General Discussion

karynnj

(60,973 posts)

118. It may be that USING BC does lower costs, but that changing from the status quo doesn't

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 01:09 PM

Feb 2012

This may seem convoluted, but consider this scenario:

There are 100 women, who want to use BC and have a prescription. Assume the company currently has NO coverage. Let's say that 75 of the women have sufficient income that they simply pay for it - even if it is a struggle. Assume just to ease the complexity that none of the rest are able to pay for the pill, many will buy less expensive condoms as an alternative. So, in essence, women pay for things themselves that lower the cost. The gain for the insurance company will not be the full gain of the use of birth control.

It might be that Obama will put pressure on the drug companies - helping all companies negotiate a lower rate - as the drug companies profit from this expansion. Their costs are NOT the costs to manufacture the bill.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

162 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm a little bit confused. Kathleen Sebelius says free contraceptives is a cost-reducer. [View all] cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 OP

First of all, do you agree with her or not? If you agree we will work from there. nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #1

Actually I don't. I don't agree that forcing a company to give away a service for free FATTENS its cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #2

You're waiting? Good grief, it's been at least ten seconds. I am guessing you are not rhett o rick Feb 2012 #4

So you have no argument enforcing the notion that forcing a company to give away free services cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #7

Look at immunization programs both human and animal kemah Feb 2012 #86

There is no doubt that immunization programs save society money, A Simple Game Feb 2012 #114

As long as you are putting words in my mouth....you dont agree with the concept of insurance. nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #105

Having unwanted children who will be put under the parents insurance plan will be more expensive. FarLeftFist Feb 2012 #113

i'm amazed you don't get this. condoms = cheap. 9+ months of prenatal & post birth care = $$$$$$$ dionysus Feb 2012 #121

Paying for pregnancy is far more expensive than paying for not-pregnancy. kestrel91316 Feb 2012 #5

Again, respectfully, I submit that if your supposition were the case, insurance companies cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #8

Lol. Fiduciary-shmuduciary... Because "the market" is so perfectly efficient and Fool Count Feb 2012 #72

Your analogy is a good one. Banks did not start deposit insurance on their own because A Simple Game Feb 2012 #116

So, I'm trying to decide if you are BlueToTheBone Feb 2012 #83

Whaaaa????? Why would you think I would be hating on BCP??? Jeebus H Christ, the BCP kestrel91316 Feb 2012 #131

I am pretty sure that a significant number of corporations do not look out very well for kestrel91316 Feb 2012 #132

You don't agree that vaccines are cost effective way to reduce costs? grantcart Feb 2012 #25

What's the name of the anti-pregnancy vaccine again? I forgot. n/t cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #27

It's the principle. Preventative = reduces cost. grantcart Feb 2012 #44

Let me ask this simple sarcastic question then... cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #47

I'm sorry... do you ingest condoms? Fawke Em Feb 2012 #51

Are condoms "contraceptives"? If they are, why aren't I ENTITLED to them free of charge? cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #56

Congress has the power to regulate BlueToTheBone Feb 2012 #85

The government (you and me) does a lot of things that rhett o rick Feb 2012 #108

Where does it say a business has to give you regular breaktimes Tsiyu Feb 2012 #57

Article 1, section 8 BlueToTheBone Feb 2012 #87

I know that and you know that Tsiyu Feb 2012 #119

Egos are such slippery BlueToTheBone Feb 2012 #122

The ACA requires insurance companies BlueToTheBone Feb 2012 #84

So that means that the more money a insurance company takes in A Simple Game Feb 2012 #117

Where in the Constitution does it outlaw pedophilia? kemah Feb 2012 #110

Read the Constitution. It's there if you look. LiberalFighter Feb 2012 #120

Where in the Constitution does the government get the authority to compel vaccinations? grantcart Feb 2012 #127

it's not that simple though hfojvt Feb 2012 #147

It may be that USING BC does lower costs, but that changing from the status quo doesn't karynnj Feb 2012 #118

It's the evil of the quarterly profit margin. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #154

lots of health care services actually save money (it's called cost-effectiveness) CreekDog Feb 2012 #155

It's cheaper for insurance companies to pay for contraceptives, the medical costs for unwanted nanabugg Feb 2012 #161

If one were a jaded old cynic like me, one might almost conclude that kestrel91316 Feb 2012 #3

I see a much simpler thing... cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #6

Short term vs. long term costs MH1 Feb 2012 #88

Yes. Well said. Quantess Feb 2012 #68

You can do your own research, rather than demanding that someone do it for you. Thor_MN Feb 2012 #9

I didn't "demand" a fucking thing. Let's get that stupidity out of the way up front, mmmkay? cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #11

