Insurers to provide BOs "free" birth control

[dogtowner]

you know what that means right ?

of course you do, all policies will have this charge instead of just ones that employers required this be part of. so whether you're 6 or 60 your bill just got bigger. imagine how angry the evil insurance companies will be to collect all that money ! ben ding the cost curve ? oh yeah b ut not the way people assumed. and if they do it on this thing imagine all the other ways....

President Barack Obama's compromise on free birth control coverage left health insurers stuck with the bill, sparking worries over the precedent set by the new policy.

 

[Openmind]

you know what that means right ?

of course you do, all policies will have this charge instead of just ones that employers required this be part of. so whether you're 6 or 60 your bill just got bigger. imagine how angry the evil insurance companies will be to collect all that money ! ben ding the cost curve ? oh yeah b ut not the way people assumed. and if they do it on this thing imagine all the other ways....

You remarks are so short sighted!
Don't you realize that it BENEFITS insurances to cover the cost of contraceptions A LOT MORE than if they had to pay for the consequences of women NOT using contraception?

Do you realize that it costs about $30 per month (probably much less to the insurance industry) to provide free birth control pills to women of child bearing age, but it costs over $10,000 to cover just ONE pregnancy. . .and that is if everything goes well!

If the insurance could get away with it. . .they would probably BRIBE women of child bearing age to take the birth control pill. . .so they wouldn't have to cover the cost of pre-natal care, the birth, and post natal care of both the mother and the baby!

In fact, companies who have a lot of women of child bearing age, and where there are a lot of pregancies see their premium INCREASE. . . the same way as the premium would increase if the % of employees being diagnsed with cancer affect the premiums.

This is obviously somewhat dluted in very large corporations, but it certainly affects the amount of insurance premium that insurances require from smaller and middle size corporations!

 

[Texas_tea]

You remarks are so short sighted!
Don't you realize that it BENEFITS insurances to cover the cost of contraceptions A LOT MORE than if they had to pay for the consequences of women NOT using contraception?

Do you realize that it costs about $30 per month (probably much less to the insurance industry) to provide free birth control pills to women of child bearing age, but it costs over $10,000 to cover just ONE pregnancy. . .and that is if everything goes well!

If the insurance could get away with it. . .they would probably BRIBE women of child bearing age to take the birth control pill. . .so they wouldn't have to cover the cost of pre-natal care, the birth, and post natal care of both the mother and the baby!

In fact, companies who have a lot of women of child bearing age, and where there are a lot of pregancies see their premium INCREASE. . . the same way as the premium would increase if the % of employees being diagnsed with cancer affect the premiums.

This is obviously somewhat dluted in very large corporations, but it certainly affects the amount of insurance premium that insurances require from smaller and middle size corporations!

Does it not bother you at all that the Federal Government has no Constitutional Right to implement this mandate?

 

[PLC1]

The cost of contraceptives is minimal when compared to the cost of medical care in general and pregnancy in particular.
The insurance companies will simply pass this minimal cost on to the consumers anyway.
The idea that the government can force a religious institution to pay for something that is against their belief system is just wrong, and probably unconstitutional as well.

 

[Texas_tea]

The cost of contraceptives is minimal when compared to the cost of medical care in general and pregnancy in particular.
The insurance companies will simply pass this minimal cost on to the consumers anyway.
The idea that the government can force a religious institution to pay for something that is against their belief system is just wrong, and probably unconstitutional as well.

It is unConstitutional and so is the entire healthcare mandate.