The Cost of Covering Contraceptives through Health Insurance

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Free Thinker, May 10, 2012.

  1. "810,000 fewer abortions "

    you would think that any thinking person should see the savings in this area. especially conservatives who hate abortion and providing welfare. but then republicans dont think with logic. they are driven by emotion.

    The most recent actuarial analysis, completed by the Actuarial Research Corporation in July 2011, using data from 2010, estimated a cost of about $26 per year per enrolled female.[9]

    However, as indicated by the empirical evidence described above, these direct estimated costs overstate the total premium cost of providing contraceptive coverage. When medical costs associated with unintended pregnancies are taken into account, including costs of prenatal care, pregnancy complications, and deliveries, the net effect on premiums is close to zero.[10],[11] One study author concluded, "The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money."[12]

    When indirect costs such as time away from work and productivity loss are considered, they further reduce the total cost to an employer. Global Health Outcomes developed a model that incorporates costs of contraception, costs of unintended pregnancy, and indirect costs. They find that it saves employers $97 per year per employee to offer a comprehensive contraceptive benefit.[13] Similarly, the PwC actuaries state that after all effects are taken into account, providing contraceptive services is “cost-saving.”[14]

    Public Programs
    Providing contraception through public programs is also cost-saving. Each year, public funding for family planning prevents about 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies. Preventing these pregnancies results in 860,000 fewer unintended births, 810,000 fewer abortions and 270,000 fewer miscarriages. More than nine in 10 women receiving publicly-funded family planning services would be eligible for Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care services upon pregnancy. Avoiding the significant costs associated with these unintended births saves taxpayers $4 for every $1 spent on family planning.[15]
  2. no female in the entire country has ever complained about access to birth control pills seeing that they are free from planed parenthood or 10 dollars at walmart.

    but know that obama has brought it up, clearly this has been a massive womens rights issue.

    :p :p :p :p :p :p

    you are all fucking idiots!!!
  3. Doesn't it take two people, a man and a woman to get pregnant?

    Why do liberals always leave the male and his responsibility out of this debate?
  4. were you ever young? scoring with women is the national sport among young males these days.
    you really have two choices. bury your head in the sand or think about what the data shows us and act accordingly.
  5. Put a fucking rubber on.
  6. thats the kind of head in the sand nonthinking that got us in the mess we are in.
  7. jem


    you really are a crazy liberal.
    perhaps the govt should give us govt housing, govt jobs, govt cars and govt lives.
  8. typical nonthinking right winger. do everything possible to stop women from preventing unwanted children and once they are born you say screw them, they shouldnt have had the kid.
  9. Ricter


    Their position makes perfect sense if you assume perfect human behavior.
  10. Your position makes perfect sense if you assume you can control human behavior.

    #10     May 10, 2012