"Someone convince me that thousands..." Thor_MN Feb 2012 #31

So by your reasoning, EVERYONE's insurance cost is going to go down as a result of this ruling? cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #34

And my daughter is BEFORE child-bearing years, but we pay.... Fawke Em Feb 2012 #53

Yes I am ABSOLUTELY in favor of FORCING companies to do a certain thing. bowens43 Feb 2012 #77

Sir, perhaps BlueToTheBone Feb 2012 #93

I'm okay with the government forcing companies to do things and ohheckyeah Feb 2012 #124

I see a lie in your screenname. Occulus Feb 2012 #145

OK, fine take the seat belts out of your car Thor_MN Feb 2012 #146

Okay Tsiyu Feb 2012 #10

"We're not deal with rational humans here." ABSOLUTELY 100% correct. cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #12

I think the point may have flown over your head Tsiyu Feb 2012 #13

So you're saying the insurance companies aren't really bad, just misguided? cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #14

If your math (or RC) skills have left you a dollar, please keep it Tsiyu Feb 2012 #21

I'll just dispute the notion that insurance companies were living up to their feduciary cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #26

Seems those "thousands of words" and "Copy and paste" Tsiyu Feb 2012 #29

Don't get me wrong. I don't trust insurance companies OR CPA's. But I have even less cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #33

Ronald Reagan said the same thing about the government Tsiyu Feb 2012 #36

I didn't know I quoted reagan. I had in my mind a cartoon I saw somewhere. cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #38

Seriously, you are sounding like a libertarian muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #142

Huh? Owlet Feb 2012 #82

And now you quote Reagan's most famous line? Really? Bluenorthwest Feb 2012 #102

I don't think those studies were asking one question hfojvt Feb 2012 #149

Someday maybe you will have sex Tsiyu Feb 2012 #150

two birds, one stone hfojvt Feb 2012 #151

Happy Valentine's Day to you as well Tsiyu Feb 2012 #152

Talk about things flying over people's heads Tsiyu Feb 2012 #153

see that's why I am single hfojvt Feb 2012 #158

Nah. I have Dating Asperger's. Tsiyu Feb 2012 #159

the maturity may not show in my posts hfojvt Feb 2012 #160

Well, see, that's why you can still form an intelligible sentence Tsiyu Feb 2012 #162

You still do not comment on where the focus of the profiteers is, timewise TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #115

OK- Here's why it's a cost reducer WhoIsNumberNone Feb 2012 #15

Mmmmkay... then insurance companies would have been providing free contraceptives at the outset. cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #17

It's saving the employers more money WhoIsNumberNone Feb 2012 #22

Hence my confusion. This isn't about saving money as Sebelius said... It's about ideology. cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #24

Maybe the confusion is about WHOSE money? MH1 Feb 2012 #92

Force on us? BlueToTheBone Feb 2012 #96

. WhoIsNumberNone Feb 2012 #134

Health insurance companies don't pay for... TreasonousBastard Feb 2012 #16

Good points. Taken as a whole though, thousands of CPA's would recommend paying for contraceptives cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #19

You are wrong Tsiyu Feb 2012 #23

What's wrong is the statement that insurance companies would have been saving money ALL ALONG cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #28

"You're arguing from the position of ideology and not an accounting point of view" Tsiyu Feb 2012 #32

Okay ... Tx4obama Feb 2012 #35

One of the DUers around here might "post 'em". cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #37

I am not going to waste my time Googling for you, I'm sure you know how. Tx4obama Feb 2012 #39

Well, the reason I won't google the Constitution of the United States for a clause that GIVES cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #42

My previous comments were referring to Googling HEALTH COST STATISTICS. Tx4obama Feb 2012 #43

And, constitutionality is where this conversation ends methinks. cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #46

Here ya go ... Tx4obama Feb 2012 #48

Sleep Well My Friend. cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #52

It's as constitutional as the Americans with Disabilities Act muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #143

If the Insurance Company is getting paid premiums and they are, then nothing they do Bluenorthwest Feb 2012 #103

I am thinking that this is the case Nikia Feb 2012 #78

Stop all free contraceptives to Africa Ichingcarpenter Feb 2012 #18

Last I heard, the US Government isn't forcing companies to act one way or the other cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #30

You are confused Ichingcarpenter Feb 2012 #65

So you mean 'for free' after thousands of dollars in premiums and co-pays? Bluenorthwest Feb 2012 #104

Good point. None of the beneficiaries of this policy are getting anything TwilightGardener Feb 2012 #111

What's The Old Saying "An Ounce Of Prevention Is Worth A Pound Of Cure"....... global1 Feb 2012 #20

