pending, but I didn’t work for well over a year due to the accident. I was self employed (as I am again now), and became totally broke. I had a $12,000 emergency fund, and ate through it ALL with expenses related to my accident and injury, and normal living expenses.

        If it were not for the safety net Canada provides (I was on disability for over a year, and had exhausted my immediately available familal resources), I’d probably be homeless. Yet due to it, I was able to recover (I’m not at 100% yet – I still cant walk further than a block or two or stand for more than 5 minutes at a time) and continue on with my business endeavours – and now I’m paying it back tenfold with my taxes.

        Again, this is my personal experience. I planned. I had a large emergency fund. I was careful and cautious and watched my spending, and carried no debt. Yet one car accident, 100% not-my-fault absolutely destroyed my ability to earn a living.

        Can you really tell me that somehow no forced safety net would have affected someone like me, POSITIVELY, with a straight face?

        1. That same thing might happen to me tomorrow.

          I have health insurance with a max out of pocket expense of $5,000, so I wouldn’t have to pay any more than that, no matter what injuries I sustain.

          I also have long term disability insurance, so if I can’t work, I will be paid 60% of my annual salary tax free as long as I’m unable to work.

          That car accident, 100% not my fault, wouldn’t destroy anything in my financial life because I prepared for it with the proper insurance. I take personal responsibility for myself, even to prepare for things that wouldn’t be my fault.

          1. I understand you advocate personal responsibility. I do too. Canada simply has a safety net, so I did not (and could not – I was 24 and hadn’t been working that long out of school) prepare for an emergency to the extent Americans need to.

            Again, if through no fault of your own this should happen to you – say you were born mentally challenged, or physically very disabled… would you want to be treated this way? Who would take care of you? Who would you EXPECT to care for you once you were an adult and your parents passed away?

            I understand you think of yourself as an extremely responsible person. I like to think that about myself as well. But your method simply DOES NOT WORK in the real world. Emergencies happen. People lose their jobs. People become disabled, disfigured, or down on their luck. People are born permanently mentally deficient or physically handicapped – and you don’t want to share the burden, because YOU are taken care of.

            You’re extremely selfish.

          2. When did I ever say people who are born with handicaps don’t deserve treatment? Never. In fact, if I could overhaul the entire health system, I would provide free health care to minors and people who get diseases through no fault of their own, including handicaps from birth.

            I have no idea how you made the jump from me expecting people to take personal responsibility for their sexual behavior to me thinking no one deserves anything unless they pay for it.

          3. PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

            Summed up: “Imagine that societal roles were completely re-fashioned and redistributed, and that from behind the veil of ignorance, one does not know what role they will be reassigned. Only then can one truly consider the morality of an issue.”

        2. It won’t let me respond again under your comment so I’m doing it here.

          I applaud that you believe we have to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves. I apologise for misunderstanding you.

          The problem comes in drawing the line. If they are injured through no fault of their own, do you think it is best in society’s interest to leave them to their own devices vs help them get better?

          How about some of these scenarios?

          – A 17 year old girl is raped, gets pregnant, and has and keeps the baby at 18 because she doesn’t believe in abortion or adoption. Who should bear the costs of raising the child assuming the rapist is not caught? She is an adult, but she wasn’t when she was raped.

          – A 21 year old male goes cliff jumping with his friends in the summer on their parent’s boat. He slips, breaks his neck, and is paralysed for life. Do you think that he really thought about or understood the gravity of his choices before making a decision to cliff dive like everyone else around him (who ended up fine)?

          – A mother saves her child from being hit by a speeding car by getting herself hit. She’s paralysed for life. Do you think she thought about the long term impact of this decision before making it?

          – A person develops extremely terrible social anxiety in their teenage years/early twenties and cannot leave the house due to panic attacks, fears, and etc. They’re diagnosed with “major social anxiety” but no mental illness.

          These people all fail the “personal responsibility” part of your equation, but I still think we should, as a civilised society, support them. Do you?

  11. You have to consider that possibly we will stop dumping so many tax dollars into the wic program if so many idiots stop getting pregnant. That is a major potential benefit.

  12. My “birth control” is free. Really. I use the Marquette University method. I just observe my natural fertility signs. Plug in those signs into Marquette’s equivalent to a spreadsheet and voila! The Marquette system tells me when I am fertile and my husband and I abstain.

