That doesn't compute with what you just said. If you're covering contraception and it lowers the overall cost for insurance companies (i.e. cheaper providing contraception than covering abortions/births), then how do premiums rise because of that?
I obviously said "it" too many times. Contraception coverage both raises the overall cost for insurance companies and also raises premiums. Contraception coverage raises premiums for the employer but arguably this increased cost is worth it for the employer because of money lost by the employer due to pregnancy of employees.
I don't believe this to be true. My guess is that the overall cost to the insurance companies are reduced by covering BC due to the decrease in the amount of birth/pregnancy related expenses they have to cover. This lowered overall cost could do nothing but lower premiums.
OK, I don't really know what to say to that. That is a guide talking about why employers should offer this coverage. If coverage for contraception was cheaper for insurance companies it makes zero sense for them to charge more for it. http://www.businessgrouphealth.org/...ic/evidencestatements/contraceptiveuse_es.pdf Why does it raise premiums then?
Because the marketability of the cost savings to employers and lack of competition in the healthcare marketplace make it profitable enough that insurance companies can still charge for BC and make money? The fact that they charge for it does not show that it increases an insurance companies cost.
I ask this kind of question when I pay 20 bucks for text messaging, even though it costs my phone company practically nothing. It only makes sense for them to do so because they can, just because they're charging for the service, doesn't mean it is costs them money to provide it. That's a marketplace gone awry, which, anybody with good sense would argue, the healthcare marketplace is f***ed up beyond all recognition.
+ the added benefit of making Romney look like he's against an issue very dear to the hearts of women
I'd guess the opposite. But I don't know. I suppose you could compare pregnancy rates between employers that have or don't have bc coverage? My gut is that paying for birth control for a huge population would be more then the cost of care for the increase in pregnancy rates? It's why they charge more to add the coverage. Insurance company accounting math. (I suppose the extra charge could be bogus -- but seems stupid to discourage coverage that would reduce the insurance co's costs. So...at best, it's neutral -- though I doubt it). A moot discussion though -- regarding the debate around religious exemptions.
It isn't the same thing. There is price fixing going on with text msg but giving it to you for free isn't cheaper. In fact they make more money getting you to buy a 20 dollar unlimited plan so they push you to that. How? they make it if you don't have a plan they charge you .25 cents per txt. If the insurance company wanted you to have coverage they would give you a discount to push you there. Your thoughts on this are extreme conspiracy theory.
I don't understand why this is hard to grasp. Of course it's cheaper for insurance companies to provide contraceptives instead of abortion/pregnancy care. Arguing the opposite is ridiculous.
please cite any study that supports this. Every single one of them says the opposite. What is your theory as to why the coverage makes the premiums increase?
If they're like what you posted, then no, they don't. They say that insurance companies charge for them. It doesn't say it increases their expenses overall.
From your own link: So yes, while there may be small premium increases associated with the "additional coverage", it's most definitely cheaper for the insurance company to avoid pregnancies if possible. Personally, it strikes me as silly to even charge for the contraceptives, since the cost benefit is so massive. But this is the way of soulless douchebaggery-laden private insurance corporations. EDIT: Ja, what Donny said.
None of what you quoted says that. What you quoted says that a year of BC or a single emergency pill costs less than an abortion or a baby. You realize the difference right?
I think it's pretty reasonable to look at those numbers and make the off-hand determination that an insurance companies overall costs are reduced by providing contraceptives. I'm not sure how many pregnancies the contraceptives would have to prevent each year to make it profitable or break even, but I imagine it's not many.
It isn't reasonable at all. I also think it very unreasonable that they would charge higher premiums for BC if they expected their actual costs would go down if it was a standard feature. At least we are on the same wavelength now. Expectation of increased proper use of BC, expectation of reduced number pregnancy, I don't think you can just look at some costs of single procedures and do the math.
Back o' the envelope insurance company math: Cost of contraception $30/mo (PP says $15-$50) Cost of birth $10,000 So....if you have 1000 women who would use bc... annual cost -- $360,000 vs hospital cost -- would be equal to 36 births. Would an additional 36 women out of 1000 give birth each year if bc was not included in their health coverage? I'm guessing -- no. I have no data to back this -- but I'm doubting an additional 3.6% of child bearing aged women give birth each year in companies that don't provide bc. (shhhhh....please don't tell the catholic church)
