expectation of reduced number of unwanted preggos expectation of costs from coverage of BC you guys are saying all insurance companies are conspiring to price fix I guess? I mean any evidence I would love to hear it.
Because if it is cheaper for me to include it, why would I want to discourage employers to not buy it? By charging extra I am discouraging employers.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy or an instance of collusion for a marketplace to be lopsided/off-balance, Casey. What part of people buy it anyway says "conspiracy" to you?
What you are describing would be price fixing. And I don't know how you come to the conclusion that employers are buying it anyways. If that was the case why would Obama be passing a law forcing them to buy it? You are making several leaps of faith here.
In 2009, the US birth rate was 13.8 kids/1000 people (lowest recorded, incidentally). Females make up ~51% of the population, or 510 of the 1000 folks. So... Let's assume $30/month for pills = $360/year. Let's assume also that 50% of women use said birth control. So, for 510 women, 255 use birth control at a cost of $91,800 per year. If those 255 have no birth control, we can assume 3.6 births (4) per year. 4 births at ~$8000 a pop = $32000 / year. I conclude it highly likely that CaseyH is correct. EDIT: Of course, all it takes is a few premature births or c-sections to skew the numbers the other direction.
Any idea about abortion rates? Also, the medical costs associated with a pregnancy aren't limited to just the delivery of the child I would imagine.
This thread has jumped the shark. We can't argue the civil rights or politics of it anymore so we're arguing about whether or not contraception is a benefit for the insurance company? I don't know who is right, but it's hardly worth arguing about. Having said that, I'll throw in another variable: the life-time value of a customer. Insured employees pay an additional premium to cover dependents. To take an employee from employee only to employee plus spouse or employee plus dependents adds a revenue stream for the insurance company. So, even if contraception was a little cheaper, the insurance company might still make out better in the long-term by having live births. And another one: insurance companies tailor pricing to companies depending on that population's claim history. They don't just price a la carte. In other words, this subject is way too complicated for a bunch of people not in the industry to sort out on a bbs. Everyone please withdraw to your respective corners.
still (somewhat) interesting to hash it out. We even had rhad go from thinking one position was ridiculous, to considering it might be reasonable in span of a couple of hours. That doesn't happen here often. (and full marks to rhad for thinking it through). Thankfully none of us is destined to be insurance company actuaries. But it was kind of cool (in a math /business geek kind of way) to spit ball some numbers beyond the talking points we started with.
Right, and if he refused to cave, he would be a tyrant, right? bigtoooool (and i'm not referring to your anatomy, either).
You're political analysis is almost as abysmal as your economic analysis. Obama got to be the champion of women's access to birth control (which the vast majority of women support) and wingtards further marginalized themselves.
Abortions would make the disparity more pronounced. I have two kids, both c-sections. Averaged it was about ~$13000 per kid, total. I think it would be unfair to include further costs a la infant care as this would be covered via a higher premium.
Obama declaring all health care policies must cover abortions is the height of arrogance. It runs completely counter to the entire "pro choice" mantra if you are forcing a party to pay for abortifacients. And it's really stupid politically. These executive declarations and decrees and edicts that run counter to democratic governance are becoming all too common. You would think this is the kind of thing that deserves a god damn vote.
Good thing this policy has nothing to do with abortions. Never mind also that many states already have the exact same rule in place, and no one has seemed to have a problem with it all that time. It did get a vote when health care reform passed.