    Abstain…I know what a scary word. Abstain…who can abstain? Yet, as personal finance bloggers we abstain from all kinds of purchases…all the time! We have control over our decisions and we can decided when and where we want to spend out money. Do not we have the same control over our bodies?

    Most people claim that abstaining during fertile times does not work…yet, my oldest is 3 1/2 and I am not pregnant.

    1. Yes, natural methods DO work. Haven’t needed to try it myself, but as someone against ALL “conventional medicines” and gmo foods, chemicals etc, Hormonal Birth Control is a serious topic in the alternative health community, and I read about a feminist liberal (can’t recall her name) who supposedly managed to avoid becoming pregnant for well over 30 years without EVER touching synthetic birth control.

  13. Paula @ AffordAnything.org

    Wow, your health stories are great at generating some lively comments!!

    I agree with gharkness’ sentiment:
    “Why is it necessary for me to pay for someone else’s medical procedure and birth control? Nobody paid for mine, nor should they have.”

    But that said, I also — as a fiscal conservative — am sympathetic to the view that this might be an investment in preventing further taxpayer costs down the road.

    I’d be more convinced if I trusted the government to be good at managing long-term investments. Since the government is notoriously bad at that, I have to fall back on an “only time will tell” stance as to whether this will be a huge taxpayer cost or benefit.

  14. You actually think that free birth control will raise premiums from $200 to $300 per month? A 50% increase. Really. I have no words.

    1. I was guessing more on how much I assumed birth control costs (should have done some research). I looked it up, and I’m told $15-$50 a month for the pill. Plus add condoms, the morning after pill, and whatever else is covered. $100 is still probably too high, so I took an estimate and changed it to a $25 increase.

      However, it also makes me think of something. Right now birth control pill companies are charging $15-$50 a month, probably because they want to price their pills where people can afford it. Now that it’s “free” for everyone, I wonder what is going to stop those companies from increasing prices??? It’s not like the insurance company can say, “Sorry, you’re charging too much so we won’t cover it.” They have to cover it by law. Something to think about.

  15. Would the increase in premiums for birth control be more than the increase in premiums after the unplanned pregnancy/dependent child are added?

  16. This blog is pathetic. Leave it to a man, whom for now I assume is Caucasian, between the ages of 30-45, to lack the capacity to understand the importance of government funded birth control. I know men who receive ED medication for free, but a responsible woman trying to prevent an unplanned pregnancy has to wait while her medical needs are decided by bigots like you, religious groups, and now unsympathetic constituants passed child bearing age. I could care less about swaying your opinions about the MAP, that’s NOT what your blog listed as something covered. I can understand how MAP may appear to those who lack knowledge about it as a form of abortion but Birth control is not the same. And starting next year if a woman is now able to afford birthcontrol each month she need not to use extreme methods such as MAP or an abortion. Plus get your religious views out of here, this is America 2011, there is no time or room to squabble over all the various religious ideals. This is our government not your place of worship. Basically you’ll be paying for my BC next year sucka despite your blog & lack of research!

    Thanks a bunch pal. 😉

  17. I’m not going to bother going into either the economic or moral arguments against this here, because it actually requires a very detailed analysis. I do agree that it will NOT save costs though, since the VAST MAJORITY of beneficiaries will be all the RICH WHITE Hamptonites and Wall Streeters who live near me and don’t batt an eyelash at the thought of paying a few hundred dollars each way to take a water taxi to Fire Island. In otherwords, most women who will now be receiving birth control on MY DIME are already on it, and they spend more at Starbucks in 15 minutes than they currently do on their Pills each month. So, they get the Pill and a few extra Lattes with their savings, and I get forced to pay for something I can neither afford, nor support on either moral or health groundss.

    SCIENCE HAS NOT PROVEN THAT HORMONE-ALTERING DRUGS DO NOT CAUSE CANCER!!!

    And yes, ALL premiums will go up because the drug companies WILL increase the costs of birth control, so the insurance companies will pass those costs to me.

