I'm a little bit confused. Kathleen Sebelius says free contraceptives is a cost-reducer.

[Honeycombe8]

91. I don't believe that. She doesn't understand WHY some young women pregnant.

It is not for lack of birth control.

So there will be a portion of unwed pregnancies by poor women that won't happen. Otherwise, the middle class and working women....they were buying b.c., anyway. There will be no effect there, except cost increase for ins. cos., which translates into higher premiums.

The savings from unwanted pregnancies will pale in comparison to the huge cost. We'll be paying for b.c. for millions of women...monthly....every month....for years and years and years.

Maybe we should pay for diabetes medicine, too, since that will "save us money" from diabetes complications? (Medicaid pays for diabetes already, so I'm speaking of paying for it for the rest of us, as this contraception order does.)

As you can tell, I'm not in favor of this. My co's insurance cost will shoot up even more next year. Sigh. My co. has already laid off a lot of people, in no small part to the cost of ins. So hell, yeah...let's just pile more costs on. What the hell.

Meanwhile, many unwanted pregnancies will cont. to happen. Because some people don't understand WHY those young women get pregnant, in the first place.