General Discussion

nanabugg

(2,198 posts)

161. It's cheaper for insurance companies to pay for contraceptives, the medical costs for unwanted

Reply to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 14, 2012, 12:43 AM

Feb 2012

pregos and all their associated costs.

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