    Anyway, for those AGAINST Obamacare for whatever reason, there IS AN OUT! It is private Christian Medical Sharing plans – they’ve been given an exemption. If the mandate passes, this is the ONLY WAY to not contribute to birth control and abortion funding. I’m serioulsy considering joining a mainline Church just so I can join Samaritan Ministries (I figure the sin of joining a Church whose authority I do not recognize is not as great as supporting the murder of innocent women and children). You MUST be a member in good standing of a recognized Church to join. Beware of ‘Medi-Share’ – they screw their members over by not paying their medical costs, and they force anyone with more than 2 children onto Medicaid – NOT “Christian” AT ALL!

    Shawanda – I actually agree with you! Only because I believe that neither I nor the government should know ANYTHING about what my neighbors do in their private lives, especially between an individual and their doctor, so how in the world can I support the banning of any medical procedure and at the same time claim my own Right to privacy, such as homeschooling my kids or growing my own food? I just cannot seem to see how that works! Yes, it is murder, but what right do I have to track down someone I don’t know and tie her up and force her to give birth? I do support the ban on abortion after 6 months (viability), though. And PARENTAL RIGHTS – I am TOTALLY AGAINST giving birth control or abortions to ANY MINORS without PARENTAL CONSENT!!!

    And on an ironic note, everyone here seems to think that all the “unplanned” babies who have been born are either “disabled” or a burden on society. Statistics prove that totally wrong – the vast majority of those babies are healthy, and their parents usually realize they were a “Happy Surprise” once they are born. MOST of those babies are not born to some unwed ghetto stereotype like you all seem to be implying; most are born to middle-class women. Stats show that the majority of your stereotypical female “victims” are in reality victims not of motherhood, but abortion “doctors.”

  18. Oh, for the record I am 100% PRO-CONDOM!
    I figure if you’re already sinning by having sex outside of marriage that NOT using protection and potentially spreading disease does not make the act less sinful, but is in fact committing another sin at the same time (spreading disease).

    Oh yeah, for the record, I’m a 36 year-old FEMALE who has never used hormonal birth control AT ALL!

  19. I am not futility trying to change your mind but I do have to point out that conception doesn’t occur until 2-3 days after sexual intercourse, and the morning after pill is taken BEFORE conception occurs. It doesn’t end the pregnancy, it prevents conception from taking place by increasing the PH and mucous secretions of the vagina and uterus, basically making it almost impossible for the sperm to survive and reach the egg. Birth control pills work the same way, just over a longer period. Not promoting either way, I’m just putting it out there.

  20. Giving out birth control and condoms isn’t going to solve the problem. The problem is this culture, instead of reforming our schools and are society we are encouraging poor moral ethics by making it easier for teenagers and children to have sex. Yes children their are 10 year olds experimenting with sex in america 10year olds. Now our actual teenagers will probably be even more sexual active because they can go get free birth control and condoms more accessibly then before. We are also just assuming they will use them, that they will take the pills or wear the condoms. Not to mention teen pregnancy is the lease, that’s right the least of the problem. First and for most is STD and if they weren’t wearing a condom before they aren’t going to start now, but at least the girls doesn’t get pregnant right? Oh i almost forgot the world is promoting STD’s anyway on television on the radio attractive actors or celebrities are doing ads for herpes medication, making it look cool to have herpes now. If you even listen or watch those ads they don’t even tell you have to prevent spreading them by either not having sex or using condoms. They just say their treatment wont, Will Not, stop you from spreading them. I am a mother of 2 and i had was raise by a big feminist and i wish i knew what i knew now my life would have been a lot less difficult it i was raise with good morals and value of my self and my chasity. My children were from my marriage, luckily i never got an STD, but when i was 16 i got pregnant and my mother made me have an abortion and then I still had NO choice or what I wanted. Back then your family could make you do this and it is murder. I was never told what they really did to you, i wasn’t even told my child had a heart beat. I was lied to and told this is, the best for me because we now have a choice and need to use it, we have this freedom to have a choice. I didn’t have a choice and it was not fun and it was wrong specially since i did not want to do it. You know what I wish I had, knowledge and respect for my self. I wouldn’t have been in the situation is my home didn’t throw sex around like it was nothing and would have strong ethics and morals on the subject. Lets not advocate for out kids to have sex out side of marriage or even when they are not ready. It’s our irresponsibility to protect them. The government it suppose to be keeping a clear justifiable line between right and wrong, whats acceptable and unacceptable. This law is not keeping this line.

Comments are closed.