I'm not here to entertain you. The only point here is that there's no choice available anymore, by law.
Which now means the additional out-of-pocket expenses the company was receiving must be recouped by other means. Like premium increases.
Then why are we having this conversation? If you can find some study that says the number of pregnancies prevented will offset the cost to the insurer of losing the copay, then maybe it's a better scenario. But it shouldn't be by law, and if it were a net cost-saver, why aren't the insurers already doing it?
He's got a point also.
We're not talking about supporting unwanted children. We're talking about the cost to the insurer. The insurer doesn't have to support unwanted children; they only have to cover the medical costs associated with the pregnancy. And not covering the costs of an unwanted pregnancy is offset by this law only if the number of women who are not on BC only because of the copay and who would get pregnant without a no-copay pill is large enough.
Because I took exception to something you said. I knew there was evidence counter to your statement.
And here is the source of the problem. It's a fallacy. It presumes that businesses only do what's in their best interest. Never mind that the notion is so obviously false. Business has an incentive to do what is in their best interest. However, being human and knowing what is in your best interest make that difficult sometimes. Implementing change can be difficult and businesses often are often more interested in next quarters profits than long term returns.
The study took into account lost productivity for workers who become pregnant. A woman who becomes pregnant typically, IIRC out of work for 2 - 3 months.
[ETA: Just as a matter of fact, you're wrong. Several of us have raised this point. So we are talking about it. If you mean we shouldn't be, then see the rest of my post.]
Right, and when I consider whether or not to spend money on changing the oil and filter in my car, I should only consider the cost of the oil and filter and nothing else, in which case it's cheaper for me never to change the oil and filter in my car.
And if you don't give free stuff to people it means you're oppressing them. I know I certainly am oppressed.
Right, because if the co-pay isn't removed so many women will simply become pregnant!
Because if you don't give people free stuff, you hate them!
And if birth control isn't 100% free to working women they will just get pregnant instead!
So your claim is that there will be a ten fold reduction in unwanted pregnancies for working women as a result that they now will not have to pay their birth control co-pay?
Right, now all the working women will decide to use birth control now that they don't have to make that co-payment.
None of which says anything about it being cheaper to pay the co-payments verses unwanted children costs as a result of not paying the co-payments.
The insurance companies will happily comply and in turn jack up the premiums for everyone to cover the additional cost. They'd probably welcome even more mandated coverages. Obamacare has already increased the premiums for health care insurance as a result of the added coverages that they are forced to include. You do realize that all these great new benefits aren't free, right?
And my and others insurance company doesn't, thus the premiums got jacked up because they were forced to add stuff I didn't want or need.
Wrong, which is why they are included in the law. Covering birth control copay is just one example. More here.
No such evidence has been given for that claim plus it doesn't even make sense. Don't you think insurance companies would already do whatever they could including adding coverage if they knew it would reduce their costs?
A.) That a proposition is true doesn't mean everyone knows it is true. B.) I've already provided reasons why they might not. C.) Businesses do not always enact policies in their best interest. D.) The savings also takes into account lost productivity which isn't borne by the insurance company.