About 15 years ago, my employer announced 'gobs' of savings by dropping birth control pills Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #40

Nobody can. renie408 Feb 2012 #41

Goodness me... how could I have been so wrong? cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #45

NO renie408 Feb 2012 #54

I've made up my mind about what I think is constitutional and what isn't. cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #58

Ok, then, THAT'S your argument. renie408 Feb 2012 #59

The Constitution doesn't state a lot of things ohheckyeah Feb 2012 #126

The argument began over cost-effectiveness Tsiyu Feb 2012 #49

Such bullshit... cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #61

Oh, you are correct about that. The Constitution gives government POWERS, not rights. renie408 Feb 2012 #62

Americans With Disabilities Act for one Tsiyu Feb 2012 #63

Well I'm glad to have been entertaining if nothing else... cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #64

I think there you might have a point worthy of debate. renie408 Feb 2012 #66

Can you address post #57, please? He makes some good points there renie408 Feb 2012 #70

Still waiting...n/t renie408 Feb 2012 #138

Article 1, Section 8. BlueToTheBone Feb 2012 #99

Btw, your OP is NOT accurate. Tx4obama Feb 2012 #50

I think BlueToTheBone Feb 2012 #107

Apparently, mine did. dmallind Feb 2012 #55

God, I want your insurance. n/t renie408 Feb 2012 #60

It's a long term cost reducer. vaberella Feb 2012 #67

The cost effectiveness argument... meaculpa2011 Feb 2012 #69

There is no constitutional issue quaker bill Feb 2012 #73

There is a constitutional issue. meaculpa2011 Feb 2012 #76

I believe insurance is sold across state lines too quaker bill Feb 2012 #136

Health insurance is not sold... meaculpa2011 Feb 2012 #137

Have you ever paid for pre-natal, emergency labor and delivery, and new born care quaker bill Feb 2012 #71

"Color me unconcerned"...I love that! renie408 Feb 2012 #74

Preventative cost-saving measures are often over looked by insurance companies. DCBob Feb 2012 #75

Many Medicare plans ohheckyeah Feb 2012 #128

I'm just curious. Do you wear kneepads when you kneel to your free-market deities? retread Feb 2012 #79

Could you link to her statement please? I need context to see if she was saying a cost reducer ... JVS Feb 2012 #80

BC is the default coverage. 9 out of 10 private insurers cover birth control. Many cover abortion. McCamy Taylor Feb 2012 #81

The Phillipines gave away black and white TVs as birth control. kemah Feb 2012 #89

the answer is it is a cost saver if you keep the people to whom you gave the contraceptives as dsc Feb 2012 #90

I don't believe that. She doesn't understand WHY some young women pregnant. Honeycombe8 Feb 2012 #91

Are you saying that diabetes medicines aren't covered by normal US insurance policies? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #144

What ProSense Feb 2012 #94

Please don't muddy the waters with the MLR, which is far more likely to increase costs system wide TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #123

Well, ProSense Feb 2012 #148

PREVENTATIVE measures are cost savers. Avalux Feb 2012 #95

My guess: Because the ins. cos. knew women wanted them Ilsa Feb 2012 #97

I'm sure this story is not uncommon. meaculpa2011 Feb 2012 #98

The population of people insured by private insurance companies is different from the whole U.S. yardwork Feb 2012 #100

hmm. When I used Pills and the NuvaRing, BCBS pretty much paid for it ($5-7 on my end). Same with GobBluth Feb 2012 #101

Once a person pays premiums nothing an insurer does for them is 'free'. Bluenorthwest Feb 2012 #106

Penny wise, but a pound foolish kemah Feb 2012 #109

Bullcrackey. The sky is still blue, even tho someone tells me it's green. nt Honeycombe8 Feb 2012 #112

The argument is strange in context. Are you saying that insurance should not have TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #125

Your either willfully ignorant edhopper Feb 2012 #129

They haven't been forced to cover it before Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2012 #130

At least some of them were peasant one Feb 2012 #133

Your premise is that Corporations Will Decide Based On LONG TERM PROFIT vs. SHORT TERM PROFIT KittyWampus Feb 2012 #135

That is correct. In this case the benefit is truly long term and won't be fully realized Fool Count Feb 2012 #140

Contraception is always cheaper than pregnancy and STDs. backscatter712 Feb 2012 #139

Contraception is cheaper than pregnancy, but birth produces another person needing coverage. Lisa0825 Feb 2012 #141

Its a heck of alot cheaper then a pregnancy Marrah_G Feb 2012 #156

Considering that many women take it Aerows Feb 2012 #157